Post #197,265
3/4/05 9:30:04 PM
|
Cute
How much do I need to spell out for you?
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
Post #197,267
3/4/05 9:49:02 PM
|
DU is used for the same reason as granite
It's dense. And it's less radioactive. How much do I have to spell out for you? Never mind I am done spelling.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #197,268
3/4/05 10:06:16 PM
|
Thats a good one
It's just like granite.You can build houses out of it,
Try again.
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
Post #197,274
3/4/05 11:46:30 PM
3/4/05 11:58:58 PM
|
It is used for ballast and counterweights
in [link|http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dviss.html#ACW|747 airplanes] and elsewhere. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if jb4 had some in his John Deere snowblower? >:-) (It made a lot more sense when I thought I was replying to Mike M...)
The main reasons why it's used in ammunition are: 1) It's dense - it packs a big punch in a small volume, 2) It's cheap ("practically free" is claimed in some articles I've seen), 3) It's "self sharpening" as it passes through armor. It doesn't mushroom, thus it penetrates very well.
Tungsten, a similar though non-radioactive heavy metal is less toxic but expensive. We have to import it from China and Russia. It's slightly less dense so doesn't work quite as well as DU.
Osmium and Iridium are the two densest elements, but they're precious metals (similar to platinum) and very expensive. I don't think that even the Lone Ranger could afford iridium bullets....
In a granite house you'd have to worry about [link|http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radon.htm|radon] which has reaction products that are alpha emitters, just like uranium. Hmmm. Granite's a lot more expensive (it's not free), but the cost of getting a license to use DU and the transportation costs probably don't lean in DU's favor. ;-j
Bottom line: Any real material has pluses and minuses.
[edit:] Mixed up jb4 with Mike again. :-( Sorry guys.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #197,520
3/7/05 1:38:50 PM
|
Hint:
Mike flies airplanes.
I fly in airplanes.
I hope that clarifies things....
;-)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #197,530
3/7/05 2:52:09 PM
|
Perfectly. :-)
|
Post #197,712
3/8/05 5:32:27 PM
|
Spell p-l-u-t-o-n-i-u-m
[link|http://www.firethistime.org/plutoniumcontamination.htm"|Plutonium is part of DU]
radioactive enough for you?
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #197,714
3/8/05 6:09:57 PM
|
"potentially contaminated"
Lots of handwaving in that article. You might want to find a better cite with some real evidence.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #197,736
3/8/05 9:10:08 PM
|
Look, the real problem with DU munitions
is that it gets turned into micro dust when it's used. This means that it gets into the body and the body has zero chance to get it out again.
The stuff is very hazardous, and toxic, and remains so for a long long time. I'm not going to claim that it's going to cause mass mutations or anything (at least, not on the scale it's been used on so far), but what are you going to say if in ten years the cancer rates for Iraq war vets is many times the national average? That we didn't know any better?
It's not hard to figure out that people ingesting/inhaling heavy radioactive metals is not good for them.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #197,738
3/8/05 9:56:07 PM
|
Some earlier links addressed that.
Rather than cutting and pasting links, I'll just refer interested readers to earlier posts in this thread.
Lots of soldiers from Gulf War I (1991) have lots of DU in them. They're being monitored. Uranium miners have uranium in them. They're also being [link|http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/uranium/append.html|studied].
Uranium can be bad in the body. Heavy metals can be toxic. Alpha emitters can be hazardous when injested. All of that I agree with.
A lot is known about uranium chemistry ([link|https://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/UrineTesting.pdf|https://chppm-www.ap.../UrineTesting.pdf] discusses how it acts on the body). (z doesn't like https links.)
The problem, as I see it, is one of which side do you come down on as far as the studies are concerned. Do you trust the US military's [link|http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm|FAQs] and studies or not? I generally do.
It also comes down to how you view the relative risk. Radioactivity is all around us. Heavy metals are all around battlefields. There are risks in replacing DU with other materials. Soldiers facing an enemy tank are much more at risk from explosives or bullets than from DU, IMHO. Our soldiers in a tank with DU armor are much better protected than a tank with armor made from other materials.
Getting rid of DU isn't going to make the problem of injesting of heavy metals by soldiers, or civilians who come across debris, go away. DU is a tool, and a very effective tool.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #197,818
3/9/05 2:37:54 PM
|
Links to go
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=197795|How this ended up there I don't know but...]
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #197,822
3/9/05 3:19:35 PM
|
What concentration?
These press reports never say what concentration the Pu is supposed to be in the DU. I wonder why that is? (Not really...) [link|http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf|WHO Report] (.pdf) on DU in Kosovo, p.7: In addition to U235, U234 and U238, the mission was confronted with questions on the presence of plutonium or other radioactive chemicals in the munitions. KFOR informed the mission that it did not exclude the possibility that traces of plutonium could be present in depleted uranium. This is because the enrichment of some natural uranium, from which depleted uranium is a waste by-product, occurred at a production facility that had been used previously for the processing of spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors. The production facility had not been completely cleaned and cross-contamination could have been possible.
According to NATO (referring to a statement placed on the Internet on 18 January 2001) it "has long been established that there may be trace elements of U236 and plutonium in depleted uranium." The presence of plutonium was addressed in a report of the US Department of Defense (2000), which also contains comments on the possible presence of trace elements of other materials in depleted uranium. The report concludes that depleted uranium \ufffdmay contain trace levels (a few parts per billion) of transuranics (neptunium, plutonium and americium). Tests on samples of DU showed that transuranic contamination added 0.8% to the radiation dose from DU."
With regard to the presence of U236 in Kosovo, UNEP has mentioned (UNEP press release,16 January 2001) that "along with the more commonly expected isotopes, one of the laboratories has reported finding 0.0028% of U236." The UNEP press release says the \ufffdcontent of U236 in depleted uranium is so small that the radio-toxicity is not changed compared to DU without U236." Consequently, it has been concluded that detection of U236 indicates part of the depleted uranium originates from reprocessed uranium.
It would appear that the presence of the U236 isotope led to the scientific deduction that plutonium may also be present. At a meeting immediately prior to the commencement of the WHO mission in Kosovo, UNEP informed the team that the laboratory had not reported detecting any plutonium in their samples. After the mission returned from Kosovo, UNEP announced (press release, 16 February 2001) that traces of Pu239 and Pu240 were found in four penetrators. UNEP advised that the content of the plutonium found is very low and does not have any significant impact on overall radioactivity. Oh, and there was plutonium in the soil, worldwide, before DU started being used. E.g. [link|http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxPlutonium.html|this] article from Nature from 1973. I don't think Pu in DU is a significant (i.e. measurable) risk. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #197,832
3/9/05 5:21:56 PM
|
It Can't be Good (or even average)
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #197,833
3/9/05 5:24:14 PM
|
Correct. It's below average.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
