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/Pres...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/Res...EP_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...nk-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.

[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.