Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Depleted Uranium

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Depleted Uranium

    I don't think this has been covered here so I'm curious - given the rather well documented side-affects of DU, should the US army continue to use it? I hear the British Army is going to stop using DU penetrators, but the US army is still sticking with it.

    Yay or nay?
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    And some gratutious propoganda to go along with this

    http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html (has some moderately graphic images of deformed babies).

    A lot of pretty blatant anti-Bush flash movies there, view at your own risk.
    Last edited by MikeJ; 18 Nov 03, 07:36.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      Here the US military basically says 'we need DU, cover up bad side affects'.

      http://www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/los_alamos.htm
      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MikeJ
        I don't think this has been covered here so I'm curious - given the rather well documented side-affects of DU, should the US army continue to use it? I hear the British Army is going to stop using DU penetrators, but the US army is still sticking with it.

        Yay or nay?
        Depleted uranium in and of itself is harmless. It's the uranium oxide dust released when the material is worked thats the killer.
        The only advantage depleted uranium has over a tungsten long-rod penetrator is the pyroscopic(?) effect that a depleted uranium rod has upon penetrating it's target. The two materials actually have very similar densities; resulting in similar penetration capabilities.

        Flakes of depleted uranium instantaneously combust once they enter the interior of the target due to the intense heat of penetration; usually resulting in a catastophic kill. Tungsten penetrators tend to stay solid and bounce around inside the target; usually killing the crew, but not necessarily disabling the tank (depending on what it hits).
        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm well aware of what it does and the heath consequences, I'm wondering whether you think the US army should continue to use them in light of this.

          And just to split hairs, saying the DU is 'in and of itself is harmless' is not true either. While the alpha particles coming off of DU has difficulty penetrating things such as clothing (and even skin to a degree), that doesn't mean direct exposure to DU is safe. The DU round turning into dust simply makes direct exposure far more likely (not to mention potent) through inhalation, but the stuff is by no means harmless. I mean, manufature of the rounds is done with protective clothing for a reason.

          Tungsten does have similar a density, but DU is actually denser, so it offers slightly more performance, not to mention vastly cheaper as the Pentagon would otherwise have to pay to store the nuclear waste (as opposed to buying an expensive and exotic mineral like tungsten).
          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MikeJ
            I'm well aware of what it does and the heath consequences, I'm wondering whether you think the US army should continue to use them in light of this.

            And just to split hairs, saying the DU is 'in and of itself is harmless' is not true either. While the alpha particles coming off of DU has difficulty penetrating things such as clothing (and even skin to a degree), that doesn't mean direct exposure to DU is safe. The DU round turning into dust simply makes direct exposure far more likely (not to mention potent) through inhalation, but the stuff is by no means harmless. I mean, manufature of the rounds is done with protective clothing for a reason.

            Tungsten does have similar a density, but DU is actually denser, so it offers slightly more performance, not to mention vastly cheaper as the Pentagon would otherwise have to pay to store the nuclear waste (as opposed to buying an expensive and exotic mineral like tungsten).
            The manufacture of DU penetrators is carried out in protective clothing because the material is being worked; possibly releasing uranium oxide in the process. A block of DU sitting on a table causes no ill-effects.

            A little known factoid: DU is also used in the building of aircraft as a counter-weight for flight controls.

            To return to the question: the US should follow England's lead and stop the use of DU in weapons.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tigersqn
              The manufacture of DU penetrators is carried out in protective clothing because the material is being worked; possibly releasing uranium oxide in the process. A block of DU sitting on a table causes no ill-effects.
              Er, are you suggesting the block of DU sitting on a table is not radioactive?
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MikeJ
                Er, are you suggesting the block of DU sitting on a table is not radioactive?
                Maybe try to not lick it...
                a brain cell

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MikeJ
                  Er, are you suggesting the block of DU sitting on a table is not radioactive?
                  Not really.

                  I'm only suggesting it's not harmful to humans in that state(as long as you don't get TOO close)
                  Last edited by tigersqn; 18 Nov 03, 09:05.
                  Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd follow suit with the British, there are other options that aren't toxic.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tigersqn
                      Not really.

                      I'm only suggesting it's not harmful to humans in that state(as long as you don't get TOO close)
                      True, but then again cyanide isn't dangerous if you don't ingest it either .
                      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X