DU is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium. It is used in armor piercing ammunition or in armor plates of tanks.
It has a higher density than other materials, it pierces steel armor like a hot knive butter. When such a weapon hits a tank it reaches over 1000c° so the soldiers inside burn in a split second, additional the uran atoms are accelerated and pass every human with devastating effects. So this ammunition is extra effective in war and therefore used in high quantitys. Until now it is used in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Kosovo war.
The shell itsself isnt so bad, but after explosion there is a dust of all the burned material and this dust is radioactive. You can actually breathe in this dust and will be affected forever by it. You can only imagine how this dust affects people living in those countrys.
This weapons probably cause some of the "gulf war syndrome" cases. It also affects the own soldier, who come in contact with those weapons. (cancer rates) It also affects the next generation of the people coming in contackt, becouse embryos might be deformed.
The Dust can be transported very far by winds and since it takes around 20.000 years to loose half of his radioactivity it will stay in our nature forever this will affect the whole world on the long run. We all are the target of those weapons fired to initially destroy a tank/plane or building.
1- The USA and UK continuously used Depleted Uranium weapons against the population and environment in Iraq from 1991 until today.
2- Occupation forces in Iraq intentionally denied and covered up the types, locations and amounts of weapons that were used to prevent taking measures which could reduce health damages resulting from LLR exposure.
3- Occupation forces prohibited UNEP, WHO and other international agencies to conduct any exploration programs to assess the health risks to the people of Iraq of these radioactive contaminants.
4- Forbidding the release of any casualty statistics by the health ministry in Iraq right after the occupation is part of the crime that has been continuously committed against Iraq and Iraqis.
5- Exploration programs and site measurements proved without a doubt that the existence of DU related radioactive contamination all over most of Iraq (except the northern area of Kurdistan).
6- Published epidemiological studies in Basrah introduced a clear correlation between DU related exposure to LLR and the multifold increase of malignancies, congenital malformations and multiple malformations in detected DU contaminated areas.
7- Other pathological and hematological studies indicated the existence of chromosomal and DNA aberrations and abnormalities in the 1991 Iraqi Gulf War veterans. Other studies proved their effects on lowering the activities of the human immune system in exposed individuals.
8- Iraqi researchers’ site measurements of 2000 revealed the fact that the Muthana governorate and Al-Samawa city were contaminated since 1991. This fact was proven by the Dutch troops in 2003, and then the American Guardsmen who served in that area after the invasion and confirmed exposure to DU contamination after coming back home by Dr. Drakovic.
9- Intentional continuous use of DU against the people and environment of Iraq is a crime against humanity due to its undifferentiated harmful health impacts on civilian long times after the military operations. Existing DU contamination in the surrounding environment is a continuous source of (LLR) exposure to civilians which can be considered systematic attacks on civilians in an armed conflict. Article 4 of the official regulations and Article 7 of the ICC.
DU ammunition slowly poisons the middle east, and could kill millions on the long run. (Hundrets of years) It should be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Its not the Shell itself but the dust resolving from the explosion wich could cause harm by breathing it.
Sorry for my bad english writing skills if anyone has time to correct me i am happy to update this anytime.
I think this stuff needs more recognition and since some institution try to cover it up i hope this reaches some people
depleted uranium doesn't get talked about much in America. I am hoping some people knowledgeable about it and military affairs chime in with their thoughts.
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.
This weapons probably cause most of "the gulf war syndrome", and the children of them are often genetecally defected, so it not only targets the enemys it also affects the own soldier who come in contact with those weapons.
Unsubstantiated, misleading statement. Even a short survey shows that the proven linked causes are Pyridostigmine (antidote, nerve agents) and some organophosphonate compounds. Considering that your boogeyman is only a suspected cause, leaping from that to a probable leading cause in the effects is fantasy.
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.
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?
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.
There have been more than 200 Italian Soldiers that have devoleped sickness due to the imploiment of DU in the Kosovo war. And the goverment still refuses to take responisibility over those actions. Fucking wars. Intellingent bombes but stupid people trowing them
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.
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.
Thanks for reminding me of this topic and compelling me to watch more videos on it. It should be talked about more. If there are residual effects, there's nothing like some irony of going after a country over some "WMD's" just to subject them to some, when they didn't have any to begin with.
Basicly DU is almost half as radioactive as regular uranium, not bad? It's still a toxic heavy metal that is rendered in to dust sized particles as the ammo explodes and continues to wreak havoc in the area.
I dont think anyone in the military intented to poison civilians. Rather this all shows how ignorant we generally are about toxification of the soil and water from indrusty and agriculture because of ignorance and of the landscape amnesia.
See a stream of water? dont dare to drink from it because dont know if it will kill you? In Finland there are recommendations on how much fish we can consume from nearby seas/lakes because they accumalate harmfull contentrations of toxins in their bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy
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. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.
These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.
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.
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.
Just some facts that are probably worth adding to the discussion here:
Alpha decay (the decay mode that U238 undergoes) is not actually dangerous if the parent nucleus is outside of the body. An alpha particle will only travel a few centimeters through air, and will not penetrate paper/clothing/oil on your skin/etc. However, if you inhale an alpha emitter into your lungs or ingest it, then it can travel far enough inside of your body (through several layers of cells) to cause significant damage.
You could stand next to a massive brick of U238 and be just fine, but if you inhaled dust containing U238, you could be in for some serious health issues down the road.
A mole of Uranium (238g) will emit about 3 million alpha particles per second. The direction those travel in is random.
Sources: my background knowledge. I'm a chemistry Ph.D student and I've taken courses in radiochemistry/gotten certified on handling radiological materials/radiation safety, etc.
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 03:21 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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?
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 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 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 04:18 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?
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.
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.
Not exactly, its a byproduct of enriching process. Also its not cheap, cheaper than tungsten, cobalt or nickel but not even close in price to regular bullets. United Nuclear sells slabs (4"x4"x1/8") for 3500$ (reagent grade though).
PS. Why people here are asking abourt laws/criminality of this aumunition? All You have to do is follow the link to wiki about depleted uranium. Everything is right there.
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).
About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.
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?
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Found the actual statement from the Doctor, he says in the movie that he took Projectiles, gave him to a diplomat to bring these Projectiles into Germany(Berlin), there, 3 Universities did some research on the projectile because he wanted to know if it was radioactive, the first University was the University of Humboldt, they said its highly toxic & radioactive, we dont want to have any part in this go to the technician University, they said the same "go away, go to the radioactive Institute of the free University" though they said that they didnt want it today(it was a friday), come back Monday. On Monday there were 16 Policemen waiting for him, ready to take the Radioactive Projectile."
He was sentenced to pay a fee of 3000,- DM (Deutsche Mark, the german currency before the Euro), he refused and was imprisoned for 5 Weeks. But at that time he had the confirmation, that the Projectile was indeed radioactive.
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).
About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.
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?
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
I remember someone ranting about the Kony 2012 thingy, he mentioned that Germany was #1 in exporting Mines AND Prosthetics etc... We Germans sell a lot of Weapons, holy crap.
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. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.
These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.
My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.
You're blowing this out of proportion, yes it's bad, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction: It has a very long half life, meaning there isn't much radiation released, and while uranium is toxic, it's far from the worst thing used in war, and there are much better things to focus attention on. Also, this is alpha, not beta or gamma decay, so it's much less penetrating, as wikipedia put it
In general, external alpha radiation is not harmful since alpha particles are effectively shielded by a few centimeters of air, a piece of paper, or the thin layer of dead skin cells that make up the epidermis
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).
About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.
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?
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.
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. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.
These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.
My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.
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. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.
These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.
My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.
What are you talking about? Depleted uranium is toxic because it's a heavy metal. It has nothing to do with radiation. There are multiple studies (read the wiki) showing that its radioactivity is far less dangerous than its chemical toxicity, which is a signature of all heavy metals. It means that replacing uranium with some other heavy metal will not change much, unless you specifically chose a less chemically toxic metal.
I'll just be honest here. The military is a sacred thing here in America. A lot of the military stuff we hate is getting toned down right now by Obama to some extent, but it will take another 50 years or so before the military gets toned down much more. Once Iraq and Afghanistan leave our minds, people will begin to demand even more radical change because there is no percieved threat. I will admit though, a majority of people in this country like the fact that our military can kill anything. So I doubt a majority of people will have an issue with this.
Every one of us takes in uranium via eating and drinking. Is there a study that shows that the exposure to uranium of people in war zones is significantly higher than normal?
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).
About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.
On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
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?
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.
I think the issue is simply that depleted uranium can harm innocents, and since in theory you want to minimize the damage to innocents, we should avoid using it. Whether there are more pressing concerns is not necessarily relevant here; if we are capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time (which I'd think we are), then why not fight to make the world a safer place by reducing the chance someone will inhale this toxic metal?
For that matter, lead bullets do not pose the same threat because they apparently can't be inhaled like DU can after it is fired. You have uranium dioxide dust that can be inhaled, but as far as I know from what I've read the only way to get lead poisoning is to actually be shot by it; but they can be surgically removed before they do too much damage so its not a big deal.
Even with all that you may say this is has far too small a chance to affect anyone to be important. But I think we'd need some more reliable sources to say how dangerous it is over a sustained conflict.
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote: What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
you can't impose a line beforehand and decide you won't cross it. such is the nature of war, what was immoral and overkill yesterday becomes necessary tomorrow. and the reason people haven't used nukes is not the banning, or the environmental cost. it's the pure and simple truth that killing more people has never been the true goal of war, and even the most basic strategic goals are precluded by the massive indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations. DU weapons are cheap and effective at killing single targets, nukes are effective at annihilating cities. only a terrorist or an utter moron would think that in the age of modern warfare, annihilating a city would be effective at achieving any kind of sensible strategic goal. a nuke is really only useful in a nuclear war, or in some unforeseeable "total-war" scenario that is unlikely anyway. or by terrorists who want to maximize their killing potential (but that isn't really "war" in the classic sense, and the likelihood of them getting a nuke is relatively small).
war ain't pretty. people are going to die. sometimes you will have to use weapons that have terrible consequences. we can try to limit the use as much as possible, but you can't stop war from affecting civilian populations negatively. be happy that our technological advancement has allowed for the relative mercy that modern war conducted by Western forces has right now. tbh you'd save more lives by getting better generals than you would by getting rid of DU.
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote: 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)
Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).
About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.
On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
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?
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.
Even with all that you may say this is has far too small a chance to affect anyone to be important. But I think we'd need some more reliable sources to say how dangerous it is over a sustained conflict.
They avoided doing real researcch on this topic becouse if the result is positive they have to pay for the cost resulting throw it not the people in iraq or afghanistan (wich would cost around 200$ per affected person) its more about our own soldiers affected by it those would cost the millitary billions in the end and they want to avoid this so they avoid propper research.
If you look closely you see they try to avoid all this becouse the relative cost would be much too high, so they try to avoid the discussion overall.
And im not talking of some strange consperacy its just logical financial calculation and im disgusted by this, becouse people joining the military are mostly either having no choice or want to do it becouse they feel the moral urge to do it. Those people should not suffer.
Ofcourse i feel bad for every child playing in a shot tank as well.
EPT
. To put it briefly, it has a long way to go to get to 1990 status.
