Depleted Uranium

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
i don't believe the ammunition that we use has any DU in it. . . i may be wrong, but i don't think so.

besides, almost ANY firing range is gonna be far from urban centers.

Small arms ammo doesn't have DU in it.

DU ammo in the US military is combat issue only.

[Velociryx]

Depleted Geraniums are much, much more deadly (not to mention rare!)

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Tank shells do for sure. Arty shells too, probably.

AP tank shells for the 105 mm rifled and 120mm smoothbore main guns.

AP rounds for the M2/M3 Bradley 25mm.

HEDP rounds for the AH-64 (30mm) and AP rounds for the AH-1 (25mm)

Vulcan gun rounds (20mm) for the CIWS, 20mm ADA platforms, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 aircraft.

[RGBVideo]

There is no such thing as "U-238 ore". Uranium ore consists of a mix of U-238 and U-235. IIRC, certain mining sites have higher or lower concentrations of U-235 in their raw ore, but all still have a significant amount (which is pretty much determined by the age of the Earth). Removing (most) of the U-235 is where the word "depleted" comes from.

I knew that.

[TCO]

It is pretty easy to do the radcon math and caluclate the exposure rates based on assumptions or even survey data. The actual count rate that most people get is pretty low. The correlation of radiation to cancer has been very well studied, so you can get a nice calculation of expected increased cancer risk for a given exposure. Mowever, the data probably slightly overestimates the risk of cancer from low level exposure because of the way the trends are backed out from high exposure numbers.

[geeslaka]

HEDP rounds for the AH-64 (30mm) and AP rounds for the AH-1 (25mm)

I didn't know Alexander's Horse had guns named after him.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
It is pretty easy to do the radcon math and caluclate the exposure rates based on assumptions or even survey data. The actual count rate that most people get is pretty low. The correlation of radiation to cancer has been very well studied, so you can get a nice calculation of expected increased cancer risk for a given exposure. Mowever, the data probably slightly overestimates the risk of cancer from low level exposure because of the way the trends are backed out from high exposure numbers.

Not accurate if you take into account the fact that people's bodies tend to latch on to heavy metals and concentrate them. Exposure at cellular level is bad, bad, bad (compared to TBI). Now add in chemical toxicity.

I agree that background radiation in Iraq is not significantly affected, but that's not my major concern.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not accurate if you take into account the fact that people's bodies tend to latch on to heavy metals and concentrate them. Exposure at cellular level is bad, bad, bad (compared to TBI). Now add in chemical toxicity.

I agree that background radiation in Iraq is not significantly affected, but that's not my major concern.

You can do the radcon math for different types of ingestion. There are biological retention data on the major nuclides. I don't know U238, but I know Cobalt 60 and Iodine and the like.

Yeah, I don't know much about the chemical toxicity of uranium, but doing the radcon math would still be the way to attack this problem. I'm not sure how good the toxicity data is, but there is probably something out there...

[KrazyHorse]

Past my knowledge at that point. Would think that this all starts to get hazy when you ask how much leeches into groundwater, into food etc. Haven't yet seen a preoperly formulated study regarding use of DU weapons in theater. Seen some bull**** telling me that background dose from DU in Iraq is less than in SW US. No ****, but nothing approaching realistic risk assessment (IMO)

[Sava]

DU probably isn't all that safe. As I said in an earlier thread about DU, I wouldn't want to sleep with some DU near my nuts. That should be the universal toxicity test. Would you sleep with it near your nuts?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Past my knowledge at that point. Would think that this all starts to get hazy when you ask how much leeches into groundwater, into food etc. Haven't yet seen a preoperly formulated study regarding use of DU weapons in theater. Seen some bull**** telling me that background dose from DU in Iraq is less than in SW US. No ****, but nothing approaching realistic risk assessment (IMO)

I've done probably tens of problems on airborne, ingested and skin contamination. There are tools for attacking these types of problems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

(edit - reply to Sava)

It depends on if I was the firer or the target.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
(edit - reply to Sava)

It depends on if I was the firer or the target.

Yeah, that CIWS really screws up a close-aboard plane...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Has anybody ever ****ed up and had one weapons free when a friendly has tried to land?

BTW, you have any idea what's up with Navy recruiting lately? I saw a sight at the border this morning that made me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

[Dis]

what did you see at the border?

Navy ships also use DU rounds on their phalanx guns. Though I don't see why that is needed. They are firing at aluminum aircraft and missiles. It can't be that hard to penetrate.