Depleted Uranium

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]hedo wrote:
Pookie,

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’ve never actually fired one at another tank…am I right? I have.[/quote]

Unless you want to count video games, no I haven’t.

I’m going to make a wild guess of my own: While you have fired some of those rounds, you haven’t done any studies on the environmental effects that the remains of those rounds have on the local fauna, flora and populations? Some people have:

Studies have also been done on animals and generally, the conclusion is that you don’t want to be around DU dust and you certainly don’t want it in your soil, water and livestock.

[quote]The penetrator enters the tank and the resulting spalling from the target sprays the occupants with molten gas and metal fragments shredding the individuals inside and igniting everything that can burn including fuel and munitions stored in the tank.

I don’t think you could reuse a DU projectile due to deformation and the fact that it may shatter into large chunks while it is bouncing around. It doesn’t turn to dust however. If it did, it would not be an effective armor piercing round.[/quote]

The armor piercing properties come from the mass of the projectile (uranium is very dense; a cubic meter of it weighs about 20 tons) not from the “hardness” of it.

Other metals could be used (such as tungsten) but they cost a lot more. DU is a low grade nuclear waste that costs money to contain (the US has about half a million tons of it lying around in waste management centers) so using it in ammo is cost-effective and the supply is garanteed.

Unfortunately, uranium, while dense, is also pretty brittle. It does break up, but not only in large chunks, but in extremely small ones too. In fact, one of it’s properties is that it’s pyrophoric, meaning it’s particles ignite on contact with air. Large chunks won’t do that.

And those rounds never miss their target, right?

What happens to the targets after the battle or the war is over? Are they left in place to rust? Are they towed away for scrap metal? Is anything done to clean up the battlefield? DU has a half-life of about 4.5 billions years; it’s not going away on it’s own. It’ll seep into the ground, contaminate aquifers and eventually end up in plants and animals. You really believe that contaminating an environment in such a way will have no effects on the life in it?

22

[quote]vroom wrote:

Zap,

You believe what you read way too much.

The explanation above, combined with the fact that penetrated targets leak, burn or weren’t closed vessels in the first place would point out ample opportunities for particulate matter to leak and be dispersed.

Of course, the proponents of the current munitions systems are very much going to point to the safety and utility of those systems.

All that said, I’m still somewhat of a skeptic, waiting for more analysis to be done, but I’d be hesitant to reject it based on some cheerleader spin which is surely going to be put out there right away.

Your choice, believe what you want to believe whenever you find spin that lets you do so, or consider the matter from first principles each time, allowing the discovery of new facts and conclusions as more is learned.[/quote]

Since I don’t have first hand experience with DU I must rely on what I read. I read a lot. It is better than making up shit.

As I noted, to compare tiny amounts of uranium to a dust storm the size of a hurricane is beyond foolish.

It is an intentional lie to undercut the war effort.

If the residue of the DU shells was big enough to form its own desert and it was hit by a hurricane perhaps the material would carry as far as Britian.

Of course the uranium is so dense it would not carry as far as the typical desert sand and dust.

The only spin I see on this is the lies told by our enemies and spread by the misguided antiwar people.

I don’t believe anyone thinks these weapons systems are safe. They are dangerous. They leave a dangerous residue. It appears the danger does not spread beyond the immediate area of the target.

To claim the danger is spread as far as Britian is absurd.

23

[quote]vroom wrote:

EDIT

I thought my first post disappeared.

Sorry for repeating some of these points.

The truth is that this is a dangerous weapon system when used. The target area is contaminated. What is open for debate is the extent of the contamination and the danger.

It would not surprise me if the military downplayed the danger. They often do. It is a dangerous profession and they often take safety shortcuts that are not taken in the civilian world.

To pretend that the contamination and danger extends to Britain is absurd.

I don’t know what new facts or discovery you are talking about. I have been following this debate since 1991. I feel I am well informed enough to weigh in with what I have discovered.

24

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Look dumbass, why is it when it comes to something like radiation possibly being spread throughout Europe, you would immediately put it in the category of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rather than err on the side of caution? THAT is fucking retarded.[/quote]

I’m not. I stick with the IAEA, WHO, UNEP, Royal Society of the UK and others who say that it’s long term environmental impact through groundwater and soil contamination isn’t well understood but that unless you’re standing within 10 m when the round hits, inhalation isn’t a problem. It gets relegated to Santa Claus and Easter Bunny status when ‘scientists’ say things like ‘I’m not claiming new illegal weapons were used, but use your imagination.’

And sometimes you see two nice facts and use them to validate the hypothesis you’ve inserted in the middle. Fortunately, science requires you to validate this hypothesis with data that supports your hypothesis (FYI data that ‘doesn’t oppose’ your hypothesis doesn’t count).

[quote]Lung Cancer Hits Young, Non-Smoking Women
Ill Despite Healthy Lifestyle
While no national studies have yet been done, many lung cancer specialists say they’re seeing a disturbing trend of more and more non-smoking women with the disease.

You have an answer for that too? I don’t. Why ARE more and more healthy, non-smoking women developing lung cancer?

Something in the air maybe?[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head, lung cancer victims do, in fact, breathe air. In the vein of leaping to conclusions and subsequent innuendo; given the recent data that I’ve compiled, I don’t want to say that bras cause breast cancer, but you can clearly see the association. At the very least, the data doesn’t oppose my hypothesis.

BTW- It’s good to read that this small group of women are responding well to lung cancer treatments, rather than the ‘end of meaningful life on earth.’

[quote]Actually I didn’t even notice the date – I mostly linked to that to show that the dust indeed carries far and wide…

“In the bottom part of the image, the wave of dust appears to crash like surf across the bright orange sands of the deserts of Saudi Arabia. All of Iraq is under the cloud, which reaches over the border into Iran (notice the crisply defined terrain to the east of the line of dust), as is Kuwait. The dust stretches out over the blue-green waters of the Persian Gulf”[/quote]

Any clue to the volume of the dust storm or the amount of DU required to be dispersed in it? Or do we just accept Busby’s assertion (it is universally accepted) that enough was used just because uranium (not necessarily DU) turned up in the UK?

[quote]DU is largely considered a heavy metal and not a radioactive hazard. Unfortunately when a DU shell hits something it aerosolizes into fine dust, which happens to also be slightly radioactive.

You wouldn’t want to snort powdered aluminum or lead much less DU.
[/quote]

Unless you’re asserting that the particulate is more radioactive than the aggregate (I hope you’re not), this is irrelevant. If it’s DU you’re worried about (not just U), detection/measurement of DU via radiation is like trying to find out if you’ve been shot at by trying to smell the gunpowder. Sure, it may be more sensitive, but by the time you smell it, you should know if you’ve been shot.

Look, all Busby has to do is look at other detectors across Europe for the same day, has he? (Or did the ‘Uranium nanoparticles’ quantum tunnel their way to the UK?) Even then, DU has been in use since the 70s, what’s to say every storm doesn’t kick up stuff the Soviets deposited there? Or is it detecting something else entirely like a UF6 leak somewhere else in the UK/Europe? Has he got any evidence disparaging a whimsical counter hypothesis? Has he got any real evidence at all or just an anomaly?

Until he shows these things, it’s still just the “potential risk”, everyone says it is.

25

[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Pookie,

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’ve never actually fired one at another tank…am I right? I have.

Unless you want to count video games, no I haven’t.

I’m going to make a wild guess of my own: While you have fired some of those rounds, you haven’t done any studies on the environmental effects that the remains of those rounds have on the local fauna, flora and populations? Some people have:

Studies have also been done on animals and generally, the conclusion is that you don’t want to be around DU dust and you certainly don’t want it in your soil, water and livestock.

The penetrator enters the tank and the resulting spalling from the target sprays the occupants with molten gas and metal fragments shredding the individuals inside and igniting everything that can burn including fuel and munitions stored in the tank.

I don’t think you could reuse a DU projectile due to deformation and the fact that it may shatter into large chunks while it is bouncing around. It doesn’t turn to dust however. If it did, it would not be an effective armor piercing round.

The armor piercing properties come from the mass of the projectile (uranium is very dense; a cubic meter of it weighs about 20 tons) not from the “hardness” of it.

Other metals could be used (such as tungsten) but they cost a lot more. DU is a low grade nuclear waste that costs money to contain (the US has about half a million tons of it lying around in waste management centers) so using it in ammo is cost-effective and the supply is garanteed.

Unfortunately, uranium, while dense, is also pretty brittle. It does break up, but not only in large chunks, but in extremely small ones too. In fact, one of it’s properties is that it’s pyrophoric, meaning it’s particles ignite on contact with air. Large chunks won’t do that.

Nobody would fire a DU round at a building unless it was a snap shot. In other words very rare. You save your AP rounds for when you need them.

And those rounds never miss their target, right?

What happens to the targets after the battle or the war is over? Are they left in place to rust? Are they towed away for scrap metal? Is anything done to clean up the battlefield? DU has a half-life of about 4.5 billions years; it’s not going away on it’s own. It’ll seep into the ground, contaminate aquifers and eventually end up in plants and animals. You really believe that contaminating an environment in such a way will have no effects on the life in it?

[/quote]

I think your right on some things wrong on others.

The DU is part of an alloy. Not the sole component of the shell.

Hardness is the most important variable for AP rounds, velocity second, mass third. The penetrator is extremely small in relation to the target. It’s the metal of the target tanks hull that spalls not the round itself.

Do they ever miss? Rarely. Modern fire control systems in the M-1 are precise. Laser designation and computer controlled stabilization make first shot kills almost guaranteed even while moving at high speed. A missed AP round wouldn’t explode in the desert unless it hit something very solid. No explosion means no release of the DU, it’s still bound in the alloy.

Clean up the battlefield? Since the beginning of time that was traditionally done by the folks who want to live there after the war is over. Has it ever been done another way?

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Since I don’t have first hand experience with DU I must rely on what I read. I read a lot. It is better than making up shit.[/quote]

Okay Mr Reader, stun us with your brilliance. Oh, by the way, I hope you’ve been reading Pookie’s posts.

I don’t think anyone is trying to compare the two in the foolish manner you claim. DU is a very different type of contaminent. Do you know what quantities are required to exert an effect?

You certainly are ready to believe this.

I don’t think the DU issue will have any impact on THIS war at all. I mean, the war effort. The results of this debate will be felt after the war is over.

What? Didn’t you complain about people making shit up? If you have particulate matter and you have wind patterns, then you have the spread of material. Remember, every round fired is generally going to undergo combustion and micro-particle release (according to what Pookie is saying anyway).

How much free DU is generally found in our environment, do you know? How much DU is required to have a negative effect on the environment or ourselves, do you know?

I don’t think anyone is talking about particles the size of a grain of sand. I think we are talking about microscopic particles carried aloft due to combustion.

LOL. Well, perhaps you should think a little bit more and not fall for the blatant discredit tactic quite so easily. Answer the questions about particulate concentrations, prevailing weather conditions and DU combustion properties and you’ll actually have something to say instead of making shit up.

I think that there will be high levels of residue around where the weapons are used. However, that doesn’t mean that other harder to detect quantities aren’t being dispersed. All people have to do is measure the quantities found in places it shouldn’t be to find out it is dispersing.

If it is present, it’s coming from somewhere. Perhaps there are other sources that people aren’t considering?

No, it isn’t. The results of Chernobyl were detected around the world. Anything that gets into the atmosphere can travel anywhere and everywhere. What’s absurd is to reject the whole notion because you believe it is entirely political.

If, and this is where I stand by my stace that I don’t know the source of the detected materials yet, but if it is indeed spreading more than expected, it would be approrpiate to choose a different material than DU in future weapons systems.

Why is such a conclusion such a big deal for you?

I can’t see why suggesting that different ammunition should be considered really has much to do with the anti-war effort.

What I will agree with is that the anti-war effort could latch onto this issue, and flog it around in addition to whatever other issues they latch on to. However, the fact that issues can be used for political purposes doesn’t mean that you can listen to purely political sources to inform yourself about the issue.

Show you know enough about this to make the conclusions you have. Otherwise, it sounds like you are doing what you are complaining about, simply making shit up. After all, your statements are pretty conclusive… unlike mine.

27

[quote]hedo wrote:
Hardness is the most important variable for AP rounds, velocity second, mass third. The penetrator is extremely small in relation to the target. It’s the metal of the target tanks hull that spalls not the round itself.[/quote]

Would you have references for that? Every text I’ve read about armor-piercing rounds, especially relating to modern tanks (with chobham armor) have stressed the importance of mass in the rounds. Basically, you need to apply enormous force to a tiny point on the target to pierce it; that force is the product of mass and velocity. And since massive weapons take a lot of room, you want the densest possible weapon, ie, a lot of mass in the least amount of volume, hence the need to use dense metals.

The question then becomes: are those who live there aware of the use of DU rounds? Are they educated and equipped to clean up properly? Can they even assess the risk potential of an area?

28

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Since I don’t have first hand experience with DU I must rely on what I read. I read a lot. It is better than making up shit.

Okay Mr Reader, stun us with your brilliance. Oh, by the way, I hope you’ve been reading Pookie’s posts.
[/quote]

I have. He has a slightly better grasp than the kooks but as Hedo has already pointed out it appears he does not know the full story. I suggest you read Hedo’s posts.

As I noted, to compare tiny amounts of uranium to a dust storm the size of a hurricane is beyond foolish.

This is exactly what is happening.

Someone tried to draw an anolgy that a massive dust storm in Iraq had consequences in Britian so it is likely DU has the same effect. I am merely pointing out how stupid it is to make such an anolgy.

…[/quote]

It is apparent you do not know anything about the subject beyond what you have read in this thread.

No need to go through your post line by line as it contains nothing substantial and I am pressed for time.

29

[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Hardness is the most important variable for AP rounds, velocity second, mass third. The penetrator is extremely small in relation to the target. It’s the metal of the target tanks hull that spalls not the round itself.

Would you have references for that? Every text I’ve read about armor-piercing rounds, especially relating to modern tanks (with chobham armor) have stressed the importance of mass in the rounds. Basically, you need to apply enormous force to a tiny point on the target to pierce it; that force is the product of mass and velocity. And since massive weapons take a lot of room, you want the densest possible weapon, ie, a lot of mass in the least amount of volume, hence the need to use dense metals.

Clean up the battlefield? Since the beginning of time that was traditionally done by the folks who want to live there after the war is over. Has it ever been done another way?

The question then becomes: are those who live there aware of the use of DU rounds? Are they educated and equipped to clean up properly? Can they even assess the risk potential of an area?[/quote]

It’s been 20 years since Armor School but it was pretty basic stuff back then. I’ll see if I can find it.

To use your example however, a softer metal would shatter if it were not hardened, particularly against composite armor. It’s an equation and all three variables must be in order for the round to be effective. A Sabot round uses the sabot to increase velocity and drive a hardened round thru the armor, the kinetic energy must be carried intact and not dispersed. Mass is certainly one of the variable but will lower the velocity if too heavy.

I’m not sure if you can clean up microscopic particles in the air? Water and soil yes but they don’t seem to be the issue. Sounds like it is a breathing hazard. Seems like the local health organizations are getting the word out. My guess is they have a lot of other issues to worry about more pressing then this such as sectarian violence, jobs and crime.

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Claiming shells fired in Iraq are drifting to Britian and causing problems is ludicrous. JTF is well known for posting outlandish lies. I expect this is likely just one more.
…
[/quote]

He links to the Times and BBC. Both are respectable sources, no matter what planet your from.

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have. He has a slightly better grasp than the kooks but as Hedo has already pointed out it appears he does not know the full story. I suggest you read Hedo’s posts.[/quote]

Please note that I have not addressed the “DU dust flies from Iraq to Britain” part; of which I’m rather skeptical.

I meant to adress the point that some people were making that DU rounds were not dangerous post-battle. Available studies (of which there aren’t that many, unless done on animals) say otherwise.

32

[quote]hedo wrote:
I’m not sure if you can clean up microscopic particles in the air? Water and soil yes but they don’t seem to be the issue.[/quote]

The issue is that uranium dust dispersed in the soil and water supply will slowly make it’s way up the food chain until humans absorb it.

AFAIK, uranium is not eliminated from your body, it (like lead or mercury) slowly accumulates in some of your organs. If it doesn’t kill you chemically (it is toxic); the continuous low-level radiation seems (from studies done mostly on animals as human volunteers seem to hard to find) to induce cancers and birth defects in offsprings.

That’s the issue.

The question is: If the Army is aware of the possible dangers; why doesn’t it use some other form of ordnance? Costs?

Especially in a country you’re trying to help. I have yet to see an insurgent tank on TV, what is DU used against in Iraq? Aren’t all the modern tanks over there yours?

33

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Claiming shells fired in Iraq are drifting to Britian and causing problems is ludicrous. JTF is well known for posting outlandish lies. I expect this is likely just one more.
…

He links to the Times and BBC. Both are respectable sources, no matter what planet your from.[/quote]

They are merely reporting ludicrous claims. Reporting has nothing to do with the foolishness of the claim itself. Reporting the claims does not make it true.

The media is famous for reporting foolish claims.

One of my favorites was when some morons were claiming that depressing the brake lever on Audi’s caused the car to accelerate.

The media, as usual, needs to fill the endless news cycle so they reported the claims even though they have no basis in reality.

34

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have. He has a slightly better grasp than the kooks but as Hedo has already pointed out it appears he does not know the full story. I suggest you read Hedo’s posts.

Please note that I have not addressed the “DU dust flies from Iraq to Britain” part; of which I’m rather skeptical.

I meant to adress the point that some people were making that DU rounds were not dangerous post-battle. Available studies (of which there aren’t that many, unless done on animals) say otherwise.[/quote]

Thank you for living in the land of the sane.

I have no doubt that DU ammo leaves residue on it’s target and contaminates the local area. I also believe that this contamination can be dangerous. It is only the extent of the danger that I am not sure about.

As I noted I can see our military downplaying the dangers.

This is all a far cry from the uranium being a danger to Britian.

I also have no doubt that our enemies and those that oppose the war are overplaying the hazard as another tool to turn sentiment against the war.

35

[quote]pookie wrote:
Especially in a country you’re trying to help. I have yet to see an insurgent tank on TV, what is DU used against in Iraq? Aren’t all the modern tanks over there yours?[/quote]

DU was used extensively against Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm as well as Iraqi Freedom.

I don’t believe it is currently being used extensively if it is being used at all.

36

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

He links to the Times and BBC. Both are respectable sources, no matter what planet your from.[/quote]

Are you retarded? Did you read the articles? They happen to be talking about two entirely different Uranium/DU scenarios (one Iraq, one Afghanistan, one DU from s 'n a, one from “new” weaponry,…) and neither one is very convincing. But sure, if you don’t read them or read them with your foil hat on, I guess they’re supporting evidence from reputable sources that agree with one another.

Busby’s report shows that within nine days of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire. On two occasions, levels exceeded the threshold at which the Environment Agency must be informed, though within safety limits. The report says weather conditions over the war period showed a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards.

Brian Spratt, who chaired the Royal Society’s report, cast doubt on depleted uranium as a source but said it could have come from natural uranium in the massive amounts of soil kicked up by shock and awe.

Other experts said local environmental sources, such as a power station, were more likely at fault. The Environment Agency said detectors at other sites did not record a similar increase, which suggested a local source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3050317.stm

“I’m certainly not saying Afghanistan was a vast experiment with new uranium weapons. But use your common sense.”

37

[quote]pookie wrote:

What happens to the targets after the battle or the war is over? Are they left in place to rust? Are they towed away for scrap metal? Is anything done to clean up the battlefield? DU has a half-life of about 4.5 billions years; it’s not going away on it’s own. It’ll seep into the ground, contaminate aquifers and eventually end up in plants and animals. You really believe that contaminating an environment in such a way will have no effects on the life in it?
[/quote]

If you think Iraq’s biggest pollution problem is DU, think again. I took this pic of an open landfill in a residential neighborhood of Mosul. They burn all kinds of synthetics and petroleum in their own front yards, dump chemicals on the ground, and have essentially no standards for water safety.

38

To settle this, they need to fractionate the uranium into U235 and U238 to see what the percentages of the isotopes are. DU has about 60% less of the more radioactive U238. If the samples taken match that same ratio, I may give your case serious coonsideration.

Having been in the middle of “shock and awe”, I am with Hedo in doubting OIF use of DU being a legitimate cause. We did not fire that much DU. Like he said, it was mostly HE.

And I was in that sandstorm. Was like that scene from The Mummy with the wall of sand 3000 feet high. No problems here.

39

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have. He has a slightly better grasp than the kooks but as Hedo has already pointed out it appears he does not know the full story. I suggest you read Hedo’s posts.
[/quote]

Oh FFS, it’s retard week isn’t it? I’ve read Hedo’s posts. I didn’t see any links supporting the notion that the alloy used actually has vastly different properties under combat conditions.

Has anyone pointed to that yet?

[/quote]As I noted, to compare tiny amounts of uranium to a dust storm the size of a hurricane is beyond foolish.[/quote]

The person was propbably trying to make the analogy that weather can have long reaching effects, not that a sandstorm worth of DU would make it such a distance.

Perhaps you would like to guess at the distribution of radioactive materials from the Chernobyle event? There were no sandstorms involved that I’m aware of.

[quote]It is apparent you do not know anything about the subject beyond what you have read in this thread.

No need to go through your post line by line as it contains nothing substantial and I am pressed for time.[/quote]

LOL. Basically, you don’t have any ability to discuss the issues so you’ll act like everything I’ve said is worthless.

Do you have anything to add other than the party line? Perhaps you could link to something resembling support for your stance, other than Hedo’s posts?

I’ll be waiting.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:
…

LOL. Basically, you don’t have any ability to discuss the issues so you’ll act like everything I’ve said is worthless.
[/quote]

It is no act. You have not said anything substantial.

[quote]
Do you have anything to add other than the party line? …[/quote]

Party line? What the hell are you talking about?

I have already said they are dangerous and the military is probably hiding the danger of spent ammo.

Is that the party line?

I also noted that the danger of the DU ammo expended in Iraq does not extend to Britian.

Where are you disagreeing with me? Do you think they are safer than the military claims?

Do you think the danger extends to Britian?

Go start a pissing match with someone else.