What is the DEAL with depleted uranium?

[gsmoove23]

Could someone tell me the reasons we use depleted uranium shells/bullets in our military? Is it simply because this is a heavy metal? are there other reasons? How radioactive is the stuff, does the word 'depleted' mean it is no longer dangerous? Do the advantages it offers outweigh the obvious problems? By using it in a military action aren't we causing major problems for local inhabitants for years to come?

Ever since I first heard about that Navy firing range in Puerto Rico I have been mystified by the fact that our military feels it is appropriate to be flinging bits of radioactive metal around willy-nilly. Whats even more amazing to me is that every time I hear a news report that mentions it they never find it necessary to explain what depleted uranium is and why we use it.

Curious, armchair generals please respond.

[Japher]

quick google search yielded this web site


Not harmful, good armor piercing due to high density.

[Inverse Icarus]

yup. it's for bustin up heavy tank hulls.

[Sava]

It's a very dense and hard metal. It's very good for piercing armor. Also, it spawls when it hits a target. Spawling is quite devastating to the occupants of a vehicle. The Abrams tanks use a depleted uranium round that don't contain an explosive shell. The sheer kinetic energy obliterates its target.

It's radioactivity is depleted. As for being harmless? Well, I wouldn't want to have some depleted uranium around my sack for any amount of time. But feel free if you think it is harmless.

[Jon Miller]

if you look into it's radiation effects, is is quite harmless unless you are breathing it in or something

than it is really bad

Jon Miller

[Sandman]

DU is highly toxic. This is main problem with it, not the radioactivity.

[Arrian]

I think extensive testing would have to be done in order to be sure of the harmful effects (or lack thereof) of DU. The Army is unlikely to step up and do those tests. It is in their interest not to. It's apparently a very effective material to use for armor-piercing shells.

The problem with exposure to something like DU is that it's probably tough to tell what is due to the DU exposure and what could be due to growing up next to a chemical plant, or smoking a pack a day, or some other exposure to something else entirely.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Yeah, Sava, I work with nasty chemicals, elements, and compounds all day, so my definition of harmless is probably not the best definition to go on.

[Arrian]

@ Japher.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

I don't know much about toxicity

Jon Miller

[gsmoove23]

It seems the jury is out on whether it is harmless. Japher, the site you gave me has a number of links, some that aren't too sure that DU is safe, others think it is hazardous. Of course, there is a Rand corp. study saying its completely safe but this also came from your site http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm

I can't help but think of the oft quoted statistic of cancer rates rising 600% in Iraq after the Gulf War.

[Arrian]

Just like the oft-quoted figure of 500,000 iraqi children killed by the evil Americans?

Not that I'd trust the Rand study either.

-Arrian

[TCO]

It is an alpha emitter. So if just set it next to your nutsack it won't do much. but if you breath it, it will lodge in your lungs and stay there for long periods of time (can't remember if it is months or forever). If you drink it, it passes from your body quickly, but it does have some chemical toxicity (like lead).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
Just like the oft-quoted figure of 500,000 iraqi children killed by the evil Americans?

Not that I'd trust the Rand study either.

-Arrian

500,000+ people have died in Iraq since GW1 because of various reasons. That is a fact. Who is responsible? Well that's a different story.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP
It is an alpha emitter. So if just set it next to your nutsack it won't do much. but if you breath it, it will lodge in your lungs and stay there for long periods of time (can't remember if it is months or forever). If you drink it, it passes from your body quickly, but it does have some chemical toxicity (like lead).

Again, I'll take your word for it. But I'm not about to let that **** near my boys.

[gsmoove23]

It seems if you take a heavy metal that has harmful side-effects if ingested or inhaled and use it in a shell that will be propelled at incredible speeds into God-knows-what you are asking for trouble. It'll be mashed, shattered, scattered, vaporized, etc...

Anyway, anyone know exactly what munitions this material is used for? Is it only tank and artillery shells or also large caliber machine guns and such.

Arrian, believe me I'm sceptical of the 600% cancer increase figure myself, but I am a lefty afterall so I must consider it.

[Sava]

gsmoove: DU is used in tank shells, large calibre machine guns, and some armor.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

radioactive strawberries ...

but here is an useful link
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
It seems if you take a heavy metal that has harmful side-effects if ingested or inhaled and use it in a shell that will be propelled at incredible speeds into God-knows-what you are asking for trouble. It'll be mashed, shattered, scattered, vaporized, etc...

Anyway, anyone know exactly what munitions this material is used for? Is it only tank and artillery shells or also large caliber machine guns and such.

Arrian, believe me I'm sceptical of the 600% cancer increase figure myself, but I am a lefty afterall so I must consider it.

The Phalanx anti-missile gatling guns use it.

[Chemical Ollie]

It turns into toxic dust when it hits the target, and this dust could spread by the wind all over the place for years to come. Basically, I would call it a "dirty bomb". (Isn't that what you call toxic bombs made of nuclear waste?)

[Sava]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
It turns into toxic dust when it hits the target, and this dust could spread by the wind all over the place for years to come. Basically, I would call it a "dirty bomb". (Isn't that what you call toxic bombs made of nuclear waste?)

That's what we call it when other people do the same thing.

[gsmoove23]

How is the benefit worth the risk? Unless these shells offer an incredible tactical difference why would we be willing to use them? Even if they do I somehow doubt the war would have went any differently if we used conventional ammunition.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
How is the benefit worth the risk? Unless these shells offer an incredible tactical difference why would we be willing to use them? Even if they do I somehow doubt the war would have went any differently if we used conventional ammunition.

Study basic physics. Look at the density of uranium. Do some calculations of momentum/kinetic energy. You could also look at some of the actual testing.

Your answer is actually quite revealing. If I boil it down, it says, "I can't figure out how to compare efficacy, but I'm going to make pronoucements anyway."

[raghar]

Tungusteen. Is it called that way? Tungusteen is slightly less effective in manufacturing, but offers almost simillar capebilities. Current tank ammo looks like 2 cm rod with predeffined break points. It has still somewhat worse armor penetreation than bow's arrow. Normalised by power of projectile of course.

There is a lot of DU, or was. So companies needed to find some use for DU. There is some reaction with steel, and easier manufacture than tungusteen. US corporations started to use DU.
BTW I think use of DU in MMG is somewhat stupid.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
How is the benefit worth the risk? Unless these shells offer an incredible tactical difference why would we be willing to use them? Even if they do I somehow doubt the war would have went any differently if we used conventional ammunition.

That's just the point -- they do offer an incredible tactical difference.

I think that's one reason so many governments are screaming about our use of them.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GP


The Phalanx anti-missile gatling guns use it.

Yes they do, having worked on PHALANX for 5 years, loading and unloading the weapon at various times, I have had no adverse effects.

Except, maybe, my third eye.

ACK!

[gsmoove23]

GP, all very well and good, but you didn't say anything. For instance, do you think that conventional ammo would have faced much difficulty in disabling Iraqi armor quickly and efficiently. I doubt it. This is the disproportionate use of a weapon with potentially dangerous side-effects, no one can say for sure what the side-effects are because no one has taken the time to seriously study the subject.

I wouldn't have any particular problems with its use if American tanks were facing up against weapons systems that offered them a significant challenge where you might be able to say use of DU will save x amount of soldiers but I do not think thats the case here. If you do please take the time to explain how.

[Sava]

GP, all very well and good, but you didn't say anything

He rarely does.

[lightblue]

Did you see the US and UK tanks that were shot at by Irqi armed vehicles and heavy machineguns? A lot of them shurgged it off, only leading to denting of the outer shell of the tanks.

Compare that with a DU shell hitting one of the T-55s...

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
GP, all very well and good, but you didn't say anything. For instance, do you think that conventional ammo would have faced much difficulty in disabling Iraqi armor quickly and efficiently. I doubt it. This is the disproportionate use of a weapon with potentially dangerous side-effects, no one can say for sure what the side-effects are because no one has taken the time to seriously study the subject.

I wouldn't have any particular problems with its use if American tanks were facing up against weapons systems that offered them a significant challenge where you might be able to say use of DU will save x amount of soldiers but I do not think thats the case here. If you do please take the time to explain how.

You never, ever, go into a battle with less than the best you can field. Anything less and you are doing your soldiers an injustice.

You can't say that other shells are going to work as well, prove that, and then we can discuss using DU.

DU was developed to penetrate modern armor, which the Iraqi's had. If normal rounds would have penetrated modern armor, DU wouldn't have been developed.

ACK!