Depleted Uranium (DU) -- What are the facts?

[Doug1943]

Could anyone help me out on the subject of Depleted Uranium?

I have been reading a lot about this recently, and in particular how the United States is poisoning the world by using it in its weapons in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

On the one hand, as a conservative, I am suspicious of these criticisms of our military, especially since some of the people making them seem to be hate-America types with little technical knowledge.

On the other hand, as a conservative, I am willing to believe that government often fouls things up. So maybe it has in this case.

And as someone who believes in getting objective evidence before deciding on something, I would like to hear from some scientists on this.

One side:
http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html

I was immediately prejudiced against this Rokke fellow when I read his belief that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not a hijacked airplane. So I did some Googling and found:

Another side:
http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html

So, does anyone else have any real information about DU?

Doug

[Jorge]

I was ok wiki so i looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_Uranium
there is a small paragraph in there about DU in the Military

[ASEI]

Depleted Uranium is U-238. That's the non-radioactive, far more common isotope of uranium. It's a heavy metal, like lead, but other than that, I don't see it poisoning anything. It's very dense, which leads to nice properties for bullets and armor.

From that Wikipedia article:
Such applications include sailboat keels, as counterweights and sinker bars in oil drills, gyroscope rotors, and in other places where there is a need to place a weight that occupies as little space as possible. Tungsten could be used instead, but it is much more expensive. If they allow people to build sailboat keels out of it, it can't be all that dangerous.

Most scientific studies have found no link between depleted uranium and negative health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and birth defects, but many people point to other evidence that suggests a link.
Sounds like typical, reflexive, anti-nuclear paranoia. Note that depleted uranium is even less radioactive than natural uranium, which is all over the place. Where do people think the radon in their basements comes from?

[Van Rijn]

Depleted Uranium is U-238. That's the non-radioactive, far more common isotope of uranium. It's a heavy metal, like lead, but other than that, I don't see it poisoning anything. It's very dense, which leads to nice properties for bullets and armor.


It is mildly radioactive, with a very long half life - ~4.5 billion years. It isn't fissionable, however. In general, a short half-life means more danger, a long half-life less. In a fire (and it does fires good) it can form a fine dust which can get in the lungs. It isn't biologically active, though it certainly can cause heavy metal poisoning.

I don't see evidence showing it is extraordinarily dangerous, though I wouldn't go out of my way to expose myself to depleted uranium. Of course, I don't care to sniff asbestos or munch lead pastries either. We might want to start using the stuff for reactor fuel in the next few decades, and when that happens we might wish we had been a little more careful about how we used it.

[Gullible Jones]

Depleted Uranium is U-238. That's the non-radioactive, far more common isotope of uranium.

Au contraire - it is radioactive, though it is not fissionable and has a long half-life.

Let's get this straight:

DU is toxic by virtue of its radioactivity, as lead is toxic by virtue of its chemistry. You don't want either of them in your body, or in other biological systems they could harm.

Is DU useful? Sure it is... Just like lead is, for some things.

Should we be careful how we use it? Yes, of course we should.

Should we be paranoid about it? No. But we shouldn't get careless about how we dispose of the stuff either.

[ASEI]

DU is toxic by virtue of its radioactivity, as lead is toxic by virtue of its chemistry. for DU to be toxic by virtue of radioactivity, wouldn't it have to be far more active than just plain natural uranium? After all, if it has a half life of billions of years, it's emmission rate couldn't possibly approach that of, say, a hot sunny day.

[Van Rijn]

for DU to be toxic by virtue of radioactivity, wouldn't it have to be far more active than just plain natural uranium? After all, if it has a half life of billions of years, it's emmission rate couldn't possibly approach that of, say, a hot sunny day.

Ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation. The more you have the more dangerous it is. So DU poses some radiation risk. It depends how you are exposed to it. It doesn't help if (for example) if you get uranium dust in your lungs, next to sensitive tissue.

DU poses chemical (heavy metal) and radiation risks. I'd be more concerned about the heavy metal risk under most circumstances, but the risk exists. Does it make DU an extremely dangerous substance compared to many other risks you are going to find? No. Do I think some people are making outrageous claims about the danger? Absolutely. But there is some risk.

[trinitree88]

Perhaps the most thought-provoking idea surrounding depleted uranium is the book...The Radioactive Boyscout...the story of David Hahn. If a high school student can build a working nuclear reactor/ pile in a shed in his backyard from parts gleaned from junkyards, pawnshops, antique dealers...etc....sufficient to produce a substantial flow of thermal neutrons...."sticky" enough to convert DU to plutonium....we're in trouble. In his book " The Curve of Binding Energy", John McPhee states that ~" nobody who ever had the sufficient amount of materials on hand, ever failed in making a successful nuclear weapon...on their first try." Vigilance. Ciao Pete.

[Doug1943]

Okay, this sounds about right. In the best of all possible worlds, you wouldn't want to breathe in a single atom more than necessary of any heavy metal, and certainly not an (albeit only mildly) radioactive one. But we're not all going to die of radiation poisoning, or start breeding mutant children, because of use of DU.

And this guy Rokke is -- I take it -- a charlatan.

But ... he's got some liberal friends of mine, who have no background in science, hysterical, which is sad. They won't believe anything I say, of course, since I am an evil or at least misguided conservative.

So ... would one of you folks who is an anti-war liberal etc, but who has some science background -- preferably a physicist -- like to gently straighten them out? I think it's against the rules to mention other Forums on this Forum (it usually is, anyway, on most Forums) so PM me and I'll give you the website. I would be grateful and you would be doing a favor for your own side, and for the cause of rationality.

In return, if you ever come across a conservative convinced that flouridated water is an evil commie-liberal plot to pollute our Purity of Essence, I will do the like favor for you.

Doug

[The Supreme Canuck]

Why should political stance have anything to do with it? Wouldn't the facts be enough to convince them? Send them over to this forum, we'd love to have them.

[Candy]

I have been reading a lot about this recently, and in particular how the United States is poisoning the world by using it in its weapons in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I seem to be able to get a thread closed in 2.5 seconds after posting.

[Kemal]

Here is information about DU from the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA54/ea5419a1.pdf

It does not seem as dangerous as many are saying it is.

==================================================

In return, if you ever come across a conservative convinced that flouridated water is an evil commie-liberal plot to pollute our Purity of Essence, I will do the like favor for you.

It's not just conservatives. See the startling evidence of Bush's "public extermination project:"

http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/115676.php

Through the use of t-valves, concentration camps become unnecessary. The U.S. government now has the capability of exterminating whoever they wish through its own water system. No muss, no fuss, no heart-wrenching scenes of rounding people up and transporting them off to a highly uncertain future.

When they are ready for the Big Kill, when they have determined which residences will receive “death water” and which will be bypassed (the function of a t-valve in front of every residence), a switch will be thrown and what Hitler began will be accomplished.


Need ... more .... tinfoil ...

[Doug1943]

I did some research on DU a few months ago and came across the World Health Organization paper, which seems very fair, if a bit too technical for the layperson.

I suppose I could quote extensively from it. But ... the reality is, that people tend to trust people who have authority with them. I have no authority with these good folks, because they just assume I am an apologist for Amerikkkan imperialism. And I'm not a real scientist either.

Whereas an anti-war liberal who also knows something about nuclear physics would have enormous authority. I don't want to "beat" these guys in debate by making them look stupid, I want to change their minds. Thus my appeal here. I could ask them to come over to this forum, but so far I can't even get them to read a critical website I have posted. So ... come over Red Rover. Or pink rover as the case may be.

Doug

PS: it's interesting to see that some Lefties also fear flouridation. A basis for a united front?

[Gullible Jones]

Yep, paranoia's as dominant on the left as on the right.

(High time that somebody started a Sanity Party, eh, folks? Betch it would garner a heck of a lot of votes...)

[Doug1943]

The problem is, with your crazy people and our crazy people, they vote the correct way -- from each of our points of view. So we don't want to alienate them too much.

As for a Sane Peoples' Party... I fear the effect might be to cause a counter-coalition of the Maniacs, who would discover they had about 80% of the electorate. And I've gotten used to the taste of flouride.

Doug

[ASEI]

I'll trade you my party's crazy people for your party's sane people. :razz: We could discuss exchange rates.

Maybe that would be difficult to accomplish, logistically.

[hewhocaves]

If a third political party is ever formed, it'll probably live or die solely on it's name. You know today's attention span.

I propose the "Common Sense" party, after Thomas Paine's excellent work.
Of course, Mr. Paine died penniless and hated, as would any party that adheres to rationalism and science. Its far to easy to vote yourself a free meal today.

John

Oh, and I've had the pleasure of handling some uraninite. (the source of a fiar percentage of uranium). After touching it in Geology class, we were all sent to the sinks ot wah off the dust. The odds that any of us would be stupid enough to lick our fingers after touching it (thereby possibly ingesting some of the radioactive material) was minimal, but its still a good practice to get into. The same thing happened when we touched some crocidolite (a source of asbestos).

Uraninite link
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/oxides/uraninit/uraninit.htm

Crocidolite link
http://www.mindat.org/min-8996.html

Crocidolite, btw, is a very pretty blue mineral. I'd keep it under glass ;)

[Sammy]

DU is a favorite woo woo topic on GLP. They generally think it's "hot," and have expresed opinions that we have contaminated Iraq with radioactivity equivalent to hundreds of nuclear weapons!

The best of the info I have is that the ONLY people harmed by DU are Iraqui tank crews killed by DU anti-tank rounds (by the ensuing fires/explosions, not the radiological/toxicological effects of DU itself), and some hapless U.S. and Allied troops in Gulf War 1, who entered knocked-out Iraqui tanks to have a look, and exposed themselves to DU fine particulates via inhalation or ingestion from particles on their hands when eating later.

Like lead, DU is harmless in solid, non-friable form; dangerous when in fine particulate form.

[JHotz]

It is a typical ploy for vested interest to “Prove” the safety of their dangerous practice by saying things like, It is naturally occurring, it is not more dangerous than that, and my favorite it is no more harmful than this.

Let me give you a few examples of supposedly safe things from the past.

Smoking was recommended by doctors as a healthy way to reduce stress.
Agent Orange was a save way to clear the Jungle.
Radiation exposure is good for you because it increases you red blood cell count.
Radium is safe.
DDT.
Mercury.
Each of these killed thousands of people and destroyed the health of thousands more before the truth was undeniable and there use was regulated.

Uranium is a toxic heavy metal it is especially likely to cause birth defects. The fact that it occurs naturally does not change this. Indeed it strengthens the case not to increase exposure by such careless us of this substance.

Lead ammunition cause huge amounts of environmental pollution and retards the mental development in children. Steel is much less polluting yet lead continues to used because it is cheaper.

Uranium is much worse than lead because in addition to being highly toxic it is radioactive and tends to burn. Its radiation is not much of a threat from outside you body. Uranium likes to dust and burn when it hits its target. This allows it to be ingested in large concentrations easily in the body through breathing, dissolved in water on food and in the food. Inside you body this radiation is much more hazardous.

Lets take a look at armor and armor defeating strategies that have lead to the use of DU.

Anti armor techniques are Armour piercing, HEAT, Shaped Charge.

A shaped charge plops a raw explosive on the armor that causes a chunk to break off inside the tank. This chunk bounces abound inside the take killing the occupants. It is easily defeated by spacing in the armor.

Heat detonates a directional explosion at the armor from a prescribe distance. The hot gases and pressure created deforms the metal allowing the explosion into the tank. This does not require high muzzle velocities and is used on most antitank missiles. A type of armor developed in Chobham, England called Chobham is able to defeat HEAT weapons. It has a honeycomb structure that allows it to dissipate heat extremely fast. Reactive armor kits were developed to protect older tanks from heat rounds. They consist of explosive sandwich between two metal plates. The sandwich detonates as the heat round does and thereby disrupts the jet of hot gases.

Armor piercing is a solid metal arrow shaped bullet that uses sabots to fill out the spaces in a round barrel. The sabot fall away when the bullet leaves the gun. This technique allow extremely fast bullets. The bullet uses kinetic energy to penetrate armor and then exit the other side of the tank. The bullet has so much energy it sucks the tank occupants out the tiny exit hole.

These bullets used to be made from tungsten now they are made from uranium. There are several reasons for the change.
Sometimes the round deflects from the armor instead of penetrating. Tungsten is very hard and less heavy and therefore more likely to deflect.
Uranium is softer and heavier yet it self sharpens as it penetrates and is much less likely to deflect.
Uranium burns extremely hot on penetration and is much more destructive to the vehicle.
Heavier Uranium rounds are less affect by wind and variation in air pressure and therefore more accurate.
Uranium is a toxic waste that would be expensive to expose of so it is much cheaper.

One of the later variations of the United States Abrams Main Battle Tank has a layer of DU armor that is effective at defeating Sabot bullets.

Of all the anti armor strategies The fin stabilized discarded sabot armor piercing bullet is the most populate because its incredible high speeds give it the accuracy and range reliable get the first kill. The round is cheap not because it is easy to mine but because it is a toxic by product that people will pay to get rid of.

This use of uranium does not leave a few large chunks lying around. It is reduced to tiny particles that are carried by smoke to settle on people, houses, food, clothes, cars, dirt and water. It you guys think it is so harmless lets start using it for hunting, shooting ranges, cookware, cavity filling, silverware because that is how pervasive Uranium dust is in the area it is used.

[JHotz]

These are the only post you are showing under this name. Why?

Could anyone help me out on the subject of Depleted Uranium?What help do you want?

I have been reading a lot about this recently, and in particular how the United States is poisoning the world by using it in its weapons in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan.Can you give some source so we can evaluate this statement?

On the one hand, as a conservative, I am suspicious of these criticisms of our military, especially since some of the people making them seem to be hate-America types with little technical knowledge.What does it mean to be a conservative? Why does it matter here, an astronomy bulliten? What is a hate-American type with little technical knowledge you presume us to be familiar with?

On the other hand, as a conservative, I am willing to believe that government often fouls things up. So maybe it has in this case.Again with telling us you are a conservative? Where do you think you are?

And as someone who believes in getting objective evidence before deciding on something, I would like to hear from some scientists on this.How many environmental pollution scientists do you think are looking at this here post or yours?

Doug

[JHotz]

Okay, this sounds about right. In the best of all possible worlds, you wouldn't want to breathe in a single atom more than necessary of any heavy metal, and certainly not an (albeit only mildly) radioactive one. But we're not all going to die of radiation poisoning, or start breeding mutant children, because of use of DU.How could anyone consider those two conclusions the best of anything

And this guy Rokke is -- I take it -- a charlatan.

But ... he's got some liberal friends of mine, who have no background in science, hysterical, which is sad. They won't believe anything I say, of course, since I am an evil or at least misguided conservative.Sounds like you overstating the oppositions position by an order of magnitude. What is your background in science that legitimises you conclusion more than your supposed friend.

So ... would one of you folks who is an anti-war liberal etcNice stereotype/oversimplification/moral absolute., but who has some science background -- preferably a physicist -- like to gently straighten them out? I think it's against the rules to mention other Forums on this Forum (it usually is, anyway, on most Forums) so PM me and I'll give you the website. I would be grateful and you would be doing a favor for your own side, and for the cause of rationality. Are you a Freeper? Don't you guys swarm other sites like this?

In return, if you ever come across a conservative convinced that flouridated water is an evil commie-liberal plot to pollute our Purity of Essence, I will do the like favor for you.

DougDude get this through your head. This is an astronomy and science website not a political website.

[Doug1943]

JHotz: I'm just a layman, no scientist (I've got a PhD in Computer Science but anything that calls itself a Science, isn't), and a conservative -- so when my poor liberal friends (on another discussion board) started getting hysterical about DU, which I know a little about, I sought more authoritative help in calming them down. I'm not a Freeper -- in fact I was banned from that Board after my very first post (raising the issue of torture by US Forces).

I've been a subscriber to the Bad Astronomy email newsletter for some time. But I have had no reason to post on this Board, until now.

Although it's an astronomy board, I know from the Bad Astronomy website that much more than astronomy is dealt with: bad science in general, or maybe I should say bad physics in general, seems to have been dealt with. And the DU stuff, as propagated by certain cranks, is definitely bad physics, although I see that you are somewhat closer to their views than other people on this board.

Anyway, check out this person, and then click on the links on the bottom the page:

http://www.lonestaricon.com/News/2005/11-20/19news03.htm

I know this is not a political site, and my whole point is, this shoudln't be a left-right political issue. Truth is truth, whether it's the age of the earth, or the toxicity of DU.

Doug

[JMV]

Lets take a look at armor and armor defeating strategies that have lead to the use of DU.

Anti armor techniques are Armour piercing, HEAT, Shaped Charge.

A shaped charge plops a raw explosive on the armor that causes a chunk to break off inside the tank. This chunk bounces abound inside the take killing the occupants. It is easily defeated by spacing in the armor.
Actually HEAT is a shaped charge and what you described here is high-explosive squash-head. HEAT rounds have a conical cavity in the explosive material and that's where the word shaped comes from, whereas squash-heads are not pre-shaped for maximum spalling effect (that's breaking off fragments from the other side of the armor), but they deform on the surface of the target before detonating.

[Gullible Jones]

Armor piercing is a solid metal arrow shaped bullet that uses sabots to fill out the spaces in a round barrel. The sabot fall away when the bullet leaves the gun. This technique allow extremely fast bullets. The bullet uses kinetic energy to penetrate armor and then exit the other side of the tank. The bullet has so much energy it sucks the tank occupants out the tiny exit hole.

Ummm... That is not correct. No idea where you got that, man.

But you would be right about the thing with fine particles - armor-piercing rounds create uranium dust in the tank they hit, and uranium dust is pyrophoric. A tank hit by a uranium armor-piercing round will get very hot very fast.

Anyway... Yeah, I'm guessing we should pay a bit more attention to where our uranium dust ends up, in the same way that we should have paid more attention to where our lead went.

As for that Iconoclast article... Well...

A friend of mine is the widow of a Canadian Gulf War veteran. David Rose interviewed her, and she griped about the burning semen. She said, “I had 20 condoms full of frozen peas in my freezer at all times, and after we were intimate, I would insert one into my vagina, and that is the only way I could bear the pain from the burning semen.” And it goes through condoms, too.

Hardy har har. Absolute garbage, that is. Seriously, I am not kidding when I say that Moret is lying through her teeth about some of that stuff.

(The woman mentioned in the quote above probably ought to talk to her doctor about that, actually... Could be an infection of some sort.)

As for Rokker:

If you look at everything, it’s real interesting. We know the Pentagon was never hit by an airliner, okay? Got hit by a cruise missile. Everybody knows that [censored]. No evidence of wreckage. No nothing. The hole was only 16 feet across. There’s no way an airliner is going to disappear in a 16-foot hole. When the roof fell down later on and they say in the 9-1-1 report, it was a dive bomb, no trench, no nothing. Hello. You know? Isn’t it astonishing? You go to the photograph of the 9-1-1 report on page 312 and look at it. It’s a little hole, and nothing’s burned and nothing’s along the sides of it. There’s no evidence of an airplane. There’s no trench. There’s no nothing. And then you kind of wonder how can they say that an airliner the size of a 757 did it. Nothing fits.

Nope, and neither does his brain.

(Wow... that stuff is almost as bad as some of the stuff you get from Moon Hoax trolls. Bring it on, guys! :P )

[JHotz]

JHotz:so when my poor liberal friends (on another discussion board) started getting hysterical about DU, which I know a little about, I sought more authoritative help in calming them down. I'm not a Freeper -- in fact I was banned from that Board after my very first post (raising the issue of torture by US Forces).You are so wrapped in you Bipolar Conservative/Liberal world view you can not see how out of touch with this board you are. Your deliberate exagerations and phony concern for you friend are as transparent as you partisan dogma.
Although it's an astronomy board, I know from the Bad Astronomy website that much more than astronomy is dealt with: bad science in general, or maybe I should say bad physics in general, seems to have been dealt with. And the DU stuff, as propagated by certain cranks, is definitely bad physics, although I see that you are somewhat closer to their views than other people on this board.I see so you are saying my view are the same as certain cranks. What exactly about my post did you disagree with or is that kind of clarity not your style?

Anyway, check out this person, and then click on the links on the bottom the page:

http://www.lonestaricon.com/News/2005/11-20/19news03.htmThis site does nothing to validate your claims that DU is essentially harmless. Just like saying DU is natural does nothing to prove or disprove its danger. It is like you cannot think in terms of a reasoned and justified position rather you sling, ridicule, platitudes, overgeneralizations, oversimplifications and omissions in place of real arguments. Why else would you repeat that you are a conservative five times when no on disputes, refutes, doubts, questions, or asks.

I know this is not a political site, and my whole point is, this shoudln't be a left-right political issue.That is not you whole point or even part of you point. It is you and only you trying to politicize this issue on this board. Truth is truth,Does this mean something? I see it is a reference to Moral Absolutism? whether it's the age of the earth, or the toxicity of DU.
DougThe age of the earth? What are you talking about? What does the age of the earth have to do with your position, DU, Truth or anything else? Reading this is like listening to aMike Tyson interview or Kato Kaelin testifying.

[Gullible Jones]

Cool it, will you, JHotz?

[JHotz]

Ummm... That is not correct. No idea where you got that, man.
I have a brother in law who was a tanker in the army. He says they show the tank crews film of a tank that had sheep in it and was hit as a demonstration. The sheep was a bloody mess centered around the exit hole. So no they were not sucked out.

[JHotz]

Actually HEAT is a shaped charge and what you described here is high-explosive squash-head. HEAT rounds have a conical cavity in the explosive material and that's where the word shaped comes from, whereas squash-heads are not pre-shaped for maximum spalling effect (that's breaking off fragments from the other side of the armor), but they deform on the surface of the target before detonating.You are correct sir.

[Van Rijn]

JHoltz: You seem to be overreacting just a tad to Doug1943. Take it for what you will, but between the two of you, he seems to be a lot more reasonable in this discussion than you.

As for DU: I don't think anyone here has said there was no risk with DU. However, if you are going to argue for an extreme risk, as some suggest, you would be expected to present the evidence. In my opinion, the greatest danger with DU munitions is that they are used to, quite directly, kill people. The fact that they are made of DU is of lesser concern, except for its utility in making for better weapons. In terms of unintended death, I am sure that land mines and friendly fire are far greater concerns.

[Lianachan]

In terms of unintended death, I am sure that land mines and friendly fire are far greater concerns.

I vaguely recall something about a US tank in the 1st gulf war that it had claimed was destroyed by the Iraqi's. However, it had been destroyed by a DU shell which could only have been fired by another US tank. I think there had been repeated denials that it had been friendly fire, and/or a cover-up of some description. Is this ringing any bells?

[Glom]

JHotz, I don't know what Chicken Littles you've been listening to but you really have some bizarre ideas.

http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/prolif.html

Uranium is a toxic heavy metal it is especially likely to cause birth defects.

In order for there to be a likelihood of birth defects, it must first be absorbed by the fetus. That can happen in the cases of radioiodine and other useful elements, which is why Chernobyl prompted many a scare story about birth defects, none of which were validated by the way. Uranium on the other hand is useless to the body and thus is not absorbed in large quantities. Chemically, it can cause kidney problems if ingested in large quantities, but that makes it no more dangerous than lead and significantly less dangerous than mercury. It has a much lower activity than radioiodine and emits relatively low energy, much lower than, say, radon, which is inhaled constantly by all of us.

Uranium is much worse than lead because in addition to being highly toxic it is radioactive and tends to burn.

It's radioactivity is not nearly enough to cause that. You are confusing radioactivity with physical properties of its dispersion.

[MrClean]

DU is an extremely dangerous substance, especially when we've sent it your way at a high rate of speed. Best way to reduce exposure problems with it is to stay on our 'GOOD' side.
.

[Frog march]

could heavy metal bands wear DU jewelry? would it be safe enough for that?

[Glom]

could heavy metal bands wear DU jewelry? would it be safe enough for that?

Should be. It's a long lived, low energy, alpha emitter and so wouldn't cause much harm sitting around your neck, although I would recommend a T-shirt to be on the safe side.

[JMV]

Is there anyone here who can calculate equivalent and effective doses given by certain amount of radioactive material deposited in human body in a given timespan?

I tried some calculations and got that 1 milligram of U-238 emits 0.27 millijoules of energy in a timespan of one year. If all of that energy is absorbed by the body the average whole body dose for a person with a mass of 65 kg would be about 4.2 microGrays and the equivalent dose would be 83 microSieverts in one year. To get the effective dose we would have to know where in the body this uranium is deposited and the mass of the tissues it irradiates. If we assume one milligram of uranium deposited in the lungs and it irradiates 100 grams of lung tissue, effective dose would about 6.5 milliSieverts. I have no idea how truthful these figures are, since I don't know how much lung tissue it can really irradiate and for how long it can stay in the lungs. I also left radiation from decay products out of the calculations.

My annual doses from natural radiation sources are in the order 7 milliSieverts. I've seen sources saying that humans normally ingest about 0.5 milligrams of uranium annually. How many milligrams do you think it would be possible for a person to ingest in an area contamined by DU dust particles from KE penetrators used in a war, how much of that would stay in the body for long time periods and where in the body would it go?

[genebujold]

Ok, folks - lots of comments on both sides. Time to inject some reality.

The link given by the original poster (http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html) is extremely vast, with hundreds of links to other websites that despite depleted uranium. I've no time to debunk the primary link, much less the ancillary ones.

The information concerning Doug Rokke is easily debunked. The first was given here: http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html

Mr. (NOT "Dr.") Rokke continues to be credited with obtaining his PhD, despite the fact that the previous website emphatically asserts that their original credit to him on this point was in error.

Here are more erroneous credits:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=594

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4207.htm

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DUuse+hazard.html

Ok!

Enough of stupid credentials. I've met more than my share of book smart yet brain dead individuals to last a lifetime! I'm sure some of you have, too.

On to truth, and reality:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_Uranium

Bottom line, DU is indeed radioactive.

Quote: "Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% U-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235."

Applying some simple 6th-grade math, we find that DU contains, on average, about 42% (nearly half) as much U-235 as does natural Uranium.

DU is by no means enriched, so we won't go there.

Back to natural Uranium:

1. Since DU has roughly half the radioactive content of natural uranium, we would expect it to have half the effects.

2. Although it has an extremely long half-life, it remains a heavy metal, and as such, is slightly more toxic than lead.

3. DU is quite dangerous in both it's dust (inhaled) and groundwater (leached) forms.

As such, the United Nations passed a resolution to ban DU in the mid-90s, despite the fact that even heavily exposed individuals show mixed, non-conclusive results with respect to the effects of DU. This is discussed in the Wiki article on DU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

[TheBlackCat]

I found a MSDS (material safety data sheet) on a DU casting.

MSDS (http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=49279&Index=D%3a%5cINDEX%5cHMIS&HitCount=6&hits=122+126+15a+1c1+352+3c5+&SearchForm=D%3a%5ccrc%5cmsdss%5ccomply1%2ehtm)

LD50 LC50 Mixture
NONE SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.



Route Of Entry Inds
Inhalation: NO
Skin: NO
Ingestion: NO

Carcinogenicity Inds - NTP: NO
IARC: NO
OSHA: NO

Health Hazards Acute And Chronic
LOW LEVEL RADIATION DOSE CAN RESULT FROM CONTINUED EXPOSURE. INHALATION OF URANIUM DUST CAN RESULT IN RADIATION DOSE TO LUNG AND OR KIDNEY UPSET DUE TO CHEMICAL TOXICITY.

Explanation Of Carcinogenicity
NOT RELEVANT

Signs And Symptions Of Overexposure
NONE SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.

Medical Cond Aggravated By Exposure
NONE SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.


There is more there, but it is basically all the same. Don't breathe it in if it is finely divided, don't use water to stop fires. Even when breathed in, the concerns don't seem to major:

First Aid Information
FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE DUST, REMOVE PERSON TO PREVENT FURTHER EXPOSURE AND SHOWER. RECOMMEND USE OF RESPIRATORS FOR EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE DUST.

[Tunga]

I handled DU rounds about 25 years ago with my bare hands. I haven't experienced any adverse effects, nor have my offsprings.

[Gillianren]

I have a brother in law who was a tanker in the army. He says they show the tank crews film of a tank that had sheep in it and was hit as a demonstration. The sheep was a bloody mess centered around the exit hole. So no they were not sucked out.

Either he's messing with you or the army's lying to him. That's not what would happen. Really.

Look, while I don't make a big issue about this, I happen to be a liberal myself, and I totally understand a) where Doug's coming from and b) why he came here with it. I don't think Doug's saying all hysteria comes on one side or the other of the political fence, but he has experienced certain behavior from people of a certain political stripe. He is presenting this as data. I'm sure Doug would agree that not all liberals are "hate-America" paranoids. (Right, Doug?)

And he came here because people here are, by and large--myself obviously excluded--scientists of one kind or another. Scientists are more likely to know this kind of thing than the average, even if it's outside their field, just as I know things about the history of country music even though I've never studied it.

[Gullible Jones]

Re the sqashed sheep: could happen, but unlikely. A DU round should cut through the armor, shatter into very sharp little pieces, and combust. If this was a lighter armored vehicle, I suppose the round might go all the way through, skewering the sheep in the process, but with a tank that sounds a tad ridiculous. Even in the latter case, the sheep would not be violently sucked through the hole.

Gene: thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that DU was banned, though...

BTW, for those concerned: the army is currently experimenting with armor-piercing rounds made of metallic glass. So now, if your tank gets hit by an explosive armor-piercing round, you don't have to worry about radiation poisoning later! (Yes, that was sarcasm, folks!)

(I am assuming that metallic glass rounds would be explosive, since it doesn't seem likely that they'd display the exact same properties as uranium ones. If I'm wrong, please forgive this error.)

[Doug1943]

Either he's messing with you or the army's lying to him. That's not what would happen. Really.

Look, while I don't make a big issue about this, I happen to be a liberal myself, and I totally understand a) where Doug's coming from and b) why he came here with it. I don't think Doug's saying all hysteria comes on one side or the other of the political fence, but he has experienced certain behavior from people of a certain political stripe. He is presenting this as data. I'm sure Doug would agree that not all liberals are "hate-America" paranoids. (Right, Doug?)

And he came here because people here are, by and large--myself obviously excluded--scientists of one kind or another. Scientists are more likely to know this kind of thing than the average, even if it's outside their field, just as I know things about the history of country music even though I've never studied it.Absolutely. Certain paranoid types on the Right fling this "liberals hate America" stuff around in order to pre-empt a debate on the war which they feel they cannot win on intellectual grounds. Since the people who are accused of this are, by and large, just as 'patriotic' as anyone else, and know that they are, this has the practical effect of closing their minds to what might be worthy arguments on the question from those of us who are not slanderers. So the Rightwing coo-coos actually help consolidate opposition to the war.

Since this is not a political forum, I won't go into the question of 'patriotism' as such which I personally think is problematic, nor into the legitimate question of whether modern-day liberalism (which is quite different from the liberalism of, say, Hubert Humphrey and his generation of liberals) is correct in its generally negative assessment of the effects of American military power and her presence in the world.

In any case, on a personal level, I happen to know or know of numerous veterans, whose patriotism was proven not with empty words but with deeds, who are opposed to the war. And even if this were not true, it wouldn't affect the argument one iota.

Doug

[Doug1943]

This is the best source I have seen so far for the anti-DU case:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

The authors are obviously (read their acknowledgements) politically-motivated, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their findings. A quick scan of the article seemed to indicate that they haven't really come up with anything new, just that if you're pregnant, stay away from DU -- that's also true of alcohol, of course, and for the same reasons. The real issue is, has our use of DU ammunition added a significant measure of DU contamination (which cannot be avoided, unlike alcohol) into the environment in those areas where we've used it?

I'm now working my way slowly through this article, but if anyone with scientific knowledge, especially in the field of biology, would also do so and comment, I would be grateful.

Here's another good source on DU, and his overall website (which is about other things entirely, including the nature of consciousness) is fascinating:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/du.html

Doug

[SolusLupus]

Okay, I have little to contribute to this subject, except something very funny:

There is a game. I think it's WarHammer 10,000. Anyways, in this game, there is an "uber round", a bullet that can penetrate almost any powerful armor. What's this round made of?

It's made of... (dun dun dun!)... DEPLETED DEUTERIUM!

Yes, that's right! DEPLETED DEUTERIUM! More powerful than depleted uranium! It's powerful because it sounds scientific!

Too bad no one told them that Depleted Deuterium is the same thing as hydrogen.

[Cylinder]

Very funny. Of course, accelerated to the proper speed...

[SolusLupus]

Yeah, but "accelerated to the proper speed" could work for any metal. The only thing is, no matter what the speed, denser metals would still be preferable to a round filled with /air/, unless you're talking so fast it doesn't matter (I dunno what speed that would be).

Unless, of course, your goal is a hollowpoint round, or something that's basically made to harm flesh more than armor. However, that won't be a powerful round that can penetrate almost any armor :)

[genebujold]

DU is an extremely dangerous substance, especially when we've sent it your way at a high rate of speed. Best way to reduce exposure problems with it is to stay on our 'GOOD' side.
.

Chuckle!

[JHotz]

This is the best source I have seen so far for the anti-DU case:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
Nice site
The authors are obviously (read their acknowledgements) politically-motivated, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their findings. A quick scan of the article seemed to indicate that they haven't really come up with anything newComing up with something new is not the goal. They enumerate the nature of DU and document studies to validate their claims? When other people say these things you claim they cannot prove it. When you find an article that provides proof you say it is nothing new. just that if you're pregnant, stay away from DU I am having trouble finding where this article says that staying way from DU if you are pregnant is the only appropriate precaution necessary. Could you tell me the paragraph and line where this is said? How do you stay away from DU if 5 μm particles are scattered at least 25 from the site of use and settle on you house, car, food, clothes, drinking water and kids. -- that's also true of alcohol, of course, and for the same reasons. I guess that depends on how much alcohol you are talking about. Would you say it is a bad as ten drinks a day everyday throughout the pregnancy. I it is I would say that represents an intolerable risk.The real issue is, has our use of DU ammunition added a significant measure of DU contamination (which cannot be avoided, unlike alcohol) into the environment in those areas where we've used it? That is one of many issues. It is not just the quantity but the nature of the contamination. A solid chunk of DU in the back yard is nothing compared to scattering the equivalent amount over the area in fine particles that will be breathed and consumed. That is the issue you seem unwilling to focus on.

I'm now working my way slowly through this article, but if anyone with scientific knowledge, especially in the field of biology, would also do so and comment, I would be grateful.There are no scientists here. You invented this idea that most of the people posting on the Astronomy web site are scientists. No one has responded that they are a scientists but two has said that they were not. The people that wrote your article site many peer reviewed studies conducted by scientists and yet you dismiss the information. I you happen on a scientist who agrees with you will that be your proof that DU is safe?

Here's another good source on DU, and his overall website (which is about other things entirely, including the nature of consciousness) is fascinating:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/du.html

Doug

[JHotz]

for DU to be toxic by virtue of radioactivity, wouldn't it have to be far more active than just plain natural uranium? After all, if it has a half life of billions of years, it's emmission rate couldn't possibly approach that of, say, a hot sunny day.DU is Chemicaly toxic as well as radioactive

[Gillianren]

I may not personally be a scientist, but I can easily list more than a few people on this board who are.

[JHotz]

I may not personally be a scientist, but I can easily list more than a few people on this board who are.Please list away.

[SolusLupus]

There are no scientists here. You invented this idea that most of the people posting on the Astronomy web site are scientists. No one has responded that they are a scientists but two has said that they were not. The people that wrote your article site many peer reviewed studies conducted by scientists and yet you dismiss the information. I you happen on a scientist who agrees with you will that be your proof that DU is safe?

Wow. You just claimed that there are NO scientists here. You just claimed that there are nada scientists. Zilch. Then you claim that Doug "invented" the idea that there are scientists on here.

Any validity you seemed to have I suddenly doubt. I'm going to wait for the scientists on this board to prove you wrong. Oh, and something else: Just because two people say they aren't scientists themselves, does NOT mean that there are "no" scientists on this board. It's also rather insulting you'd make that claim. (Not that I'm a scientist personally, I might add - but I know of a few rocket scientists on this board).

I might add that Doug was the one that showed the scientific article - he could just as easily have not shown it, you know, if you're claiming that "we" work hard to discredit any claims, as you seem to be implying (correct me if I'm wrong).

Remember something: Scientists don't always agree. Sometimes they can interpret studies in different ways, and disagree on certain issues (such as if DU is as deadly as all that, especially if appropriate precautions are taken).

As for DU, I can't say much on that issue, my knowledge is limited.

[JHotz]

Wow. You just claimed that there are NO scientists here. You just claimed that there are nada scientists. Zilch. Then you claim that Doug "invented" the idea that there are scientists on here.If you look at the context of my statement you will understand that I meant
there are no scientist posting on this particular thread. You seem disproportionately exited by your misunderstanding though. It is almost as if you are already upset and looking for some trivial bit of minutia to distract form the real issue.Any validity you seemed to have I suddenly doubt.Man you are really over the top. How can I loose credibility I only seem to have. I'm going to wait for the scientists on this board to prove you wrong.You mean you eagerly anticipate this event. It has significance and importance to you. Oh, and something else: Just because two people say they aren't scientists themselves, does NOT mean that there are "no" scientists on this board.You are correct it does not mean there are no scientists on this board. It is a start to showing there are none posting to this thread though. It's also rather insulting you'd make that claim. (Not that I'm a scientist personally, I might add - but I know of a few rocket scientists on this board).That makes three non-scientists. Why would you be personally insulted by this? I am fascinated by all the people that know scientists on this board. They seem to far more numerous than the actual scientists. I might add that Doug was the one that showed the scientific article - he could just as easily have not shown it, you know, if you're claiming that "we" work hard to discredit any claims, as you seem to be implying (correct me if I'm wrong).I do not know what group you refer to when you say we. Perhaps you could clarify. When did I make these implications?

Remember something: Scientists don't always agree. Sometimes they can interpret studies in different ways, and disagree on certain issues (such as if DU is as deadly as all that, especially if appropriate precautions are taken).

As for DU, I can't say much on that issue, my knowledge is limited.Scientist also work for money and many will not jeopardize their funding by presenting findings critical of a vested interest.

[Doug1943]

JHotz: I just reported my quick impressions after scanning this paper, as I said, and from a background of very very limited knowledge of science.

Of course, if after reading it slowly and thoroughly, I find that it really does provide hard evidence that DU, in the quantities and form that we have added to the environment where we have used it, causes significant risks of birth defects, then that will be very worrying. (I will also wonder why, apparently, no one else except three sympathyzers of peace activists have discovered this, but if it's true, then they will be joined by one conservative and we can go from there.)

However, although I am no scientist, I've been around a while, and I have witnessed many scientific studies of things like low-level EMR emissions (bad), the effects of taking megadoses of Vitamin C (good) [this one by the brilliant Nobel Prize-winning Linus Pauling, explicator of the nature of the chemical bond], the effects of combining Measles Mumps and Rubella vacine (bad), the effects of taking 400mg of Vitamin C a day (good), the effects of living near nuclear power stations (bad) and I could go on and on, but the point is, all of these turned out to be either not true, or at least not proven.

So I approach all statistically-based studies with an initial skepticism, bolstered by my being a long-time subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer and its British equivalent. I know enough about statistics to know that things ain't always what they seem at first with statistical studies. (I recall a demonstration with SPSS involving setting up a 100x100 matrix of random numbers, and then finding a number of significant correlations at the 5% confidence level or above ... or something like that -- I'm no statistician either.)

And in any case, as I said, I think: the issue is not DU, but the credibility of Mr Rokke, and, more generally, how you decide whether or not something is true.

Maybe it's because I am a conservative that I am a bit sensitive on the issue of scientific credibility, and the importance of being sure about strong claims, especially where uranium is concerned. But if you liberals want to take over the claim that dangerous WMD indeed exist in Iraq, only they're ours, you're sure as hell welcome to it!

In the meantime, I will stand by my view that Rokke is a charlatan (and so is the other person mentioned on that website); that the current consensus of experts is that DU is not the mass killer or baby-deformer that its opponents claim it is; but that continued research on the subject is justified.

Doug

[SolusLupus]

My head hurts.

If you look at the context of my statement you will understand that I meant
there are no scientist posting on this particular thread.

Now that you've explained that, I see it. However, there are scientists on this messageboard. These scientists tend to read threads. Most likely, they'd read this thread. Thus, that claim has no bearing, since Doug was asking for SCIENTISTS that might end up reading the subject at hand to respond.

You seem disproportionately exited by your misunderstanding though. It is almost as if you are already upset and looking for some trivial bit of minutia to distract form the real issue.

Nice theory. Unfortunately for you, no, that's not why I did that. I was angry because (what I thought you said) was a pretty blanket and arrogant statement to make. It also seemed that you were claiming that the validity of all posters on this messageboard in particular was nil. I apologize for my misinterpretation, but I don't retract my statement.

Man you are really over the top. How can I loose credibility I only seem to have.

Simple. Because you seemed to have validity, but now you don't. Voila.

You mean you eagerly anticipate this event. It has significance and importance to you.

You say potato, I say tubular object... except that I don't really eagerly anticipate the event, I'm just waiting for the scientists to speak up. You make a blanket statement like how there's no scientists that would post on the thread, then claim Doug made it up. I would like to see someone who knows what they're talking about talking about the situation - I don't know about DU, and honestly, I don't care if it's toxic or not. If it is toxic, then yeah, we shouldn't use it without safety precautions. But it would still have its use.

You are correct it does not mean there are no scientists on this board.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this THREAD is not the MESSAGEBOARD (Which Board is short for). This is primarily the reason for my confusion: You make it sound like there's no scientists on the board. There ARE scientists on the board. It seems that you just meant that there aren't scientists that would post to this THREAD (Which I disagree with anyways)

It is a start to showing there are none posting to this thread though.

Okay. If you say so.

That makes three non-scientists.Why would you be personally insulted by this? I am fascinated by all the people that know scientists on this board. They seem to far more numerous than the actual scientists.

There it is again. *To this board*, not this particular thread. This is the exact reason why I was so confused. However...

I guess the main thing for me to do is sit for a scientist to speak up. *Shrugs* Since you seem so unconvinced.

As for why I felt insulted: Once more, because of the blanket statement, and what seemed to me like it was implying that no one here knows what they're talking about.

I do not know what group you refer to when you say we. Perhaps you could clarify. When did I make these implications?

At this point, emotion was talking more than logic. I retract the statement... somewhat. I meant the people talking in the thread, however - you seem to be making a few assumptions on us. I also note that Doug was the one that showed the link - not you.

Scientist also work for money and many will not jeopardize their funding by presenting findings critical of a vested interest.

They still seem to have taken political funding, however. There seems to have been pushed slightly into producing such a finding. However, I'm not accusing them of *lying* or being dishonest. I'm merely noting that people can interpret research differently. Scientists do it all the time - hence, why scientific journals are *PEER-REVIEWED*.

*Sighs* Forget I said anything.

[SolusLupus]

I <3 you, Doug. Even if you have a mental illness (Republicanism).

I'm just kidding, I don't judge people by political affiliation ^_^

[JHotz]

JHotz:However, although I am no scientist, I've been around a while, and I have witnessed many scientific studies of things like low-level EMR emissions (bad), the effects of taking megadoses of Vitamin C (good) [this one by the brilliant Nobel Prize-winning Linus Pauling, explicator of the nature of the chemical bond], the effects of combining Measles Mumps and Rubella vacine (bad), the effects of taking 400mg of Vitamin C a day (good), the effects of living near nuclear power stations (bad) and I could go on and on, but the point is, all of these turned out to be either not true, or at least not proven.Good points. It seems just about everything is said to be bad for you.

So I approach all statistically-based studies with an initial skepticism, bolstered by my being a long-time subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer and its British equivalent. I know enough about statistics to know that things ain't always what they seem at first with statistical studies. (I recall a demonstration with SPSS involving setting up a 100x100 matrix of random numbers, and then finding a number of significant correlations at the 5% confidence level or above ... or something like that -- I'm no statistician either.)I love the Skeptical Inquirer. Skepticism is essential.

And in any case, as I said, I think: the issue is not DU, but the credibility of Mr Rokke, and, more generally, how you decide whether or not something is true.A valid point

Maybe it's because I am a conservative that I am a bit sensitive on the issue of scientific credibility, and the importance of being sure about strong claims, especially where uranium is concerned. But if you liberals want to take over the claim that dangerous WMD indeed exist in Iraq, only they're ours, you're sure as hell welcome to it!You understand skepticism, I am skeptical of a system of thinking that seems to be based on narrow categories of liberal and conservative.

In the meantime, I will stand by my view that Rokke is a charlatan (and so is the other person mentioned on that website); that the current consensus of experts is that DU is not the mass killer or baby-deformer that its opponents claim it is; but that continued research on the subject is justified.

DougRight back to the exagerations of the oppositions positions, oversimplifications and ridicule. You just cannot help yourself. I could mischaracteris you position as being that DU is as safe and wholesome as mothers milk and DU poisoning is no worse than a cold. I however have a real position that I want to convey.

Why do you not question the motivations of those that agree with you does you skeptical inquiry not extend to their claims.

[TheBlackCat]

I am a scientist, and I have posted on this topic already. Issue settled.

[JHotz]

I am a scientist, and I have posted on this topic already. Issue settled. I am a little fuzzy on your perspective of the whole Depleted Uranium issue. Is it the twentieth century plague or Manna from heaven? Should it banned from human contact or should we sprinkle tons and tons of finely particulate Uranium on every neighborhood?

What the?!!! Your profile says you are a biomedical engineering phd student. You gotta be kidding me. This is the scientist you guys all go on about.

[Halcyon Dayz]

In October 1992, several thousand residents and emergency personal
in Amsterdam where exposed to DU, when a El-Al Boeing 747 freighter,
using at least several hundred kilo of DU as counter-weights, crashed
into an apartment building.

Because of the complex exposure to toxic agents, as well as psychological
stress, meaningful epidemiological analysis couldn't be performed.
But a large scale medical investigation was carried out:
Over 20 percent of the participants were advised to have their family doctor refer them to the Bijlmermeer Aviation Disaster Aftercare Advisory and Treatment Centre (ABC), which specialises particularly in Unexplained Physical Symptoms (UPS) and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS).

[TheBlackCat]

I don't have a perspective on depleted uranium because I don't know very much about. You said that there aren't any scientists in this topic, which is false. What my perspective on depleted uranium is is irrelevant to whether a scientist posted on this topic.

[SolusLupus]

Biomedical engineering PHD...

Blackcat, you rock. That sounds all cool and stuff.

I feel unmanly v.v

Yes, I'm being silly. But I'm not attacking you or anything, just being silly for silly's sake :P

[RBG]

In the mid 90's, I was video taping aboard a destroyer the firing of what the Canadians call a CWIS (sea-whiz)(I forget the US designation). This high rate gatling gun is one of the last lines of defence against incoming missiles. It sends out a virtual wall of DU (or tungsten) guided by radar. The camera had to be set to shoot on its own as all personnel were banned from the decks when it fired due to the toxicity of the smoke.

RBG

[SolusLupus]

[QUOTE=RBG] The camera had to be set to shoot on its own as all personnel were banned from the decks when it fired due to the toxicity of the smoke. [QUOTE]

Makes sense, since that would be spewing out a LOT of rounds, from the sounds of it. Lots of smoke to potentially inhale.

[Sammy]

It's the CWIS in the U.S. also, forgot the exact acronymn.

The toxic smoke would be from the propellant powder, NOT from the DU warhead. It's a solid round, doesn't explode (except from the heat/impact pressure generated from its kinetic energy when it strikes the target).

[RBG]

I was thinking perhaps DU particles were shed from the bullet travelling through the barrel and then mixing with the smoke.

RBG

[Gullible Jones]

Uhh, JHoltz: not to go off-topic, but megadoses of ascorbic acid, though not toxic, can play hell on your intestines (and kidneys, at high enough doses) by osmosis.

(There has been some recent research with injected vitamin C in treating cancer, and it seems to have some effect, but ingested vitamin C is another matter entirely.)

I am a little fuzzy on your perspective of the whole Depleted Uranium issue. Is it the twentieth century plague or Manna from heaven? Should it banned from human contact or should we sprinkle tons and tons of finely particulate Uranium on every neighborhood?

What the?!!! Your profile says you are a biomedical engineering phd student. You gotta be kidding me. This is the scientist you guys all go on about.

Don't be insulting, please. And there are other scientists here, as it happens.

[Monique]

I am a little fuzzy on your perspective of the whole Depleted Uranium issue. Is it the twentieth century plague or Manna from heaven? Should it banned from human contact or should we sprinkle tons and tons of finely particulate Uranium on every neighborhood?

What the?!!! Your profile says you are a biomedical engineering phd student. You gotta be kidding me. This is the scientist you guys all go on about.


Don't be insulting, please. And there are other scientists here, as it happens.
Apparently cannot ask for logic, clarification absent proper credentials.

[Doug1943]

JHotz: please check out Mr Rokke, and his friend. It's obvious that they are claiming credentials that they don't have. Now the idea that lying Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam is okay is not a new one, but it usually a bad one. I am sure that if a reader of the Skeptical Inquirer reads what this man goes around saying -- such as that the Pentagon was hit by a Cruise Missile on September 11! -- you will see that he is indeed a charlatan. (Or, to be charitable, a lunatic.) DU could be the most toxic substance in the universe and it would still be true that this man is a charlatan.

As for whether there are scientists on this Board, I just assumed there were and that since it is a debunking sort of site, this would be the ideal place to come for help. It turned out not to be, so I shall look elsewhere. No big deal.

If I found a charlatan who agreed with me -- and please understand that I simply believe what appears to be the overwhelming consensus of the experts, save for that article by the three folks which I posted links to -- I would be the first to denounce him. Having fakers and lunatics on your side is not a good thing in the long run. The name Pat Robertson comes to mind but I know this is not a political forum so I say no more.

Lonewulf: what does "<3" mean (in this context)? (And by the way, I am not a Republican. I'm a conservative. The Republican Party is a very blunt instrument indeed for the realization of conservative ideals. I know more than a few liberals who feel the same way about the Democrats. Incidentally, I might find myself voting Democrat in the proper circumstances. In fact, since as a conservative I know well the evil effects of monopoly, I would prefer to see two sensible parties in the US, with neither of them holding complete control of all branches of government for a long period of time, the way it ways before the terrible 1960s. Furthermore ... sorry, not a political board, so I will shut up.)

If I find that DU is really as bad as some claim, I shall return here and alert you all. Although what you could do about it, I have no idea.

Doug

[Musashi]

<3 is a sideways heart. Lonewulf luvs you! :P

[SolusLupus]

Then, Doug, you're mentally ill 'cause you're conservative!

Don't worry, I have the mental illness of Undecided. :)

On the other hand, I like your standpoint. It's one I pretty much agree with.

Anyways, onto the discussion of DU!

... I have nothing to say. Moving on!

[Doug1943]

<3. Ah so.

By the way, Lonewulf, just three weeks ago I was visiting your town. I especially enjoyed my visit to the Lexington, which you would expect, given my particular mental illness, Peace through superior firepower, and all that.

Doug

[SolusLupus]

:D I should visit it too.

[Doug1943]

Got to go now. They're taking us (the non-violent ones) into town for a shopping expedition (except for the ones scheduled for electroshock therapy -- rotten luck for them. I always make sure mine is scheduled for a non-outing day).

Doug

[SolusLupus]

Good luck! I get the white padded room and the nice men in clean white coats.

(I suddenly have the urge to break out into song. To be specific, "They're coming to take me away")

[RBG]

I was thinking perhaps DU particles were shed from the bullet travelling through the barrel and then mixing with the smoke.

RBG

And vapourization of DU upon the explosive charge going off behind it??

RBG

[Sammy]

And vapourization of DU upon the explosive charge going off behind it??

RBG

I think that your initial comment above could indeed be correct; I had not thought about about the effects of rifleing cutting grooves in the projectile. This would not happen, however if the actual shell was a sabot-type, or if the CWIS weapon is a smoothbore (like the gun on the M1 Abrams tank).

Your second comment is, I think not very likely. I have never heard of a solid warhead being eroded by the propulsive charge. Any weapons/ballistics experts out there?

[Joff]

DU abrades (in a self-sharpening fashion, apparently) and vaporizes on impact with the target. Uranium is pyrophoric - burns easily (spontaneously?) when in dust form - so incinerates the inside of the tank. This does reduce to some extent battlefield toxicity, since uranium oxides are obviously less active chemically than uranium metal. However the fire can and does spread the dust more widely.

I have not seen any articles which indicate problems due to radioactivity of DU (unsurprisingly, given its low activity). Its chemical toxicity does appear to be around or slightly above the levels associated with lead. Birth defects if caused (again chemical routes are the only possibility identified) are unlikely to be in the numbers implied by Iraqi medical reports; there are quite enough other compounds out there on a former battlefield which are far more harmful.

The almost hysterical focus on DU is simply because of its association, as a byproduct, with the production of fissile uranium. It certainly doesn't have the stand-alone justification to be on the UN banned weapons list.

[JHotz]

JHotz: please check out Mr Rokke, and his friend. It's obvious that they are claiming credentials that they don't have.Who is this person and why do I care? Now the idea that lying Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam is okay is not a new one, but it usually a bad one. I am sure that if a reader of the Skeptical Inquirer reads what this man goes around saying -- such as that the Pentagon was hit by a Cruise Missile on September 11! -- you will see that he is indeed a charlatan. (Or, to be charitable, a lunatic.) DU could be the most toxic substance in the universe and it would still be true that this man is a charlatan.How did this become the focuse of the DU issue.

As for whether there are scientists on this Board, I just assumed there were and that since it is a debunking sort of site, this would be the ideal place to come for help. It turned out not to be, so I shall look elsewhere. No big deal.So you were wrong. I am certain it is not the only thing you are wrong about.

If I found a charlatan who agreed with me -- and please understand that I simply believe what appears to be the overwhelming consensus of the experts, save for that article by the three folks which I posted links to Overwhelming consensus, man you really live in your own little world.-- I would be the first to denounce him. Having fakers and lunatics on your side is not a good thing in the long run. The name Pat Robertson comes to mind but I know this is not a political forum so I say no more.Maybe that is all you have.

Lonewulf: what does "<3" mean (in this context)? (And by the way, I am not a Republican. I'm a conservative. The Republican Party is a very blunt instrument indeed for the realization of conservative ideals. I know more than a few liberals who feel the same way about the Democrats. Incidentally, I might find myself voting Democrat in the proper circumstances. In fact, since as a conservative I know well the evil effects of monopoly, I would prefer to see two sensible parties in the US, with neither of them holding complete control of all branches of government for a long period of time, the way it ways before the terrible 1960s. Furthermore ... sorry, not a political board, so I will shut up.)Just cannot help babbling about politics can you?

If I find that DU is really as bad as some claim, I shall return here and alert you all. Although what you could do about it, I have no idea.

DougAs bad as some claim. That standard is so subjective no one outside you head has any idea what it means. Having such a limited background in science and having come here for information you certainly have gained confidence.

[Van Rijn]

Having such a limited background in science and having come here for information you certainly have gained confidence.

So, JHotz. Would you mind answering what your problem is here? You seem to be especially bothered by Doug1943, and you seem to have a problem with anyone offering an opinion who isn't a professional biologist or a doctor.

This is an astronomy board, and there are a lot of technically oriented folks here. Some are professional scientists, but (shock!) most of those are in astronomy or physics related fields. My degrees are in Computer Science, but I do have formal and informal education in physics, chemistry, and biology. Be that as it may, you aren't talking to idiots here, and frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your attitude.

So, what is your position? Do you agree that, while DU could be slightly more dangerous than lead, and distribution factors may be somewhat different, it doesn't warrant many of the outrageous "scare" stories on the subject?

[SolusLupus]

So you were wrong. I am certain it is not the only thing you are wrong about.

Now that's just insulting. Why are you so threatened? Because we disagree with you? We're not making personal attacks on you, we're attacking the argument itself.

Overwhelming consensus, man you really live in your own little world.

See above.

Maybe that is all you have.

Man, this can go both ways. Maybe that's all YOU have as well. Whaddya think of that? Eh?!

Arguing "Maybe that is all you have." is childish. If you really question his sources, then ask what his sources are. It sounds a LOT more intellectual than saying, "Maybe that is all you have.", and comes off far less insultingly.

Just cannot help babbling about politics can you?

I brought up politics. I made a playful nudge at him based on his conservative views (I disagree with the majority of conservative views personally), but it was all in play. He went into detail about his views for my benefit. I didn't mind reading it, and I liked his viewpoints. Also, this is another case of being plain insulting.

As bad as some claim. That standard is so subjective no one outside you head has any idea what it means. Having such a limited background in science and having come here for information you certainly have gained confidence.

Man, what is your problem? Really? I have a limited background in science as well, that's why I'm not arguing from the scientific standpoint, personally. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't contribute to the discussion at all, and especially not sit back and watch you create ad hominem attacks against another user. There's civility and decorum rules in place here. You know what that means? It means rude comments and ad hominem attacks go bye bye (And that goes into place for Doug, me, AND you, AND every other poster on this forum).

Also, what is the issue here, really? Is DU toxic enough to require extra handling, compared to other toxic materials? Or enough to ban it from warfare?

If so, then why? If not, then why? If you quote sources, are the sources' expertise verifiable? Are there disagreements amongst those of equal expert opinion? If so, how many? What is their evidence?

These are the questions that should be asked. Turning it into an emotional issue does nothing to alleviate the evidence.

[Frog march]

I think JHotz didn't like comments that involved political stereotyping to go unchallenged.

[SolusLupus]

If that's what he thinks, then sure, I can agree with that. However, he never stated such. I'm not going to assume that he "didn't like comments that involved political stereotyping", when the majority of what he said didn't have to do with politics, and were just further attacks on another user.

He merely said, "Just cannot help babbling about politics can you?". This seemed to be just another unprovoked attack on Doug.

If you disagree with "political stereotyping", fine. But making insults on someone and further ad hominem attacks is NOT the way to do it.

[ToSeek]

JHotz, your posts are frequently lacking the civility and decorum expected on this forum, particularly here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=588696&postcount=78), here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=586877&postcount=58), and here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=585154&postcount=25) You are repeatedly attacking the person behind the post rather than the content of the post itself, which is a directly violation of the "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them" in Rule Two of Rules for Posting to this Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).

Since this is your first warning, you won't be banned for this, but since you've already made multiple violations, any further transgressions will dealt with mercilessly.

Meanwhile, Doug, mentioning your political leanings is not a violation of the rules, but I think it's producing much more heat than light in this discussion. I don't think it's necessary, and it's probably best avoided.

[SolusLupus]

...but I think it's producing much more heat than light in this discussion.

I like that line. I don't know why, but I really really do.

By the way, I apologize if my poking fun at Doug's political leanings was also producing heat. I tried to lighten the mood, not make it worse.

[JHotz]

Thank you for responding to my postSo, JHotz. Would you mind answering what your problem is here? I do not have a problem. It seems from this post that you have a problem with the exchange-taking place between Doug and I. Why? Do you think Doug could use a little help? Do you think Doug’s arguments could use a little help? Do you think I should just accept his position and arguments? You seem to be especially bothered by Doug1943,I must say I do not prefer Doug’s way of arguing. I do not believe he speaks directly to a position. I think he instead uses familiar emotionally charged language to redirect the discussion in a way that he will find more traction with. Like talking about a charlatan he knows of who says DU is bad instead addressing the point of DU smoke and drift. In order for my mental processes to meet his I have to address the tactics he is using to avoid actual discussion. and you seem to have a problem with anyone offering an opinion who isn't a professional biologist or a doctor.Doug said he came here because he new there were scientists who posted here and he wanted their opinion; therefore it is he who holds this position. I do not believe the term Scientists applies to anyone in an authoritative context. A scientist is anyone who attempts to use the scientific method. The idea that scientists have better is ideas is extremely misguided.

This is an astronomy board, and there are a lot of technically oriented folks here. Some are professional scientists, but (shock!) most of those are in astronomy or physics related fields. I agree. That is why I am here.My degrees are in Computer Science, but I do have formal and informal education in physics, chemistry, and biology.I am not sure of the relevance here. Perhaps you could clarify how this relates to the text you follow it with. Be that as it may, you aren't talking to idiots here,You structured this sentence in a way that suggest the first part supports the conclusion of the second. You are saying that you formal and informal chemistry, physics, ect show that there are no idiots here. I do not see the connection. Furthermore what do you mean by idiots? and frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your attitude.Now you understand how I feel about Doug’s political attacks while he say someone else is politicizing the issue.

So, what is your position? Do you agree that, while DU could be slightly more dangerous than lead, and distribution factors may be somewhat different, it doesn't warrant many of the outrageous "scare" stories on the subject?I disagree with your statement in several ways.while DU could be slightly more dangerous than lead, This is the smoke screen DU advocates constantly use. If DU is only as toxic as lead it needs to be severely restricted. Lead is very toxic.and distribution factors may be somewhat different,Somewhat different! Now you must be deliberately mischaracterizing. It burns as much as 70% of the DU projectiles mass becomes finely particulated. These fine particles will travel as far as 25 miles. The particles become embedded in the lungs and stomach. It is also highly chemically reactive and quickly breaks down into the water supply.it doesn't warrant many of the outrageous "scare" stories on the subject?Since you have labeled them outrageous then of course they are not warranted. It is just as well that some outrageousness does not illegitimise the threat. Many of the posters here think that they key element is DU radioactivity rather than its chemical toxicity and pollution vectors. In this way the outrageous radioactivity scare is a smokescreen to focus on and disprove while it is not the real issue.

[Gillianren]

I felt, and I'm sure many others of us felt, that all political references were to give context to the discussion that created his questions. In fact, he's now said that he doesn't lump all people into one group based on political affiliation. If anyone seems to be doing that, it sure isn't Doug.

[JHotz]

Now that's just insulting. Why are you so threatened? Because we disagree with you? We're not making personal attacks on you, we're attacking the argument itself.Perhaps my comment about Doug being wrong and it not being the only time were a bit heated. Please consider the nature of Doug’s argument. Doug maintains that if he can find one error, misrepresentation, mistake, or lie then the person is a charlatan and everything they say is disproven. I was attempting to apply his own standard to himself if somewhat sarcastically.Overwhelming consensus, man you really live in your own little world.
See above.So it is legitimate to claim that there is overwhelming consensus that DU is safe? When it is banned by the UN?Maybe that is all you have.Man, this can go both ways. Maybe that's all YOU have as well. Whaddya think of that? Eh?!

Arguing "Maybe that is all you have." is childish. If you really question his sources, then ask what his sources are. It sounds a LOT more intellectual than saying, "Maybe that is all you have.", and comes off far less insultingly.Perhaps. I would say that it is Doug who is labeling one person after another not me. It is Doug that seems to find some discrediting fact about every expert he brings forth that disagrees with his position. I think Doug would smear anyone necessary rather then face the real issues of DU chemical toxicity and pollution vectors. These facts are not disputed by anyone. Doug refuses to discuss these issues and returns to his old trick perhaps that is all he has.I brought up politics. I made a playful nudge at him based on his conservative views (I disagree with the majority of conservative views personally), but it was all in play. He went into detail about his views for my benefit. I didn't mind reading it, and I liked his viewpoints. Also, this is another case of being plain insulting.If that is the case he detailed his view in a way that very stereotypical and insulting. I simple took him to task on those view in the context of a nonpolitical website.
Man, what is your problem? Really? I have a limited background in science as well, that's why I'm not arguing from the scientific standpoint, personally. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't contribute to the discussion at all, and especially not sit back and watch you create ad hominem attacks against another user. There's civility and decorum rules in place here. You know what that means? It means rude comments and ad hominem attacks go bye bye (And that goes into place for Doug, me, AND you, AND every other poster on this forum). I see. So your insult of calling me childish is acceptable then.
Also, what is the issue here, really? Is DU toxic enough to require extra handling, compared to other toxic materials? Or enough to ban it from warfare?That would depend on what you consider acceptable levels of risk and pollution to be.
If so, then why? If not, then why? If you quote sources, are the sources' expertise verifiable? Are there disagreements amongst those of equal expert opinion? If so, how many? What is their evidence?The article at this link provides all this information. It is one of Doug’s own links. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

These are the questions that should be asked. Turning it into an emotional issue does nothing to alleviate the evidence.I agree.

[Gullible Jones]

From Wikipedia:


According to the UN, the resolutions in 1996-97 were passed because DU breaches several international laws concerning inhumane weapons: it is not limited in time or space to the legal field of battle, or to military targets; it continues to act after the war; it is "inhumane" by virtue of its ability to cause prolonged or long term death by cancer and other serious health issues, it causes harm to future civilians and passers by (including unborn children and those breathing the air or drinking water); and it has an "unduly negative" and long term effect on the natural environment and food chain. In detail:

1. Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. DU shells burn into fine particles which remain in the air or the environment. So they affect others over a wide range, and future passers-by, with uranium poisoning.
2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.
3. Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. Weapons that cause cancer and illness long after the war are widely considered to be legally "inhumane". Health issues to unborn children and civilians may also be crimes against humanity under international law.
4. Weapons may not have an "unduly negative" effect on the natural environment. The dust from DU impact becomes widespread in the environment, and (as with other heavy metals) becomes highly concentrated within living beings and the food chain.


What can I say - what radiation doesn't do, chemistry does. This would appear to settle the issue.

[Joff]

what radiation doesn't do, chemistry does.I agree that you need to consider the total effect in making a decision on DU. However the best available information is that chemical toxicity is all that actually needs to be considered.
This would appear to settle the issue.Not really. The definitions you give of inhumane weapons in isolation could be applied to almost anything used on the battlefield - declaring all weapons inhumane. The only benefit of listing inhumane weapons is to draw a line and indicate that the most horrendous weapons will bring huge negative impacts from the international community, so limiting conflicts (is the hope) to more controlled and restricted affairs. It is in fact a matter of degree. Putting everything on the list - or putting material arbitrarily on the list - removes that constraining influence. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

The full list given by this 1996 UN report (http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/SUBCOM/resolutions/E-CN_4-SUB_2-RES-1996-16.doc) is: nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium.

I don't have a more recent list but I certainly hope that landmines have been included, which I consider far more hazardous than DU. Oddly enough no mention is made of non-depleted uranium (ie. in its natural isotopic mix). Perhaps this is a loophole which will be exploited by arms manufacturers. I suspect DU weapons got onto the list as one of Saddam's many adroit PR moves.

[Frog march]

2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.


I think supplying arms to terrorists/rebels would fall under this category as America(as an example) would not be officially at war.
Or maybe arms supply is covered under another rule.

[Doug1943]

JHotz: here is my original post.

Could anyone help me out on the subject of Depleted Uranium?

I have been reading a lot about this recently, and in particular how the United States is poisoning the world by using it in its weapons in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

On the one hand, as a conservative, I am suspicious of these criticisms of our military, especially since some of the people making them seem to be hate-America types with little technical knowledge.

On the other hand, as a conservative, I am willing to believe that government often fouls things up. So maybe it has in this case.

And as someone who believes in getting objective evidence before deciding on something, I would like to hear from some scientists on this.

One side:
http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html

I was immediately prejudiced against this Rokke fellow when I read his belief that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not a hijacked airplane. So I did some Googling and found:

Another side:
http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html

So, does anyone else have any real information about DU?

Doug
And you said: I would say that it is Doug who is labeling one person after another not me. It is Doug that seems to find some discrediting fact about every expert he brings forth that disagrees with his position. I think Doug would smear anyone necessary rather then face the real issues of DU chemical toxicity and pollution vectors. These facts are not disputed by anyone. Doug refuses to discuss these issues and returns to his old trick perhaps that is all he has.I do not think any reasonable person can read my post above, or subsequent ones, and draw your conclusions.

I get the impression you think DU is very, very bad, due to its chemical, not its radioactive, properties. It's not clear to me whether you think it is much worse than, say, lead, but I suspect you would find a reason to oppose the deployment of any weapons system, provided it was used by the Americans.

You haven't given me any reasons here. In fact, the best anti-DU paper was one I supplied. I assume you are not a scientist (and I'm not talking about paper credentials but about background knowledge and experience). I'm not either. I can recognize charlatans pretty well though, and it's obvious the folks I cited are just that. It's because I wanted some professional judgements on the issue that I came here, mistakenly.

I think we're flogging a dead horse here. So how about another discussion: someone told me that dihydrogen oxide is very, very dangerous. Apparently hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by it. And the wicked Americans are evidently giving it to the Iraqi people!

Doug

[ranugad]

further transgressions will dealt with mercilessly

Sylvia Browne says by Sunday, midnight. ;o{)


It's because I wanted some professional judgements on the issue that I came here, mistakenly.

italics are mine...but no, I'm glad you did.
Some good wheat amongst the chafe{sic}.


Now if only some of the chaff would quit the handwaving (now that the ad hominem attacks have been subjagated) the real threat of DU can be guaged so the decision between them dying from DU vs us dying from their continued use of the tanks can be made by the lesser of 2 evils.

I suspect the answer as DU rounds are still being distributed to the troops.
And if I were a STUMP (read:stupid tanker under military protection - ;o{P) or a DAT, I'd prefer them DU tipped rounds.

[JHotz]

I get the impression you think DU is very, very bad, due to its chemical, not its radioactive, properties.There are no absolute certainties in life. I personally find the pollution vector of DU munitions likely enough to justify not using it in this manner. It's not clear to me whether you think it is much worse than, say, lead,I say it again and again and it just does not seem to get through to you. I do not have a meaningful scale to compare lead to DU. If DU is only as toxic as lead then its pollution vector from it use as a munition would warrant discontinuing its use in that fashion. but I suspect you would find a reason to oppose the deployment of any weapons system, provided it was used by the Americans.I have never said anything to that effect. It is one more of your pure fabrications to avoid addressing my consistant and clearly stated positions. Lame very lame.You haven't given me any reasons here. In fact, the best anti-DU paper was one I supplied.Yes it is true you supplied a paper that completely negates you position. How does the fact that you supplied it have any bearing on its veracity? I assume you are not a scientist (and I'm not talking about paper credentials but about background knowledge and experience). I'm not either. I can recognize charlatans pretty well though, and it's obvious the folks I cited are just that. It's because I wanted some professional judgements on the issue that I came here, mistakenly.Ah ahahaaaa I know you are just trying to bait me into getting banned with that bit of prattle. No way. Not responding.I think we're flogging a dead horse here. So how about another discussion: someone told me that dihydrogen oxide is very, very dangerous. Apparently hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by it. And the wicked Americans are evidently giving it to the Iraqi people!

DougThe old dihydrogen oxide bit. How clever. I think you are grasping a bit. Goodbye Doug.

[SG-1 Fan]

I say it again and again and it just does not seem to get through to you. I do not have a meaningful scale to compare lead to DU

JHotz, please direct me to the previous post(s) where you stated that you "...do not have a meaningful scale to compare lead to DU".

Thank you in avance - Keith

[JHotz]

JHotz, please direct me to the previous post(s) where you stated that you "...do not have a meaningful scale to compare lead to DU".

Thank you in avance - KeithWell Keith the actual complete quote was I say it again and again and it just does not seem to get through to you. I do not have a meaningful scale to compare lead to DU. If DU is only as toxic as lead then its pollution vector from it use as a munition would warrant discontinuing its use in that fashion.The part that had been repeated wasthis If DU is only as toxic as lead then its pollution vector from it use as a munition would warrant discontinuing its use in that fashionI have said it in every post I have made on this thread.

[JHotz]

Sylvia Browne says by Sunday, midnight. ;o{)




italics are mine...but no, I'm glad you did.
Some good wheat amongst the chafe{sic}.


Now if only some of the chaff would quit the handwaving (now that the ad hominem attacks have been subjagated) the real threat of DU can be guaged so the decision between them dying from DU vs us dying from their continued use of the tanks can be made by the lesser of 2 evils.

I suspect the answer as DU rounds are still being distributed to the troops.
And if I were a STUMP (read:stupid tanker under military protection - ;o{P) or a DAT, I'd prefer them DU tipped rounds.DU is essential to the American fighting mans survival. This is how every polluter justifies their practice. It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective. The DU apologists are so in love with the romance of a supposedly unstoppable killing machine have lost the capacity to conceptualize a world with more than on choice. The only reason to keep using it is to protect the vested interest.

The best you can do is resurrect that tired old argument and you say my posts are chaff.

[JHotz]

I vaguely recall something about a US tank in the 1st gulf war that it had claimed was destroyed by the Iraqi's. However, it had been destroyed by a DU shell which could only have been fired by another US tank. I think there had been repeated denials that it had been friendly fire, and/or a cover-up of some description. Is this ringing any bells?
I believe the Russians deployed DU tank rounds first. I is therefore not unconceivable for US crews to be on the receiving end of DU in Iraq.

[ASEI]

DU is essential to the American fighting mans survival. This is how every polluter justifies their practice. It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective.

This is how every "polluter" justifies their practice. Cause you know, we "polluters" just want to pollute on general principle. :evil:

If there were alternatives better than DU, we'd be using them. Cheaper? We like cheaper. More effective? We're always looking for better ways to blow things up, to reduce the risk of war to our soldiers, ect.
Our design engineers in our militaries aren't stupid. There are whole armies of them who go to work every day to conceptualize new ways to improve the military. Or do they have some sort of inexplicable, no doubt ultra-sinister, ulterior motives? Perhaps it's just part of their nature as "polluters" to favor technologies that pollute things?

[JHotz]

Thank you for reponding to my postThis is how every "polluter" justifies their practice. Cause you know, we "polluters" just want to pollute on general principle. :evil: This is a deliberate exaggerated mischaracterization of what I said. I never used the word Evil are any term that means that. How are you personally connected to DU.

If there were alternatives better than DU, we'd be using them.Once again with this “we” are you in the munitions procurement business? It is very naïve to think that effectiveness is the only criteria for weapon systems. There are all kinds of political issue in addition to the militaries own bureaucratic morass that goes into those decisions. Cheaper? We like cheaper. More effective? We're always looking for better ways to blow things up, to reduce the risk of war to our soldiers, ect.
Our design engineers in our militaries aren't stupid.Engineers do not make procurement decisions. There are whole armies of them who go to work every day to conceptualize new ways to improve the military. Or do they have some sort of inexplicable, no doubt ultra-sinister, ulterior motives? Perhaps it's just part of their nature as "polluters" to favor technologies that pollute things?Your are rambling a bit.

[ASEI]

This is a deliberate exaggerated mischaracterization of what I said. I was attempting to be sarcastic. The evil smiley just went along with the exxagerated image that came to mind.

[Joff]

What alternatives were you thinking of JH, that are better and cheaper?

[SG-1 Fan]

JHotz, I have read every post in this thread, and I am not convinced that you ever iterated your position on pollution vector until post #93. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Kebsis]

There are a number of very strange and inaccurate ideas in your original post Jhotz, where did you get that information?

[SolusLupus]

I see. So your insult of calling me childish is acceptable then.

Right and wrong. If I called you childish, then that would be an insult directed towards you. I called what you did rather childish. I do childish things as well, and I would be glad if someone called me on it.

For instance, if I said, "I know you are, but what am I?", then you said, "Now you're just being childish", I wouldn't have taken it as a personal insult. Especially since I know that my friends and family would say the same thing. You see what I'm saying?

Other than that, I don't have much else to say.

Edit: Whoa, I was reading Page 3, didn't know this got to page 4. This post is kinda old news. But I was gone for a couple days, so I'll call it lag. ^_^

[RobWolfe]

There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective.

I believe there are some tactical nuclear weapons that are so efficient they have little or no radioactive fallout and un-protected troops can occupy the area in a very short amount of time. I don't remember where I read it but it had something to do with not having to use a fission reaction to start the fusion reaction so there is no un-used radioactive material. If this is true (I may be totally wrong here) wouldn't it be safer to use a small nuke on that column of tanks rather than firing thousands of rounds of DU to achieve the same goal?

On edit: OK I did a little research into this and found that the pure fusion weapons are still only theoretical. However, if perfected they would yield no radioactive by products and could be configured to be very low yield weapons. So I'll change the post around a little and pose a question. If a low yield pure fusion weapon could be created, would it be preferrable to using DU rounds. It seems that the benifits would be: No toxic or radioactive by products, No radioactivity risks to troops transporting or storing the weapons, "Dial-a-yield" ablility to configure your weapon to suit a specific target, an EM pulse that could take out un-shielded electronics and communications for enemy troops not directly targeted with the weapon. What would the negatives of this be? I am sure there would be quite a bit of international uproar over this but other than that...

[SolusLupus]

There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective.

I believe there are some tactical nuclear weapons that are so efficient they have little or no radioactive fallout and un-protected troops can occupy the area in a very short amount of time. I don't remember where I read it but it had something to do with not having to use a fission reaction to start the fusion reaction so there is no un-used radioactive material. If this is true (I may be totally wrong here) wouldn't it be safer to use a small nuke on that column of tanks rather than firing thousands of rounds of DU to achieve the same goal?

Okay, I'm VERY suspicious about this. I don't know enough to debunk anything, though.

However, I might add that I doubt that tanks always keep that tight a formation, especially in combat. You'd need them to be in a tight formation to get them all with a single nuclear weapon that doesn't have a HUGE radius. And a nuclear weapon to be used with a HUGE radius would have to always be out there in the middle of the wilderness. The enemy would learn and just keep their tanks in urban areas. After all, why deploy tanks or anti-tank weaponry at all if you could just destroy tanks with a bomb?

[JMV]

There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective.

I believe there are some tactical nuclear weapons that are so efficient they have little or no radioactive fallout and un-protected troops can occupy the area in a very short amount of time. I don't remember where I read it but it had something to do with not having to use a fission reaction to start the fusion reaction so there is no un-used radioactive material. If this is true (I may be totally wrong here) wouldn't it be safer to use a small nuke on that column of tanks rather than firing thousands of rounds of DU to achieve the same goal?
How do you initiate fusion reaction in a weapon without fission trigger? As far as I know this has never been done and I'm very doubtful of it ever succeeding, or any time soon at least. Nuclear fusion requires temperatures of dozens of millions of degrees, you know. It would be very difficult to achieve these temperatures without fission bomb, in a weapon of course. Fusion reactors are different.

[Joff]

There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective.
We're all still waiting for JHotz's better & cheaper method.
I believe there are some tactical nuclear weapons that are so efficient they have little or no radioactive fallout and un-protected troops can occupy the area in a very short amount of time. I don't remember where I read it but it had something to do with not having to use a fission reaction to start the fusion reaction so there is no un-used radioactive material. If this is true (I may be totally wrong here) wouldn't it be safer to use a small nuke on that column of tanks rather than firing thousands of rounds of DU to achieve the same goal?
No. What you are describing is an entirely imaginary weapon, and one that would be deservedly banned as a weapon of mass destruction. A hypothetical pure-fusion bomb that could obliterate (say) a 2-kilometre radius of tanks would generate a lot of fallout from the central 500m radius. "Thousands of rounds of DU" generate a tiny post-battle risk by comparison.

[RobWolfe]

To JMV and Joff. You are correct. I edited my post to reflect that this is indeed only a theoretical weapon

[Kebsis]

I'd imagine that the biggest drawback of nuclear bullets would be the cost. Why bother making something so expensive when cheap DU is available and can take out most armor in one shot?

Here's a interesting and fair article about the history of DUs use as a military weapon, particularly interesting is why it was chosen over tungsten penetrators.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

[JHotz]

What alternatives were you thinking of JH, that are better and cheaper?
By asking me this question are you suggesting that you do not agree? Is your position that DU is the ultimate anti armor munition? In other words there will never be another anti tank round that performs better than DU? I do not know what the next innovation will be but I am absolutely certain it will come. Are you not certain of this?

[JHotz]

JHotz, I have read every post in this thread, and I am not convinced that you ever iterated your position on pollution vector until post #93. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.Yes you are wrong.

[JHotz]

There are a number of very strange and inaccurate ideas in your original post Jhotz, where did you get that information?
I am not in your head. You must provide a little more context in you questions.

[SolusLupus]

By asking me this question are you suggesting that you do not agree? Is your position that DU is the ultimate anti armor munition? In other words there will never be another anti tank round that performs better than DU? I do not know what the next innovation will be but I am absolutely certain it will come. Are you not certain of this?

Maybe someday we will design a better round than Depleted Uranium. No one ever said otherwise. But someday is not today.

If there is a better device we can use that's cheaper and safer, then please point it out - the militaries would probably thank you. But until we find them, the militaries would need to use SOMETHING...

Also:
I am not in your head. You must provide a little more context in you questions.

That's especially funny, coming after:

Yes you are wrong.

A) I could say the EXACT SAME THING to you.

B) It was very rude to say, "Yes you are wrong" straight out like that.

[JHotz]

Right and wrong. If I called you childish, then that would be an insult directed towards you. I called what you did rather childish. I do childish things as well, and I would be glad if someone called me on it.

For instance, if I said, "I know you are, but what am I?", then you said, "Now you're just being childish", I wouldn't have taken it as a personal insult. Especially since I know that my friends and family would say the same thing. You see what I'm saying?

Other than that, I don't have much else to say.

Edit: Whoa, I was reading Page 3, didn't know this got to page 4. This post is kinda old news. But I was gone for a couple days, so I'll call it lag. ^_^You should be a politician. The word games you play to avoid responsibility for you statements are quite transparent to any lucid reader. Why not own up to you own hypocrisy? You will gain more respect for you views in the long run.

[JHotz]

Sylvia Browne says by Sunday, midnight. ;o{)
Still here Sylvia.

[Van Rijn]

You should be a politician. The word games you play to avoid responsibility for you statements are quite transparent to any lucid reader. Why not own up to you own hypocrisy? You will gain more respect for you views in the long run.

Word games? Such as answering a straightforward question with an accusatory question?


What alternatives were you thinking of JH, that are better and cheaper?
By asking me this question are you suggesting that you do not agree? Is your position that DU is the ultimate anti armor munition?

He asked a question. Do you have an answer?

[SolusLupus]

You should be a politician.

Well, someone DID try to convince me to try to become President of the United States...

[JHotz]

Word games? Such as answering a straightforward question with an accusatory question?



He asked a question. Do you have an answer?The answer, made clear by reading the entire post is this. I do not know what the better munition is specifically. I am, rather, completely certain that a better alternative exist and will be adopted at some point.

[Joff]

It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective. The DU apologists are so in love with the romance of a supposedly unstoppable killing machine have lost the capacity to conceptualize a world with more than one choice. The answer, made clear by reading the entire post is this. I do not know what the better munition is specifically. I am, rather, completely certain that a better alternative exist and will be adopted at some point.So the argument that DU is an important component of the military's arsenal is effectively still standing, and your description of that argument as "total garbage" is demolished.

Fortunately Van Rijn has taken most of the sting out of your hostile response to a question that I went out of my way to phrase as neutrally as possible.

[JHotz]

Thank you for reponding to my post.It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective. The DU apologists are so in love with the romance of a supposedly unstoppable killing machine have lost the capacity to conceptualize a world with more than one choiceThe answer, made clear by reading the entire post is this. I do not know what the better munition is specifically. I am, rather, completely certain that a better alternative exist and will be adopted at some point.So the argument that DU is an important component of the military's arsenal is effectively still standing, and your description of that argument as "total garbage" is demolished.
Forgive me. I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.

[JHotz]

Maybe someday we will design a better round than Depleted Uranium. No one ever said otherwise. But someday is not today.It could be today. If DU had been determined to be unusable then an alternative would have been found in short order. While DU is there an alternative will probable not be found.

If there is a better device we can use that's cheaper and safer, then please point it out - the militaries would probably thank you. But until we find them, the militaries would need to use SOMETHING...I am afraid you have the whole cause and effect turned around here.

Also:


That's especially funny, coming after:



A) I could say the EXACT SAME THING to you.

B) It was very rude to say, "Yes you are wrong" straight out like that.Well when you are asked a straightforward question.

[JHotz]

Thank you for reponding to my post.It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective. The DU apologists are so in love with the romance of a supposedly unstoppable killing machine have lost the capacity to conceptualize a world with more than one choiceThe answer, made clear by reading the entire post is this. I do not know what the better munition is specifically. I am, rather, completely certain that a better alternative exist and will be adopted at some point.So the argument that DU is an important component of the military's arsenal is effectively still standing, and your description of that argument as "total garbage" is demolished.
Forgive me. I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.

[Van Rijn]

Thank you for reponding to my post.Forgive me. I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.

Oh, sure, that makes sense.

DU isn't being used because it was the best choice under the circumstances, but because it removes the incentive to find a better alternative. And you have no idea what it would be, but you know there is a better alternative. Obviously, we would have it ... if it weren't for DU.

:wall:

What was that about "cause and effect"? By the way, you don't happen to know Sparky, do you? You seem to have similar ideas about "logic."

[JHotz]

I have heard of DU being used in tank rounds, naval gun rounds, antiaircraft guns, helicopter cannon rounds, A-10 thunderbolt 30 mm cannon rounds. I have heard of its consideration for use in bunker busters as well.
Due to DU penetrating prowess and the growing acceptance of its polluting nature its use will undoubtedly continue to be expanded. What new uses for DU could there be?

Rifle and pistol rounds
Body armor
Hand grenades
Bombs
Missiles
Rockets
Land mines
Demolition charges

It seems to me DU is better than just about anything else in these applications and therefore essential for the US fighting mans safety. I would like to know everyone’s opinion on what level of use is appropriate.

Now consider that future battlefield opponents will probable adopt DU use at the same level. Is it worth sacrificing the international banning of this substance, that could have stopped it us, just to gain a temporary edge over an opponent we are already far superior to.

[JHotz]

Oh, sure, that makes sense.

DU isn't being used because it was the best choice under the circumstances, but because it removes the incentive to find a better alternative. And you have no idea what it would be, but you know there is a better alternative. Obviously, we would have it ... if it weren't for DU. I did not say DU was used because it removes the incentive to find an alternative. I said the alternatives had not been found because DU had removed the incentive to find them.

:wall:

What was that about "cause and effect"? By the way, you don't happen to know Sparky, do you? You seem to have similar ideas about "logic."Perhaps it is clear to you now that I corrected you characterization of my position. It might help if you think about you post for a while before you hit submit.

[JHotz]

There is some doubt of the effectiveness of the US strategic antimissile defense system. Lets make a hypothetical assumption that the system could be made effective with the use of nuclear tipped interception missiles.

Would this use of nuclear weapons be acceptable?

Now lets consider the same use for a tactical antimissile defense system. Would this be an acceptable use of nuclear weapons?

Nuclear bunker busters?

I believe Iraq was at least partially effective in stopping air attacks by lighting oil well heads on fire. Would this be an acceptable strategy for the US?

[Van Rijn]

A few posts back you said:

DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.


And now you said (bolding added):

I did not say DU was used because it removes the incentive to find an alternative.


You might want to keep track of what you wrote in previous posts. It saves embarassment.

You are assuming there is a better alternative and basing your argument on that. You have provided no evidence that there is a better alternative and you have given no good reason why the military would be opposed to a better alternative. For that matter, you haven't even defined what you mean by "better." Until you present evidence for these "better alternatives" you have nothing to argue.

[JHotz]

A few posts back you said:



And now you said (bolding added):



You might want to keep track of what you wrote in previous posts. It saves embarassment.

You are assuming there is a better alternative and basing your argument on that. You have provided no evidence that there is a better alternative and you have given no good reason why the military would be opposed to a better alternative. For that matter, you haven't even defined what you mean by "better." Until you present evidence for these "better alternatives" you have nothing to argue.You think that by removing the context of my statement and therefore changing it’s meaning invalidates it? You are hopeless.

[tyrie2001]

I have a question. What exactly are the advantages/disadvantages of using DU rounds against tanks compared to other anti-tank weapons? Ie - missiles, RPG's etc. I ask because I have little knowledge on the subject, and am curious as to why we use DU rounds, after all, there are many different ways to blow up/disable a tank.

[Frog march]

I have a question. What exactly are the advantages/disadvantages of using DU rounds against tanks compared to other anti-tank weapons?

apparantly they're self sharpening and they produce a cloud of dust which explodes inside the enemy tank. charming.

[captain swoop]

DU rounds are cheap and can be fired from a gun. they have good penetrating power because unlike Tungsten they are 'self sharpening' and have better penetration. (Germany have a new 'sintered' Tungsten round that they claim is also self sharpening but it costs more and is unproven)
Missiles are limited by the size of the warhead, the bigge rit is the bigger the missile and therefore the bigger the launch system. Russia have a gun launched system but it's warhead is quite small as it has to launch through the gun barrel. If a 'bin' system or external launch system is used there is always the problem of reloads, either you have to get out and do it or open a big hole in the vehicle to pass the rounds tgrough. Missile guidance systems can also be jammed by countermeasures. So called 'Wire guided' missile systems exist (Milan, Swingfire etc) but they are limited in range.

[Joff]

It is total garbage. There are alternatives that are better than DU. There are better ways to destroy tanks. These ways are cheaper as well as more effective. The DU apologists are so in love with the romance of a supposedly unstoppable killing machine have lost the capacity to conceptualize a world with more than one choice. The answer, made clear by reading the entire post is this. I do not know what the better munition is specifically. I am, rather, completely certain that a better alternative exist and will be adopted at some point.So the argument that DU is an important component of the military's arsenal is effectively still standing, and your description of that argument as "total garbage" is demolished.I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.
So initially you assert that there are "better ways to destroy tanks" than DU that are "cheaper as well as more effective". Then you are "certain that a better alternative exist". And now DU "takes away the impetus to find a better alternative". And you still don't feel that your argument is demolished? I think it's time you acknowledged that you were overreaching in your inital statement. How about it?

[JHotz]

So initially you assert that there are "better ways to destroy tanks" than DU that are "cheaper as well as more effective". Then you are "certain that a better alternative exist". And now DU "takes away the impetus to find a better alternative". And you still don't feel that your argument is demolished? I think it's time you acknowledged that you were overreaching in your inital statement. How about it?
These points do not contradict each other. They do not represent a change in my position. I still believe in each one as well as all of them collectively. Perhaps if you iterated you opposing view we could have a clear exchange of ideas. At any rate it is a bit tedious for you to post the same thing repeatedly and behave as though it is a substitute for real dialogue.

[SolusLupus]

Jhotz - You're very sure there are better alternatives. Yet you don't know of any.

Considering you seem to be working off rampant speculation and assumption, my time is wasted here. Ciao.

[Joff]

These points do not contradict each other. They do not represent a change in my position. I still believe in each one as well as all of them collectively. Perhaps if you iterated you opposing view we could have a clear exchange of ideas. At any rate it is a bit tedious for you to post the same thing repeatedly and behave as though it is a substitute for real dialogue.It is laughable that you think you have not shifted your position. It indicates that any discussion will be on constantly shifting ground. Until you relent on this point there is no hope of having a sensible discussion with you.

[JHotz]

It is laughable that you think you have not shifted your position. It indicates that any discussion will be on constantly shifting ground. Until you relent on this point there is no hope of having a sensible discussion with you.
The sintered tungsten post scared you off huh? Well I for one am glad it is over then.

[Joff]

The sintered tungsten post scared you off huh? Well I for one am glad it is over then.An excellent example of your illogic. A moe expensive and unproven alternative can in your eyes be better and cheaper. My advice is, stop digging.

[LurchGS]

A while back somebody suggested that the munitions system will choose political hackery over efficiency and cost. I would counter-suggest that such a claim is pure bunk. The only time political hackery has anything to do with chosing one weapon over another is when the two have been demonstrated to be essentially the same (in terms of effectiveness and cost).

The pentagon designs some results they want and ships the result off to the various weapons people who design weapons to get those results. Owing to physics and chemistry, a weapon designed to do X will look and act very much like any other weapon designed to do X.

Also, contrary to a common opinion I've heard expressed (not necessarily here), the military hierarch would vastly prefer than none of our soldiers be killed, or even injured. Each casualty is lost expense with no further gain. An expended round is an expense, but it has a beneficial effect (for our side) - either keeping the bad guy down in his hole, or removing him from the arena . When you get right down to is, logistics (expense) are what decide any battle/war.

This brings me back to DU. If there were a better system available, the military would use it. In the course of it's penetrating the hull of a tank (for instance) a DU round generates a heck of a lot of heat - *that* is what kills the tank crew on the receiving end. Metalic gasses at obscene (as far as my fingers are concerned) temperatures tend to do bad things to living tissue.

I notice, too, in all this conversation, nobody has brought up the poisonous effect of explosives and or propellant used in a war theater. After a battle, there is all maner of residue - both burned and unburned - from these chemicals. Maybe we should go back to bow and arrow to preserve the environment and the people that will live on that battleground in years to come.

Joff - I think when Jhotz mentioned better and cheaper ways of killing tanks as 'existing', he should probably have used 'possible'. "existing" - as you and I seem to understand it, implies that the weapons system that meets his critera have actually been built. If it has, it will be available shortly.

Regarding his contention that "[DU] takes away the impetus to find a better alternative", well, that's just plain ludicrous as I've explained above.

A while back, somebody posted the UN list of banned weapons. I think the one thing they all have in common - with the exception of DU rounds, is that they all have demonstrated a serious poisoning effect on the environment that lingers well after the battle has been fought.

Then there's this list of "what's next for DU?"

Rifle and pistol rounds
Body armor
Hand grenades
Bombs
Missiles
Rockets
Land mines
Demolition charges

Even considering the alarmist context, let's consider these possibilities.

Let's start by considering why DU is used instead of another substance. I think, from the conversation here, we can accept 'penetration' as the primary reason.

What's it significantly better at penetrating? Armor! Lead is a soft metal, and as such, just plain sucks at penetrating hard metals. Kinetic energy is converted to heat energy and the lead just flattens and falls off. Lead of sufficient quantity woud work, but the delivery system would become unwieldy and very difficult to use.

In the whole list, missiles and bombs are the only weapons not targeted at individual humans. Humans can't realistically carry enough armor to protect themselves from lead projectiles (through use of coatings, such as teflon or coppper). Lead is cheap and easy to work with. It's going to stay as the mainstay of one-on-one combat for the foreseeable future.

The same applies to land mines and hand grenades - instead of lead, they tend to scatter steel/iron around at relatively high velocity. In general, bad things happen to living flesh when these vectors intersect.

Bombs are area effect weapons. The purpose here is to knock out large stationary installations - bridges, buildings, etc. Kinetic shock - that is, energy transferance from ordinance to structure is needed here. DU would go right through, imparting little energy to the structure, and leaving it full of holes, but still standing. (this same argument applies to demolitions)

Rockets and Missiles.. these are delivery systems, not weapons systems in and of themselves. They are considerably slower than muzzle-fired projectiles, so some form of accelleration device (oh, let's not call it a "gun") would need to be included to make any kind of armor piercing round effective.

I think that puts paid to that.

As for the suggestion that some form of 'clean' nuke be used... tactical weapons are messy. But nobody brought up the bugaboo weapon of the 80s: the Neutron Bomb. Of course, you'd want to make sure your own soldiers were nowhere near ground zero - wooops! I guess that makes it a bad thing for use in a battle! (note, we're completely ignoring the relative cost / effectiveness of the relative weapons, here)

Finally, to return to the original question in the OP, I have yet to see any credible evidence that indicates that DU is any more hazardous to non-combatants than any other weapons system.

-----------

I may not be a professional scientist, but I can still think for myself.

[Joff]

Lurch, thanks for that excellent analysis of why DU is not a "magic bullet" - it's good for some targets and useless for others. Incidentally my first post on this thread included the idea that "there are quite enough other compounds out there on a former battlefield which are far more harmful", and I'm glad you took the chance to reiterate that point.

I'd like to revisit one point about the banned weapons list, though. It appears to me that DU is on that list thanks largely to the efforts of Saddam Hussein. I may be wrong and I welcome counter-evidence, but the UN documents I have seen debating this idea are always dominated by long and emotive speeches from the Iraqi delegate.

[JHotz]

Also, contrary to a common opinion I've heard expressed (not necessarily here), the military hierarch would vastly prefer than none of our soldiers be killed, or even injured. Each casualty is lost expense with no further gain. An expended round is an expense, but it has a beneficial effect (for our side) - either keeping the bad guy down in his hole, or removing him from the arena . When you get right down to is, logistics (expense) are what decide any battle/war. Seems to me the cheapest alternative is to fight through a proxy or hire mercenaries as they are cheaper than American lives or is there more to the equation than just cost?I notice, too, in all this conversation, nobody has brought up the poisonous effect of explosives and or propellant used in a war theater. Perhaps it was not brought up because the post is not about that. Not all pollutants are the same. The military is one of the biggest polluter it is true and some regulations have been and will continue to be imposed to curtail this pollution.After a battle, there is all maner of residue - both burned and unburned - from these chemicals. Maybe we should go back to bow and arrow to preserve the environment and the people that will live on that battleground in years to come.I do not think you can win many conflicts that way.Joff - I think when Jhotz mentioned better and cheaper ways of killing tanks as 'existing', he should probably have used 'possible'. "existing" - as you and I seem to understand it, implies that the weapons system that meets his critera have actually been built. If it has, it will be available shortly.Using the word possible implies a measure of doubt on my part. This doubt does not exist. The alternative may require a significant investment to be realized. This investment will not be made as long as DU is seen as acceptable.

Then there's this list of "what's next for DU?"

In the whole list, missiles and bombs are the only weapons not targeted at individual humans. Humans can't realistically carry enough armor to protect themselves from lead projectiles (through use of coatings, such as teflon or coppper). Lead is cheap and easy to work with. It's going to stay as the mainstay of one-on-one combat for the foreseeable future. I do not believe a pure lead slug is used. It is a full metal jacketed lead core. Body armor often has pockets for hard ceramic plates to stop higher velocity projectiles. Therefore the penetrating prowess of DU against these hard plates would be a plus.

The same applies to land mines and hand grenades - instead of lead, they tend to scatter steel/iron around at relatively high velocity. In general, bad things happen to living flesh when these vectors intersect.Hand grenade shrapnel and antipersonnel land mines have the same penetration issues as a rifle round and therefore need to penetrate hard ceramic plate armor. There are many kinds off landmines such as anti tank land mines.

Bombs are area effect weapons. The purpose here is to knock out large stationary installations - bridges, buildings, etc. Kinetic shock - that is, energy transferance from ordinance to structure is needed here. DU would go right through, imparting little energy to the structure, and leaving it full of holes, but still standing. (this same argument applies to demolitions)I seem to recall video footage of bombs hitting those pyramid shaped bunkers. Perhaps other bombs would have a DU fragmenting warhead.

Rockets and Missiles.. these are delivery systems, not weapons systems in and of themselves. They are considerably slower than muzzle-fired projectiles, so some form of accelleration device (oh, let's not call it a "gun") would need to be included to make any kind of armor piercing round effective.Rockets and Missiles can have greater velocities than a gun.

I think that puts paid to that.Maybe not.

I may not be a professional scientist, but I can still think for myself.As we see.

[JHotz]

I'd like to revisit one point about the banned weapons list, though. It appears to me that DU is on that list thanks largely to the efforts of Saddam Hussein. I may be wrong and I welcome counter-evidence, but the UN documents I have seen debating this idea are always dominated by long and emotive speeches from the Iraqi delegate.Well that invalidates the whole DU pollution issue right there. I mean if the country that has been on the receiving end of the most DU pollution is the on pushing hardest for its banning the it must be the just a ploy to weaken the US military to the point that Saddam’s forces can defeat it.

[JHotz]

An excellent example of your illogic. A moe expensive and unproven alternative can in your eyes be better and cheaper. My advice is, stop digging.I can smell moe fear the moe you carry on about my supposed illogic and digging.

[LurchGS]

Mercenaries - the only difference is that they're not *american* lives being lost (assuming there are no american mercenaries). The end cost is the same. In the case of American soldiers, there's the emotional investment, but that's not what wins battles. *Somebody* has to be out there shooting at the bad guy and geting shot at. If he's not equipped for it, you've wasted all the money you spent on him and what equipment he does have. Money you could have spent on better equippng the guy standing next to him.

Regarding other pollutants, I brought it up because it IS a valid consideration. The chemicals used on the battlefield are *nasty*. I brought them up as a comparison to DU. If A is 1 and B is 1, A = B.

The bow and arrow comment was hyperbole. Some things in this world are just plain unreasonable.

The use of the word "exists" doesn't imply, in this context it states flatly that an alternative is available right now, not boiling around in the cosmic chaos waiting for some engineer to think it up.

Re my comments on bullets - military rounds use (generally) a copper jacket
. I do believe I mentioned copper..(all the jacket really does is keep the slug from deforming in flight, and upon hitting soft tissue - the shooter would uch rather the round went THOUGH the guy in front of him and into the guy behind him) And Teflon deals pretty well with balistic armor. Shock plates in ballistic armor are typically center-chest (i.e. over the heart) and don't protect much else.

You are right in that there are various kinds of land mine - depending on their target. but in all cases, the object isn't penetration - it's energy transfer. Sending a slew of pellets into a bunch of people puts them all in the hospital and takes them all off the battle field.
There IS armor that could protect the man on the ground, but would YOU want to fight a battle dressed up like Mr Bomb Squad? Who would carry your supplies for you?

Sure, rockets could be faster than a gun... but over the same range? probably not. Ok, so I can take out a tank with a laser guided rocket launched from 10 miles away. The problem here, is rockets/missiles are *expensive*.
Let's see... an M1A2 costs about 4.3Million. A suitable missle is about 150K. On the face of it, that's a big difference. Problem is, that missile is good against ONE tank. The M1 has a life cycle of some 20 years (or more). It can kill dozens of enemy tanks in one battle.. still on the face of it, it looks like rockets are cheaper - but then.. can rockets clear mine fields? Can they protect infantry during an advance? Can they tow other vehicles?
I'm sure there are dozens of other uses for a tank (and I'm sure any number of treadjockies would be glad to fill me in)

re the panic of the Iraqui on the subject of DU rounds, I submit that it's not pollution they worried about (oh, there was nothing at all harmful about all the oil wells they lit off), but a military strategem - they knew darn well that their tanks were as vulnerable to DU rounds as my car is to a .45. Ergo, they wanted the round banned, in the mistaken belief it would give them at least a chance against the M1.

--------

tanks for the memories!

[ToSeek]

I can smell moe fear the moe you carry on about my supposed illogic and digging.

JHotz, that's an ad hominem argument and not allowed on this forum. I can find numerous examples on this thread of similar needlessly incendiary language. If you do not moderate your tone and address the issues in a civil manner, you will be banned.

[TheBlackCat]

This whole thing about "if DU rounds weren't around then we would have developed better alternatives" completely ignores the competetion in military technology development. If some company developed a material that was significantly better than depleted uranium for similar or less price, then they could patent it. Then they would be the only ones able to sell this superior technology to the military, and they could make a fortune. This is the first thing they taught us in "introduction to engineering", and there are a several examples I could give (none military-related, but still applicable to the issue). Companies are out to make money, and the best way to make money is to steal market share from your competitors. The best way to do that is to patent something that everyone needs so only you can make it. Even assuming there is some conspiracy amongst the various military technology companies to keep DU in production, that is ignoring all the underpayed independent and university research mechanical engineers who are just dying for a luctrative patent so they can make some money and retire. It is a similar argument to this drug company conspiracy to supress medicines that can cure diseases instead of just treating them. It completely misses the fact that these companies are competitors, and although it may be less lucrative for the industry as a whole, it is more lucrative for the individual company who manages to steal everyone else's market share, or at the very least the university researchers who has absolutely no vested interest in maintaing the status quo. And concerning the military desire to keep such technology out of enemy hands, then patenting it would not be necessary. My parents know a guy who developed some technology that the US military took an interest in. The military paid him a lot of money on a regular basis not to patent it, last I heard he was still getting sizable checks on a routine basis and he still is not exactly sure why the military liked the idea so much.

[JHotz]

An excellent example of your illogic. A moe expensive and unproven alternative can in your eyes be better and cheaper. My advice is, stop digging.I think you inability to acept truht before you is thes. You obvously sea the wold as a set of static unchangeding absolutys. The trueth is realty consits of intrechainging dynomic equilebriumes. The boudries as welle as the balence or influences in constent flux. Understeinde.

[Gillianren]

Oh, yeah, because you've never made a typo. Look, I spot typos all the time, but I generally don't point them out unless it's relevant (see the "astronaught" discussion of some months back, for instance). One typo does not negate all the legitimate points you chose to ignore in favor of your personal attacks.

[Joff]

I think you inability to acept truht before you is thes. You obvously sea the wold as a set of static unchangeding absolutys. The trueth is realty consits of intrechainging dynomic equilebriumes. The boudries as welle as the balence or influences in constent flux. Understeinde.:rolleyes: You misspell things too, y'know. Does the above mean that you concede that there is currently no cheaper, better alternative for tank destruction than DU shells, however firmly you believe one will be found in the future?

[JHotz]

:rolleyes: You misspell things too, y'know. Does the above mean that you concede that there is currently no cheaper, better alternative for tank destruction than DU shells, however firmly you believe one will be found in the future?
I will probable be banned for that post. I am sorry for the joke at your expense. I just got on a roll. There may be no existing cheaper better alternative. That is not what I meant when I said there are better cheaper alternatives. My perspective was that of Nikolai Tesla who said "I never invented anything I simple uncovered what was always possible" or something like that.

If you want say I changed my argument that is fine with me. If you want to claim that that change negated my entire point about an alternative that is fine as well.

[JHotz]

Oh, yeah, because you've never made a typo. Look, I spot typos all the time, but I generally don't point them out unless it's relevant (see the "astronaught" discussion of some months back, for instance). One typo does not negate all the legitimate points you chose to ignore in favor of your personal attacks.You are right on all counts. I apologize. I was on a roll and couldn’t resist the laugh.

[SolusLupus]

And Teflon deals pretty well with balistic armor

According to my friend that's quite big on military, guns, etc., this is a myth, actually. Teflon was mainly designed for going through windshields without being deflected from their flight. The "cop-killer" scare with Teflon was mainly centered around ignorance -- Teflon isn't really that good at going through body armor.

Also, the ceramics are made for front and back of the torso. However, they are mainly designed to cover up the vital organs (heart, lungs, etc.), and aren't that large, so you are correct on this point. They do not protect the sides or head or legs.

Just wanted to clarify a subject. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[ASEI]

There is some doubt of the effectiveness of the US strategic antimissile defense system. Lets make a hypothetical assumption that the system could be made effective with the use of nuclear tipped interception missiles.

Would this use of nuclear weapons be acceptable?

Now lets consider the same use for a tactical antimissile defense system. Would this be an acceptable use of nuclear weapons?

Actually, consider the cost/benifit here for a nuclear anti-missle system: On the one hand, you could just not pay for a missile defense system. Then, if an enemy launches a missile attack, your cities will be vaporized in short order, the environment would be polluted with fallout that could last for a few years, and massive numbers of people would die.

You could attempt to hit the missile directly, which requires very good controls technology, very fast interceptors, and lots and lots of money. You might be able to deflect and destroy a few of them with your interceptors, if it's a small belligerent country with only a few nukes which launches the attack. No environmental damage, but it requires constant alert, many interceptors per missile, and a population far-sighted enough to want to pay for all this.

If ever you were under the threat of a major nuclear attack, (large numbers of nukes, or where you don't know where they would come from), then nuclear interceptors might not be a very bad idea. Not only can you not miss, unless your interceptor is as dumb as a rock, the interceptor would have a lot less control systems, electronics, and speed necessary to do its job. You may be able to afford more interceptors and defend against far larger attacks. And while you would get harmful radiation events and sattelite disruption over the areas where the missiles clash, there wouldn't be any fallout because the explosions would be occuring in the upper atmosphere or space. So even though the environment may be damaged to some temporary extent, it would be screwed if you allowed the enemy missiles to land, as would the population of your country.

[TheBlackCat]

All the missile defense system does is convince our enemies not to waste their money on ICBM's and simply ship the nukes to the US in cargo freighters, or carry it in a small private boat. This approach is a lot less expensive, no where near as traceable, and far harder to detect if we are not looking very hard for it.

[ASEI]

Perhaps, but if they were inclined to do that, they would anyways. Closing one avenue of attack is far better than leaving it open because the enemy could attack another way.

Large scale nuclear anti-missile interceptors are an idea that would have been nice to implement back in the cold war. It would be well suited to defending against that type of threat. If ever there's another country that starts massing nukes, I think it would be a good idea.

[genebujold]

for DU to be toxic by virtue of radioactivity, wouldn't it have to be far more active than just plain natural uranium? After all, if it has a half life of billions of years, it's emmission rate couldn't possibly approach that of, say, a hot sunny day.

Quite right.

Even the graphite in your pencil lead is "radioactive."

As you've hinted, it's the rate of decay that determines it's potential threat.

The only element that's not radioactive is iron, which is why in about 30 billion years, if we're not all in a black hole, the Earth, Sun, and Moon will have merged into an iron ball.

Everything radioactively decays until it becomes iron.

[Gullible Jones]

Unless it's less massive than iron.