What is the DEAL with depleted uranium?

[CyberGnu]

Hmm, could be. I don't remember much from my nuclear chemistry class... It was almost ten years ago. But I think that even perfectly pure DU would have some radiation, as it would eventually become lead or helium...

Not really fair to compare to a beach - that is a different kind of radiation.... But if you compare to radioactive radiation, you get much much more radiation by moving to a place with a solid bedrock foundation. Living in Colorado, for example, exposes you to more radioactive radiation than working at a nuclear power plant.

[TCO]

Colorado hits you bad because of the lower atmosphere as well. Every time you fly in an airplane you are getting a bunch of cosmic.

Gnu is right that there is still radiactivity in DU. It is very low because of the low half-life. Heck a banana has a lot of radiation, also...

[gsmoove23]

http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm

What countries now have depleted uranium weapons in their arsenals?

In 1999 China joined the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand and Taiwan. having depleted uranium penetrators in their arsenals. Both the US and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market.

I just read this, the website is pretty slanted but if this is true its a little worrying.

Whats more worrying is this 30mm round that the AH-64 Apache uses. It has .66 pounds of DU in its head, most of which will vaporize on contact. How many pounds of DU can be vaporized in a minute when an AH-64 Apache fires these things at a target?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm

What countries now have depleted uranium weapons in their arsenals?

In 1999 China joined the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand and Taiwan. having depleted uranium penetrators in their arsenals. Both the US and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market.

I just read this, the website is pretty slanted but if this is true its a little worrying.

Whats more worrying is this 30mm round that the AH-64 Apache uses. It has .66 pounds of DU in its head, most of which will vaporize on contact. How many pounds of DU can be vaporized in a minute when an AH-64 Apache fires these things at a target?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm

I wonder how much lead gets vaporized. Ever think about that? Lead has some toxicity. No?

[gsmoove23]

I've always thought we should ban bullets

Seriously, you don't think using DU in rapid fire systems is a little much?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thats just goofy Tuberski, we put our forces into any number of operational constraints in any war, to protect civilians, to follow international conventions, to limit the amount of destruction done to the infrastructure of whatever country we're fighting in and to protect our own troops health.

Unless someone has some information demonstrating that conventional rounds would not be able to effectively penetrate the armor of a weapons system we were up against I can't be convinced DU should have been used in GW 2 or wherever else it was used.

There's two distinct situations with respect to DU use, and two distinct hazards posed by it.

First is large and small caliber ground-based weapons, which is limited to the sabot rounds fired by the Abrams and M60A3 tanks in the US inventory, and some rounds fired by potential enemy tanks, as well as the new M919 sabot round for the Bradley vehicles. In that situation, studies have shown a short term risk of inhaled exposure if you're within 50 meters of a vehicle struck by DU from a tank, and something less than that if the vehicle is struck by an M919 round, which has a much smaller penetrator than do the tank rounds. That's because about 70 percent of the mass of the kinetic energy penetrator vaporizes on impact. Within a few minutes, the DU has resolidified as very fine particles, and settles into the soil. At that point, the radiologic hazard is quite low, even in windy conditions, and gets lower over time, as the DU particles work lower into the soil, due to their small size and density. They don't absorb into plants very well, and don't pose a significant ingestion hazard that way, unless you eat a lot of poorly washed root vegetables from a heavily DU contaminated field.

Small caliber aerial ground attack weapons (the AH-1 Super Cobra's 25mm chain guns, and the 30mm GAU8 gun in the A10 aircraft, plus the 30mm HEDP round in the AH-64 Apache) have much smaller rounds, but they're not sabots or submunitions, they rely on mass against roof and rear armor on vehicles. Breakup of the rounds is minimal*, so they can be cleaned up with regular battlefield debris, and don't pose a particular hazard if handled with the same degree of care you'd use to clean up something like dog ****. (i.e. don't hold it in your bare hand)

The only alternative is Tungsten, which has about a 15% penalty in ballistic performance in ground based rounds, and about 25-50% in aerial rounds. Tungsten doesn't have the degree of short-term radiological hazard, but it is toxic, so inhalation of aerosolized Tungsten isn't very good for you. It's less toxic in the soil. (DU is comparable to lead, Tungsten is a bit less, but topical contamination from either is not likely in normal circumstances.)

The cancer numbers quoted were for the Basra area, but that's also downwind from the Kuwaiti oil well fires, and also downwind from a number of sites where CW agents were repeatedly used by both Iran and Iraq in their war. There are very limited specific cancers associated with DU inhalation, so it's not that hard to isolate from a generalized increase in cancer levels.

* - aerosolization is a function of impact velocity, and the small caliber rounds don't produce high enough muzzle velocities. Sabot rounds give you about a 80% increase in muzzle velocity, and a lot smaller initial impact surface area, so the frictional and braking heat produced is concentrated on a much smaller piece of metal.

[Proteus_MST]

There are a number of reports which are Pro or Contra the Hazard of DU to humans:

The IAEA conducted an examination on the residues of DU in potable Water and the soil of Bosnia last year (where DU has been used by the allied Troops in the Bosnian Civil War in 1990).
There have been only smaal amounts of DU in the Water and Soil.

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/News/2003/03/27-407699.html

The UNEP also conducted a mission to Bosnia and found Radiation only in the vicinity of the Vehicles which wherew hit with DU-Penetrators.

http://www.padrigu.gu.se/EDCNews/Research/DU_UNEP_010313.html

On the other hand there seems to be a significant amount of Soldiers and other people suffering from Leucemia after DU has been used on the Battlefield.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-link-cancer.html

http://www.tpromo.com/usvi/atomic/jan01b.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/408122.stm

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dissbk.html

So it seems to be difficult to assess thje real danger from DU-Shells.

[CyberGnu]

Proteus, the presence of DU in water doesn't signify anything by itself, nor does a radiation increase of 25%. If you travel from Malmo, Sweden, to Gothenburg, Sweden, you actually increase the radiation level by more than 200%.

What would be conclusive is if leukemia levels in soldiers returning from the battefield was higher than nationwide statistics. This increase would also have to be uniform among all the solderis exposed to DU - having an increase among italians but not among norwegians, for example, would discredit the idea that the DU is the cause.

All the results I've seen so far shows that this isn't the case, numerous nations with forces exposed to DU has reported normal levels of leukemia.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I've always thought we should ban bullets

Seriously, you don't think using DU in rapid fire systems is a little much?

I don't know, but you haven't done one thing to show me that it is. You are like one of those people who says, "oooh chemicals are bad, about chemical companies." Just reacting to the word. In this case, that's how you react to the word uranium.

[Straybow]

Haven't read the full thread, but the Abrams' gun was originally developed with tantallum ammunition. But DU has higher density, is combustible, and has other benefits including a large, cheap supply.

[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?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker
Again, DU is NOT radioactive! It is not the right isotope!

Naturally occuring Uranium is a mix of the -235, -238 and a pinch of the -239 isotopes, that's why you have enrichment facilities to extract the -235. DU is what's left over as waste from the enrichment process. In other words, it's still a mix, but with a little less than half the level of naturally occuring -235 isotope. It is a severe radiologic hazard if powder or aerosolized DU is ingested into the lungs. It is not significantly hazardous in normal handling and storage, following standard procedures.

The US Army has well developed procedures for issuance, use (not issued or authorized except in combat), storage and handling, as well as decontamination of DU-impacted vehicles, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I'm not entirely sure, but I think spawling is when the metal vaporizes from the heat of the impact, to create a superheated plasma. When vehicle armor is penetrated the metal plasma is disgorged into the vehicle, killing most of the occupants. Imagine if you will cutting a small hole through the armor, pushing a sawn-off shotgun through the hole and pulling the trigger.

Close, but no cigar.

Most of the kinetic energy penetrator that actually penetrates the armor does so relatively intact. In the Gulf War I, a single M829A1 round from an Abrams penetrated and killed two T-72s with a side armor penetration, opposite side armor exit, and second vehicle side armor penetration. Obviously, core of the penetrator was still solid.

Most of the aerosolized plasma from the penetrator itself occurs immediately on impact and initial penetration, as the combination of heat and shockwave effects strip material off the outside of the penetrator. This stuff stays on the outside, and creates the ~50 meter hazard area for inhaling aerosolized DU.

Spalling is actually an issue with the vehicle armor itself, which is much weaker, less dense, less heat resistant, etc. The blast wave effect travels through the armor ahead of the plasma and penetrant, and when it disperses at the inner armor/air barrier, it causes cracking and fragmentation of the inner face of the armor, as well as melting and combusting primer and paint on the inner surface, heating up turret hydraulic fluid, etc. Right behind that blast wave you have the heating effect melting some armor and further structurally degrading armor out from the liquified and plamafied areas. This effect of this structural degradation of the armor, this mass of stuff - solid framents, molten blobs, and plasmafied armor, is spalling. The mass is far greater than what is left of the kinetic energy penetrator.

[gsmoove23]

Yuck.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
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?

It is not EXTREMELY radioactive. It is very weakly radioactive. As far as toxicity, I don't think it is that EXTREME. Pretty much like a heavy metal like cadmium or lead. Nowhere near as nasty as thallium for instance.

That is the problem I have with you. You just react to the "bad name". Like the people who hate "chemicals", not realizing that they are surrounded by "chemicals".

If you are going to be against DU, base it on some sort of toxicity data. What is the LD-50 for DU? What is the concentration in the air after a battle? (in numbers). How much does background activity increase in a battle area? 10%? 25%, 1000%? And what is the danger impliicit in typical background? That is the way to think.