What is the DEAL with depleted uranium?

[gsmoove23]

I just meant to say extremely toxic and just plain radiological. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I can't help the fact that I'm not a chemist GP, I can read reports and work on the conclusions that experts come to, with only a basic understanding of the methods they used. Now MtG did a good job of countering my arguements but I still think I've brought up valid concerns considering the dangers that are readily acknowledged by all of the experts I have come across.

Either show me your vaunted knowledge of chemistry or keep quiet because frankly the fact that you only attack my arguement without offering any factual data yourself is just tiresome.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I just meant to say extremely toxic and just plain radiological. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I can't help the fact that I'm not a chemist GP, I can read reports and work on the conclusions that experts come to, with only a basic understanding of the methods they used. Now MtG did a good job of countering my arguements but I still think I've brought up valid concerns considering the dangers that are readily acknowledged by all of the experts I have come across.

Either show me your vaunted knowledge of chemistry or keep quiet because frankly the fact that you only attack my arguement without offering any factual data yourself is just tiresome.

It's not my job to combat your ignorance. Do some legwork and read the reports of the experts first. Then we'll talk. I'm not going to do your google research for you. I will tell you how to think about the problem.

Oh...and is it EXTREMELY toxic? Might want to check that.

[Dr Strangelove]

War is bad for children and other living things.

We need a flower smilie.

[Straybow]

I thought waste U was reprocessed and DU was much closer to pure U238…

Of course, if we had a commercial breeder reactor the Pu and other isotopes are chemically separated, resulting in much purer U238 waste.

[mumbles] $%*#@ Jimmy Carter

[TCO]

Actually there is still some reprocessing. But its of navy cores. Which are different...

[Q Classic]

any element above 82 (bismuth) is naturally radioactive, no matter what the isotope is. it's just differing degrees.

u238 is radioactive. however, its half life is a good deal longer than u235's, and the radioactive energy it gives off is not quite of the same lethality as the latter's.

[Straybow]

GP, many nuclearphobes get confused between Plutonium (which is highly toxic) and Uranium (which is just like any other heavy metal). It does help to remove that confusion.

gsmoove, the only element I've ever heard to be considered "EXTREMELY toxic" is Beryllium. Makes Arsenic look like playdough. A shame, considering Be fibers have the highest specific stiffness of any known material and would make awesome structural composite.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Straybow
GP, many nuclearphobes get confused between Plutonium (which is highly toxic) and Uranium (which is just like any other heavy metal). It does help to remove that confusion.

gsmoove, the only element I've ever heard to be considered "EXTREMELY toxic" is Beryllium. Makes Arsenic look like playdough. A shame, considering Be fibers have the highest specific stiffness of any known material and would make awesome structural composite.

thallium is no walk in the park either, no?

P.s. Let's talk chemicals and fibers. I will be working there. pm me.

[Straybow]

I understand that microscopic quantities of Be dust can be lethal if inhaled, and exposure on the skin to barely visible quantities likewise fatal. Thallium has to be ingested, no? And I think it takes many mg for a lethal dose. Hg and some other heavy metals are more of a long-term general health and reproductive risk from microexposure.

I looked into structural composites in an ESM class. Be fibers are much stronger than Carbon or Boron fibers, maybe double the strength IIRC. Don't know much else about chemical fibers.

[gsmoove23]

Jeez, sure its all relative. Considering the most toxic thing I handle is the bad meat in my refridgerator I think I can call Depleted Uraniam extremely toxic. Its certainly toxic and radioactive enough for the army to have stringent guidelines for its handling and storage.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Jeez, sure its all relative. Considering the most toxic thing I handle is the bad meat in my refridgerator I think I can call Depleted Uraniam extremely toxic. Its certainly toxic and radioactive enough for the army to have stringent guidelines for its handling and storage.

But the point is how toxic. Worse than lead? Worse than anti-freeze? Worse than botulism?

It's not our job to educate you when come running in here saying, "It's bad, it's bad, it's got that nasty name."

[Japher]

Mercury is toxic, yet most ppl are walking around with it in their mouths!!! Oh my freakin' god! You can't walk outside without being exposed to radiation! Freakin' Sun!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Yuck.

Q. What do you call the crew of a tank that's been hit?

A. Shake and bake.

[gsmoove23]

GP, I couldn't care less if its more or less toxic then this thing or that. The question is if it is appropriate to use this admittedly toxic element in this application.

I've already stated that I have little problem with the use of DU in armor, since the assumption is that most of it won't be dispersed across the terrain, even if it is pierced by a shell it will only effect a localized area and the vast majority of the DU will remain in a relatively safe state.

Large anti-armor sabot rounds also seem acceptable since they have a specific use, a relatively low fire rate, and presumably once the armor is cleared off the field they won't be used for willy-nilly shelling across the countryside.

So, I have changed my mind on these 2 subjects, but what really bothers me, what I didn't know before, is that smaller caliber rounds are used in chain guns on Apaches, BFVs, A-10s and who knows what else. Presumably these will be used for all sorts of targets, not just armor, and will spray enormous amounts of DU on the battlfield in incredibly small amounts of time.

I've also read about the prospect of having DU explosive shells, a DU exterior, presumably to make more effective shrapnel? I don't think the unrestricted proliferation of this material in these areas is a thing we want to see.

As for you not wanting to do research for me, tough noogie, I was very clear in my first post and expect you to either offer useful information or bugger off. My one concession is that if MtG says that I'm wasting time in my last 2 points I will quickly shut up (as he obviously has some knowledge of the subject and is willing to share it).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thanks for the post MtG. What I'm wondering is, these studies seem to downlay the effects of DU while admitting there are hazardous effects, do they address how much of this stuff is strewn over a battlefield or a countryside after a conflict.

Afterall we use it in tank rounds, chainguns in A-10s, Apaches, Bradley fighting vehicles and I'm not sure what else. How much of this stuff are we spewing indiscriminately across the countryside, do we limit its use in urban situations? Wouldn't the shear volume of an admittedly extremely toxic and radiological substance mean that the effects these studies say are minimal will add up? Especially if we're selling DU munitions on the arms market or other countries start developing their own DU ammo, what will be the result?

First, regarding GP, he's very useful to talk to on a peer to peer or at least close level. His patience for lack of intellectual rigor is a bit thin, though.

A couple of points: Cumulative effects (of anything) only matter if there's a concentration at some point that increases a particular individual's exposure. If you have a dead tank here, another one half a mile away, ten more two hundred meters apart in a town forty miles away, there's no accumulation of effect unless someone decides to go to each site, or unless there's some process that leads to the contaminants being concentrated to a central location.

The major hazard of DU is if it's inhaled, and studies have shown that the presence of DU in the air around a vehicle that's been hit becomes nearly nil within a matter of minutes. Then what's left is a fine dust, that is denser than everything else around, so it's the last stuff to get kicked up by the wind, and the first to settle out. Tanks and vehicles disperse for a number of reasons in combat, so killed vehicles follow that pattern as well. It's rare that you actually get them within 15-20 meters of each other on a road, and on open ground, separation is more like 50-200 meters, so there's not a lot of concentration from the vehicle position.

DU rounds are the most effective vehicle killers out there, so think about it this way: What's a worse hazard, a DU round that is one round, one kill, or a less effective round made of something half the toxicity of DU, but it takes three or four rounds fired to actually kill the vehicle?

Another point with toxic and radiologic risk assessment is that you can't magically isolate the effects of one agent. In GW 1, the long term health effects of Saddam blowing the Kuwaiti oil fields are many orders of magnitude above the total effects of combat related actions. DU is just one hazard, albeit a low grade one, but in wars, you have burning fuel, burning paints, burning synthetic rubber, burning ammunition propellants, burning hydraulic fluid, and all sorts of nasty stuff.

This happens for a relatively short time, and then gets added in to the overall budget of other toxic/radiologic exposure for each individual - everything from being out in the sun to smoking to exposure to industrial pollutants, pesticides, automobile smog, etc.

To assume that DU is, in and of itself, a significant enough hazard to warrant a (largely unenforceable) ban or other restriction, is a conclusion that has no factual support, and really isn't worth much study beyond what has already been done.