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

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

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

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:
If they allow people to build sailboat keels out of it, it can't be all that dangerous.

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?

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.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

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.

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.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

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.

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

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.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I seem to be able to get a thread closed in 2.5 seconds after posting.

Here is information about DU from the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_file...4/ea5419a1.pdf

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

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

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

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

__________________
All the woo-woos come out on the internet. Someday a real mod's gonna come down and wash all the scum off of this message board.

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?

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...)

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

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

Maybe that would be difficult to accomplish, logistically.

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/mineral...t/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

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

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.

__________________
Standing on the shoulders of giants...

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.

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

What help do you want?Can you give some source so we can evaluate this statement?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? Again with telling us you are a conservative? Where do you think you are?How many environmental pollution scientists do you think are looking at this here post or yours?

How could anyone consider those two conclusions the best of anythingSounds 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.Nice stereotype/oversimplification/moral absolute.Are you a Freeper? Don't you guys swarm other sites like this?Dude get this through your head. This is an astronomy and science website not a political website.

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/200...0/19news03.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

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.

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...

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:

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 )

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.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?This 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.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. Does this mean something? I see it is a reference to Moral Absolutism?The 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.

Cool it, will you, JHotz?

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.

You are correct sir.

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.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

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?

__________________
06/12/04 - 03/10/08
07/10/09 - 05/03/10