depleted uranium


by i_wish_i_was_smart
Tags: depleted, uranium
hitssquad
hitssquad is offline
#109
Jun16-04, 01:59 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Quote Quote by russ_watters
Ahh - a "meta-study." I really, really hate those things.
...So did Eysenck. He discusses meta-studies a bit in Genius.
Dayle Record
Dayle Record is offline
#110
Jul9-04, 12:01 AM
P: 464
Plenty of reputable scientists claim that DU is carcinogenic. I read aplenty regarding this, and thought about it too. I really don't have a lot of emotion about this subject, but I enjoy seeing what happens when this is discussed.

Let us see, those that do not embrace the technology of Depleted Uranium, are:

Hippies
Emotional wrecks
Non thinkers
Poorly versed in Science

If I didn't know better, I would think this were an election year. I don't kiss babies though, they might be radioactive.

When all the money is made
And all the doers are daid,
Then we will find the terrible
The unbearable sad reality;
But only after the statute of
Limitations has run out.
Death is always in fashion.
When you have a pipeline to broker
Oil or drug you take your pick.
We did not go there to make life better,
Nor did we remove a single fetter.
The blue burkas blow in Kabul still,
The old men lie with the boys and the girls
They always will.
The Oilmen, the deathmen bored of their trailers,
Are brushing the dust off their khakis
Picking up their guns,
And looking for rich fields to drain,
Into the deathstream.
The nuclear dust now flows
In the Euphrates and the Tigris,
If only it were blood instead,
This history flows forever now,
Not just the tale of vicious monkeys,
But the tale of poison to deaden
A world. Poison on poison,
Into the veins of the world
The Amazon, the Mississippi,
The Orinoco, the Rhine, cannot
Drown our misdeads.
If there is a judgement day
How the scientists will cry,
I was just doing my job,
The figures bore this out,
The studies said...
It was within acceptible limits...
The risk outweighed the consequences,
I did what I was told to do.
It was the lesser of the two evils.
faust9
faust9 is offline
#111
Jul9-04, 12:29 AM
P: 998
I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that DU is a know carcinogen. The sun is a know carcinogen. Diesel fuel is a know carcinogen. Acrylamide is a known carcinogen. Smoking is a known carcinogen.... I could go on but it'd be pointless. The simple fact that a material is a carcinogen doesn't make it any less or more dangerous than the 1000 plus things you encounter on a daily basis that are just as harmful. Heck working with epoxy or super glue can be more dangerous than the limited exposure to DU on a battle field.
Kojac
Kojac is offline
#112
Jul9-04, 12:43 AM
P: 26
Seriously. Everyone absorbs carcinogenic material daily. Who really cares if DU is too? The point is that it's not really adding any discernable risk. Hell, our soldiers probably are in more danger from the cigarettes they smoke and the secondhand smoke their teamates blow their way. I kinda figure we've gone over this 5 zillion times now...there is no hard data that backs up claims of real danger stemming from DU. There are plenty of nay-sayers who don't like the word 'Uranium' and scream 'radioactivity', when in reality, what we've got is an emitter of alpha's and beta's (hardly a DEADLY killer), and a bunch of people who should be more worried that it's a heavy metal then a source of radiation poisoning. Shoot. Until you can really show us some data, quit with the poetry and the claims that it's as harmful as *gasps* Aspartamine.
Yggdrasil
Yggdrasil is offline
#113
Jul11-04, 10:07 PM
P: 14
Depleted uranium is uranium at its final isotope, where it can not release any more radioactivity.
swansont
swansont is offline
#114
Jul12-04, 05:22 AM
P: 111
Quote Quote by Yggdrasil
Depleted uranium is uranium at its final isotope, where it can not release any more radioactivity.
Uh, no. There are no stable isotopes of Uranium.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#115
Jul12-04, 11:41 AM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Quote Quote by Dayle Record
Plenty of reputable scientists claim that DU is carcinogenic.
Dayle, with statements like this, you continue to display your willful ignorance on the subject. Like the others said, of course its a carcinogen: its a heavy metal! What we've been trying to pound into you (unsuccessfully) is there is a difference between chemical properties and radiological properties. You are still mixing the two up. Besides which, just saying a substance is carcinogenic doesn't say much of anything about what the risks are with it.
I really don't have a lot of emotion about this subject...
There are a lot of things that could kill you - or me, or an Iraqi schoolchild. DU is one of them. But DU is so low on the list that it does not warrant the attention you and some others give it. Why not pick on cigarette smoke? Air pollution? Stairs! As I said before, you latched on to DU because of an emotional reaction to the word "urnanium."
Dayle Record
Dayle Record is offline
#116
Jul12-04, 07:24 PM
P: 464
I "Latched onto this" because this stuff is being tested extensively less than 40 miles from where I live. There are a lot of conflicting discussions regarding this, in the scientific community. I know that as a heavy metal it is poisonous, and radiologically it is carcinogenic, if it is taken into the body. It is taken into the body if you are in close proximity to a DU weapon discharge, or if you pick up a shrapnel wound, or if you are a child, handling pieces of spent ordinance, and playing in the dust, and putting your hands in your mouth as children do. I am not sure what happens if you grow a vegetable garden over where DU explosions occurred. I don't need to be pounded. I have done a lot of reading about this, especially since starting this thread, and I have followed up on every point. I don't like the patronizing tone, you take with me.

The future of warfare needs to be peaceful distribution of the world's resources, and conflict resolution before it becomes war. The money spent on weaponry, and warfare, insures that it will persist, as it impoverishes the world, and instability from that results in warfare. When war becomes more and more toxic, and new and longer lived pollutants are disbursed we pay for generations into the future, for whatever short term gain came from warfare.

This substance is, whether mildly or massively, radioactive. This substance is toxic, and carcinogenic. These explosions occur at such a high temperature that new compounds are formed at impact whose nano properties have not been tested, because that is one of those side issues that was skirted when DU was approved for use. It is thought that the new compounds that form, and the unusual shape of the molecules are the main carcinogen.

Again, I don't need to be pounded, and why don't you substitute a more blatant mysogynistic name for the emotion that you are projecting onto me. All of this personal projection of my supposed emotional state, is highly subjective, and innacurate. I am concerned that this will turn out to be one of those things that will really cost this nation, enormous amounts of monies in reparations later.
Kojac
Kojac is offline
#117
Jul12-04, 10:05 PM
P: 26
yeah...world peace would be nice. I agree. Nice, however, is a whole different ballgame then realistic. By the way, no one fusses about our soldiers handing out cigarettes to the residents of warzones, or the fact that we use x-rays, MRI's, or CAT scans in medicine, or the radiation emitted by smoke detectors, TV's, your computer monitor, microwaves...or any other things I see every day. Aspartamine is used in everything, along with MSG, and every circuitboard I've ever encountered is covered in soldering- tin and lead. no one fussed about the fact that when they started ripping asbestos out of schools and public buildings they actually put more asbestos into the air and exposed more people to it then would have happened had they just left it. you know what it is? it's political. it's a card that's being played to advocate change beyond just changing ammunition. it's a card that's being played because some people don't like the fact that we even have a military, because we're involved in conflicts that offend their sensibilities. I really don't know about you, but my view is that the bigger and badder our guns our, the more likely it is that the friends i personally have in Iraq right now will come home alive and well, because the tank that might have shot them, or the truck carrying radical gunmen was shredded with a nice, dense bullet, eliminating the threat before it really even became a threat. thank God they are testing such materials, and for all i care, they can test them around where i live. (as long as they're not too loud, i'd like to get some sleep at night) shoot. the things aren't any more harmful then tons of stuff we see every day. just quit it.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#118
Jul13-04, 10:02 AM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Quote Quote by Dayle Record
I don't like the patronizing tone, you take with me.
Ditto for you, though your tone is maybe a little more sanctimonious than patronizing.
The future of warfare needs to be peaceful distribution of the world's resources, and conflict resolution before it becomes war.
Thats all well and good, but 1. that has nothing to do with this discussion, 2. that world does not exist, and 3. wishful thinking will not make it happen.
Again, I don't need to be pounded...
If you keep posting, I'll keep responding. If you interpret that as "pounding," that's up to you.
...and why don't you substitute a more blatant mysogynistic name for the emotion that you are projecting onto me.
The only person here to make an issue of your gender is you. With a name like "Dayle," I initially assumed you were male. But it doesn't really matter to me either way. On issues like this, being emotional is not strictly a female trait.
All of this personal projection of my supposed emotional state, is highly subjective, and innacurate.
Your initial arguements made comment on your emotional point of view relevant: your initial arguments were based largely on emotion, not science (your very first sentence was an emotionally charged accusation of disinformation). You've gotten better, but you haven't let go of the emotion and argued strictly based on science. edit: reading back, you argued specifically that emotion should play a role in science. You seem to be backing away from that, which is good, but you haven't let go of the emotional content of your argument yet.
Yggdrasil
Yggdrasil is offline
#119
Jul13-04, 02:24 PM
P: 14
Here is a website about DU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Oyťah
Oyťah is offline
#120
Jul18-04, 05:55 PM
P: 21
Today in New Scientist the link between plutonium and cancer is discussed. This is an article that discusses the fact that the DU being manufactured is not pure and contains Plutonium, and other more radioactive isotopes. The article also stated that the Navy has withdrawn from use of DU due to health concerns. Here is a link to the Dirty Du article.

http://www.firethistime.org/plutoniumcontamination.htm

Here is a link to today's New Scientist article

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996152
Arctic Fox
Arctic Fox is offline
#121
Jul28-04, 05:05 PM
P: 181
Could the DU be recycled for use in something like an RTG?

Iím thinking that DU wouldnít get (temperature)hot enough to run an RTG... comments?
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#122
Jul29-04, 12:42 AM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Quote Quote by Arctic Fox
Could the DU be recycled for use in something like an RTG?

Iím thinking that DU wouldnít get (temperature)hot enough to run an RTG... comments?
I don't think so either - it has an extremely slow decay rate.
flylake
flylake is offline
#123
Jan3-05, 10:38 AM
P: 1
Quote Quote by Njorl
As one poster to this forum was so fond of noting, one single particle of radiation can cause a fatal cancer. It is not a question of whether DU ammunition is dangerous, it is a question of whether it is better or worse than the alternatives. The alternative to DU ammunition is not peace. The alternative is lead. Lead is so toxic, that without even being radioactive it is a far greater environmental hazard than DU. However, depleted uranium has a much scarier sound to it, and that mobilizes the howlers. Granted, we'd all be better off not shooting any high-velocity, heavy, metal objects around, but if we're going to be doing it anyway, we're better off with DU than lead.

Njorl

I question everyone's paranoia about lead. I've worked around lead my entire life and show no ill effects. My grandfather worked lead for 60+ years and was alert, healthy and physically and mentally active well into his 90s (died in an auto accident - hit by a drunk driver, not of illness). New England's only natural resource is lead, and if you live anywhere in northern New England you are exposed to it every time you hike through the mountains or fish in a river.

Sure, if you sit down and ingest a meal of lead every day, you'll have issues, as you would if you were hit by a lead bullet, but I have never seen any documented studies that legitimately show "lead pollution" is creating any sort of hazard to humanity.
Francis M
Francis M is offline
#124
Jan3-05, 11:50 AM
P: 124
I noticed the next to last post on this was in July. Question did anybody actually answer the persons question in the first place or did this degenerate into an argument (as usual)? I can only hope that this "discussion" ended up in either the trash heap or was moved to the POLITICAL/OPINION section of the forum. The health risks from DU rounds are worse as a heavy metal than from the radiaton, no doubt. But that would be from inhalation or ingestion. SO unless we're grinding these bullets up and sniffing/eating them I wouldn't worry. Id' be more worried about the health risk of getting hit wiht a DU round. YOu know there has been a proven corollation to getting shot with one of these things and death. The AP round a tank uses is a thin metal rod (about 40mm)? shot out of a 105-120mm cannon. It's nothing more than a kinetic kill weapon. Also if you were close enough to breathe the vapor/dust from a DU tipped cruise missile or cannon round the cuncussive blast would kill you. There's more of a health risk from the general vaporized smoke and debris from the destroyed target. How do we seperate that possible health risk from that of the DU? PLease lets answer this persons question and take the political discussion to that section of the forum?
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#125
Jan3-05, 02:18 PM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Quote Quote by flylake
I question everyone's paranoia about lead.....

Sure, if you sit down and ingest a meal of lead every day, you'll have issues
Well, that's just it: with DU, the trouble happens when you inhale it. With lead, the trouble typically happens when you eat it. That's why lead paint was a problem (kids would eat it), lead pipes - and in the middle ages in England, lead utensils.
I have never seen any documented studies that legitimately show "lead pollution" is creating any sort of hazard to humanity.
"Lead pollution" would be difficult and that's where most criticism of DU comes in: DU oxidizes and vaporizes easier. Nevertheless, I have seen studies of lead-linked illness in shooting ranges.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#126
Jan3-05, 02:22 PM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Quote Quote by Francis M
There's more of a health risk from the general vaporized smoke and debris from the destroyed target. How do we seperate that possible health risk from that of the DU?
This is my biggest criticism of anti-DU arguments. War is unhealthy, period. Whether you're standing next to a tank that just blew up, breathing everything from DU to burning plastic, to burning diesel fuel, or just inhaling the fumes your rifle gives off when you fire it, soldiers are exposed to a lot of hazardous chemicals.

I doubt DU makes up a significant fraction of reports of "Gulf-war syndrome," for example.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Depleted Uranium General Physics 20
Depleted Uranium Materials & Chemical Engineering 1
Depleted Uranium Current Events 19
Iraq Depleted Uranium Current Events 29
Depleted Uranium Weapons General Physics 4