|
On March 19 2013 04:24 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 02:50 Irratonalys wrote:
OPs post is großly exaggerated,natural Uranium has a decay time of 4,5 billion years, which means its radioactivity is incredibly low over a short period of time. depleted Uranium is even less radioactive.
The main health concerns are heavy metal poisoning , which you also have in any other usable metal for armor penetrating rounds. I think you might have meant something different than what you wrote. Uranium's half-life of 4.5 billion years means it remains highly radioactive for an extremely long period of time. The DoD has said that DU has about 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium, but the sun will die before DU becomes insignificantly radioactive. However, I agree that DU is not uniquely dangerous or anything. It's not very radioactive. The effects of radiation from DU have not been substantiated, but direct exposure is, of course, toxic, but less so than heavy metals.
Man, please don't post about physics. A long half-life means less radioactivity. Even U-235 is pretty low on the decay scale with a half life of about 100 thousand years. It's generally the by-products of fission which are super-radioactive.
|
On March 19 2013 03:46 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 03:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On March 19 2013 03:21 Ettick wrote:
Is there another material that is as effective for piercing armor and as cost efficient?
Tungsten, usually alloyed with nickel and iron or cobalt to form heavy alloys, is used in kinetic energy penetrators as an alternative to depleted uranium, in applications where uranium's radioactivity is problematic, or where uranium's additional pyrophoric properties are not required (for example, in ordinary small arms bullets designed to penetrate body armor).
Other than that, I don't know that there are alternatives. Bear in mind I'm not an expert on munitions, but from my limited knowledge Uranium and Tungsten are the highest-end there is for the time being. I was reading the wiki article on DU and came across this claim, although the source link is dead. If it's true the tungsten might be worse. Show nested quote +According to 2005 research,[32] at least some of the most promising tungsten alloys that have been considered as replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys, also possess extreme carcinogenic properties, which by far exceed those (confirmed or suspected) of depleted uranium itself: 100% of rats implanted with a pellet of such alloys developed lethal rhabdomyosarcoma within a few weeks.
The Russians use lots of Tungsten-based munitions. It actually works more effectively. The problem is, it's more expensive, since DU is dirt cheap. It's literally the spent waste from nuclear power generation and other uranium usage.
On March 19 2013 03:38 patronage wrote:
My dad lives in Iraq, and he says there are often dust storms and the city officials have warned about radiation during the dust storms.
Well, that's shitty. Really shitty. Not trying to sound insensitive, but I think that's still one of the least of Iraq's worries  . To put it briefly, it has a long way to go to get to 1990 status.
|
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.
Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.
|
On March 19 2013 03:22 D4V3Z02 wrote:The half life of this stuff is pretty outrageous. Looks like world police is pretty corrupted. Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 02:31 GrandInquisitor wrote:
This is all Terran's fault. Did they never stop to think about the environmental impact of their U-238 upgrades?
User was warned for this post This is actually a good one.
Yeah, but irrelevant to the thread.
Aren't these kind of weapons considered chemical weapons? Aren't those world wide banned?
|
On March 19 2013 04:30 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 04:24 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 19 2013 02:50 Irratonalys wrote:
OPs post is großly exaggerated,natural Uranium has a decay time of 4,5 billion years, which means its radioactivity is incredibly low over a short period of time. depleted Uranium is even less radioactive.
The main health concerns are heavy metal poisoning , which you also have in any other usable metal for armor penetrating rounds. I think you might have meant something different than what you wrote. Uranium's half-life of 4.5 billion years means it remains highly radioactive for an extremely long period of time. The DoD has said that DU has about 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium, but the sun will die before DU becomes insignificantly radioactive. However, I agree that DU is not uniquely dangerous or anything. It's not very radioactive. The effects of radiation from DU have not been substantiated, but direct exposure is, of course, toxic, but less so than heavy metals. What he's getting at is if it takes 4.5 billion years for half of an amount of Uranium to decay, the amount that decays over a given short period of time is relatively minor. Whether 'relatively minor' for Uranium is still a hazard is an entirely different matter.
60% of the original radioactive energy is pretty close to the natural uranium's half life but the fact that the uranium hasn't yet decayed in to other elements is the important part, if its still uranium, its still dangerous... just ask Marie Curie! (ok that was radium but same principle!)
|
On March 19 2013 04:37 nucLeaRTV wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 03:22 D4V3Z02 wrote:The half life of this stuff is pretty outrageous. Looks like world police is pretty corrupted. On March 19 2013 02:31 GrandInquisitor wrote:
This is all Terran's fault. Did they never stop to think about the environmental impact of their U-238 upgrades?
User was warned for this post This is actually a good one. Yeah, but irrelevant to the thread. Aren't these kind of weapons considered chemical weapons? Aren't those world wide banned?
by that standard everything is a chemical weapon, except nuclear ones. Gunpower releases its chemical energy to create an explosion and propel a bullet. All explosions are chemical energy.
A chemical weapon is something that kills people directly using a chemical agent like mustard gas. This is just a by-product of the material used in armor piercing rounds. If anything it would be considered a nuclear weapon, which are also banned (unless ur the UK,USA,China,Isreal,India,pakistan etc) because their lasting effects are too harsh.
More people die from the aftermath of a nuclear strike than by the explosion itself, that is the hallmark of a nuclear weapon and if DU does have the effect described in the OP, it should be considered a nuclear weapon.
|
On March 19 2013 04:39 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 04:30 Dfgj wrote:On March 19 2013 04:24 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 19 2013 02:50 Irratonalys wrote:
OPs post is großly exaggerated,natural Uranium has a decay time of 4,5 billion years, which means its radioactivity is incredibly low over a short period of time. depleted Uranium is even less radioactive.
The main health concerns are heavy metal poisoning , which you also have in any other usable metal for armor penetrating rounds. I think you might have meant something different than what you wrote. Uranium's half-life of 4.5 billion years means it remains highly radioactive for an extremely long period of time. The DoD has said that DU has about 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium, but the sun will die before DU becomes insignificantly radioactive. However, I agree that DU is not uniquely dangerous or anything. It's not very radioactive. The effects of radiation from DU have not been substantiated, but direct exposure is, of course, toxic, but less so than heavy metals. What he's getting at is if it takes 4.5 billion years for half of an amount of Uranium to decay, the amount that decays over a given short period of time is relatively minor. Whether 'relatively minor' for Uranium is still a hazard is an entirely different matter. 60% of the original radioactive energy is pretty close to the natural uranium's half life but the fact that the uranium hasn't yet decayed in to other elements is the important part, if its still uranium, its still dangerous... just ask Marie Curie! (ok that was radium but same principle!)
All radiation is not created equal. The decay pathway determines what particle or wavelength is emitted from the parent nucleus, and that's what you care about. High energy Beta decay is more dangerous than alpha decay...unless an alpha emitter is ingested somehow.
Natural Uranium has a higher percentage of U235 than does DU (which is nearly all U238). U235, like U238 is an alpha emitter, but it also emits gamma rays, which are FAR more dangerous to the human body. The half-life is also significantly shorter, so the CPS (counts per second) is much higher. So an increase in %U235 is what leads to that 60% number from the DoD, and that 60% figure is comparing the relative Total Ionizing Doses.
Comparing relative doses of radiation is actually pretty complex, hence the large number of units used to describe it: Curies, Roentgens, Rads, Grays, Sieverts, Becquerels, etc .
|
although i can see a reasonable discussion arise from whether or not causing radioactive pollution is acceptable under the geneva conventions (or a similar rationale), this op is so factually incorrect and incendiary (pun!) it makes me want to puke.
if the op gets updated some time soon i can see this being a great topic to talk about, but right now i can only regard it as flamebaiting or making people do "research" for the thread starter.
|
I own a depleted uranium shell (casing) from the vulcan cannon of an A-10. It's a shell that was fired on Iraqi targets, interestingly enough. Here's hoping it hasn't been poisoning my house for the last decade or so.
|
On March 19 2013 04:48 Glull wrote:
although i can see a reasonable discussion arise from whether or not causing radioactive pollution is acceptable under the geneva conventions (or a similar rationale), this op is so factually incorrect and incendiary (pun!) it makes me want to puke.
if the op gets updated some time soon i can see this being a great topic to talk about, but right now i can only regard it as flamebaiting or making people do "research" for the thread starter.
Im not a specialist on the topic nor do i have advanced knowlege of physics/chemicals so please everyone who has some interesting information should send me those, that i can include them!
If someone feels offended by my Post please point out the major flaws and points where i might have been wrong or biased.
Thanks in advance.
|
On March 19 2013 04:24 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 02:50 Irratonalys wrote:
OPs post is großly exaggerated,natural Uranium has a decay time of 4,5 billion years, which means its radioactivity is incredibly low over a short period of time. depleted Uranium is even less radioactive.
The main health concerns are heavy metal poisoning , which you also have in any other usable metal for armor penetrating rounds. I think you might have meant something different than what you wrote. Uranium's half-life of 4.5 billion years means it remains highly radioactive for an extremely long period of time. The DoD has said that DU has about 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium, but the sun will die before DU becomes insignificantly radioactive.
You are incorrect. Radioactivity is caused by the decay of the particles in the substance. Radioactive materials with a long half-life release less radiation per unit of time. Not that it is insignificant, but the most immediately dangerous radioactive materials are the ones with the shortest half lives, such as iodine and others.
|
Man, actually read through these first two pages of this thread. They've listed a ton of critical failures in your presentation of the issue in the OP.
|
On March 19 2013 03:06 Silvanel wrote:
OP made several mistakes.(to not call it blantant lies)
Uranium is both radiocative and toxic. Its toxicity is much bigger issue than radioactivity.
There are studies claiming that using that kind of amunition can be hamrfull, but there are also studies claiming it has negligable effects.
The sentence about million deaths is taken out of nowhere. Nothing suggests that. As far as i am awere of there is no single proven case of death as result of use of DU (not counting those killed by bullets of course), not to mention millions.
Isnt the Toxic level caused mainly by his radioactive propertys?
|
On March 19 2013 04:57 Mjolnir wrote:
I own a depleted uranium shell (casing) from the vulcan cannon of an A-10. It's a shell that was fired on Iraqi targets, interestingly enough. Here's hoping it hasn't been poisoning my house for the last decade or so.
It hasn't been. Even if you accept that DU is bad (I don't), the casing is just brass, or something else equally harmless. It's the projectile that's DU.
On March 19 2013 05:22 Chilling5pr33 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 03:06 Silvanel wrote:
OP made several mistakes.(to not call it blantant lies)
Uranium is both radiocative and toxic. Its toxicity is much bigger issue than radioactivity.
There are studies claiming that using that kind of amunition can be hamrfull, but there are also studies claiming it has negligable effects.
The sentence about million deaths is taken out of nowhere. Nothing suggests that. As far as i am awere of there is no single proven case of death as result of use of DU (not counting those killed by bullets of course), not to mention millions. Isnt the Toxic level caused mainly by his radioactive propertys?
No. Toxicity is due to the fact that it's a heavy metal.
Speaking of which, why are people complaining about DU when traditional lead can be just as toxic, and is used far more often?
|
People still have no idea that sun radiates raiation,
That every time you get X-rays you do get a substantial dose of radiation,
and that small quantities additional to the natural level of radiation are not harmfull,
right?
|
On March 19 2013 05:38 naastyOne wrote:
People still have no idea that sun radiates raiation,
That every time you get X-rays you do get a substantial dose of radiation,
and that small quantities additional to the natural level of radiation are not harmfull,
right?
Well our body has some great mechanism to deal with those doses but too much of it is always bad (like of everything) and if you inhale something wich has (even very little) radioactive propertys it poisons you over a long period of time.
Its basic knowlege that radiation cause damage in our DNA wich can lead to cancer.
|
On March 19 2013 04:37 nucLeaRTV wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 03:22 D4V3Z02 wrote:The half life of this stuff is pretty outrageous. Looks like world police is pretty corrupted. On March 19 2013 02:31 GrandInquisitor wrote:
This is all Terran's fault. Did they never stop to think about the environmental impact of their U-238 upgrades?
User was warned for this post This is actually a good one. Yeah, but irrelevant to the thread. Aren't these kind of weapons considered chemical weapons? Aren't those world wide banned?
I'm fairly certain they are not considered chemical weapons and even if they were in all likelihood superpowers like the US and Russia wouldn't even be signatories to such a thing
|
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?
Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)
|
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment. Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.
Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?
|
I thought it just did +1 range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
