 |
| |
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm
What countries now have depleted uranium weapons in their arsenals?
In 1999 China joined the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand and Taiwan. having depleted uranium penetrators in their arsenals. Both the US and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market.
I just read this, the website is pretty slanted but if this is true its a little worrying.
Whats more worrying is this 30mm round that the AH-64 Apache uses. It has .66 pounds of DU in its head, most of which will vaporize on contact. How many pounds of DU can be vaporized in a minute when an AH-64 Apache fires these things at a target?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm
What countries now have depleted uranium weapons in their arsenals?
In 1999 China joined the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand and Taiwan. having depleted uranium penetrators in their arsenals. Both the US and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market.
I just read this, the website is pretty slanted but if this is true its a little worrying.
Whats more worrying is this 30mm round that the AH-64 Apache uses. It has .66 pounds of DU in its head, most of which will vaporize on contact. How many pounds of DU can be vaporized in a minute when an AH-64 Apache fires these things at a target?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm |
I wonder how much lead gets vaporized. Ever think about that? Lead has some toxicity. No?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thats just goofy Tuberski, we put our forces into any number of operational constraints in any war, to protect civilians, to follow international conventions, to limit the amount of destruction done to the infrastructure of whatever country we're fighting in and to protect our own troops health.
Unless someone has some information demonstrating that conventional rounds would not be able to effectively penetrate the armor of a weapons system we were up against I can't be convinced DU should have been used in GW 2 or wherever else it was used. |
There's two distinct situations with respect to DU use, and two distinct hazards posed by it.
First is large and small caliber ground-based weapons, which is limited to the sabot rounds fired by the Abrams and M60A3 tanks in the US inventory, and some rounds fired by potential enemy tanks, as well as the new M919 sabot round for the Bradley vehicles. In that situation, studies have shown a short term risk of inhaled exposure if you're within 50 meters of a vehicle struck by DU from a tank, and something less than that if the vehicle is struck by an M919 round, which has a much smaller penetrator than do the tank rounds. That's because about 70 percent of the mass of the kinetic energy penetrator vaporizes on impact. Within a few minutes, the DU has resolidified as very fine particles, and settles into the soil. At that point, the radiologic hazard is quite low, even in windy conditions, and gets lower over time, as the DU particles work lower into the soil, due to their small size and density. They don't absorb into plants very well, and don't pose a significant ingestion hazard that way, unless you eat a lot of poorly washed root vegetables from a heavily DU contaminated field.
Small caliber aerial ground attack weapons (the AH-1 Super Cobra's 25mm chain guns, and the 30mm GAU8 gun in the A10 aircraft, plus the 30mm HEDP round in the AH-64 Apache) have much smaller rounds, but they're not sabots or submunitions, they rely on mass against roof and rear armor on vehicles. Breakup of the rounds is minimal*, so they can be cleaned up with regular battlefield debris, and don't pose a particular hazard if handled with the same degree of care you'd use to clean up something like dog ****. (i.e. don't hold it in your bare hand)
The only alternative is Tungsten, which has about a 15% penalty in ballistic performance in ground based rounds, and about 25-50% in aerial rounds. Tungsten doesn't have the degree of short-term radiological hazard, but it is toxic, so inhalation of aerosolized Tungsten isn't very good for you. It's less toxic in the soil. (DU is comparable to lead, Tungsten is a bit less, but topical contamination from either is not likely in normal circumstances.)
The cancer numbers quoted were for the Basra area, but that's also downwind from the Kuwaiti oil well fires, and also downwind from a number of sites where CW agents were repeatedly used by both Iran and Iraq in their war. There are very limited specific cancers associated with DU inhalation, so it's not that hard to isolate from a generalized increase in cancer levels.
* - aerosolization is a function of impact velocity, and the small caliber rounds don't produce high enough muzzle velocities. Sabot rounds give you about a 80% increase in muzzle velocity, and a lot smaller initial impact surface area, so the frictional and braking heat produced is concentrated on a much smaller piece of metal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Thanks for the post MtG. What I'm wondering is, these studies seem to downlay the effects of DU while admitting there are hazardous effects, do they address how much of this stuff is strewn over a battlefield or a countryside after a conflict.
Afterall we use it in tank rounds, chainguns in A-10s, Apaches, Bradley fighting vehicles and I'm not sure what else. How much of this stuff are we spewing indiscriminately across the countryside, do we limit its use in urban situations? Wouldn't the shear volume of an admittedly extremely toxic and radiological substance mean that the effects these studies say are minimal will add up? Especially if we're selling DU munitions on the arms market or other countries start developing their own DU ammo, what will be the result?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Again, DU is NOT radioactive! It is not the right isotope! |
Naturally occuring Uranium is a mix of the -235, -238 and a pinch of the -239 isotopes, that's why you have enrichment facilities to extract the -235. DU is what's left over as waste from the enrichment process. In other words, it's still a mix, but with a little less than half the level of naturally occuring -235 isotope. It is a severe radiologic hazard if powder or aerosolized DU is ingested into the lungs. It is not significantly hazardous in normal handling and storage, following standard procedures.
The US Army has well developed procedures for issuance, use (not issued or authorized except in combat), storage and handling, as well as decontamination of DU-impacted vehicles, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
I'm not entirely sure, but I think spawling is when the metal vaporizes from the heat of the impact, to create a superheated plasma. When vehicle armor is penetrated the metal plasma is disgorged into the vehicle, killing most of the occupants. Imagine if you will cutting a small hole through the armor, pushing a sawn-off shotgun through the hole and pulling the trigger. |
Close, but no cigar.
Most of the kinetic energy penetrator that actually penetrates the armor does so relatively intact. In the Gulf War I, a single M829A1 round from an Abrams penetrated and killed two T-72s with a side armor penetration, opposite side armor exit, and second vehicle side armor penetration. Obviously, core of the penetrator was still solid.
Most of the aerosolized plasma from the penetrator itself occurs immediately on impact and initial penetration, as the combination of heat and shockwave effects strip material off the outside of the penetrator. This stuff stays on the outside, and creates the ~50 meter hazard area for inhaling aerosolized DU.
Spalling is actually an issue with the vehicle armor itself, which is much weaker, less dense, less heat resistant, etc. The blast wave effect travels through the armor ahead of the plasma and penetrant, and when it disperses at the inner armor/air barrier, it causes cracking and fragmentation of the inner face of the armor, as well as melting and combusting primer and paint on the inner surface, heating up turret hydraulic fluid, etc. Right behind that blast wave you have the heating effect melting some armor and further structurally degrading armor out from the liquified and plamafied areas. This effect of this structural degradation of the armor, this mass of stuff - solid framents, molten blobs, and plasmafied armor, is spalling. The mass is far greater than what is left of the kinetic energy penetrator.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I just meant to say extremely toxic and just plain radiological. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I can't help the fact that I'm not a chemist GP, I can read reports and work on the conclusions that experts come to, with only a basic understanding of the methods they used. Now MtG did a good job of countering my arguements but I still think I've brought up valid concerns considering the dangers that are readily acknowledged by all of the experts I have come across.
Either show me your vaunted knowledge of chemistry or keep quiet because frankly the fact that you only attack my arguement without offering any factual data yourself is just tiresome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Jeez, sure its all relative. Considering the most toxic thing I handle is the bad meat in my refridgerator I think I can call Depleted Uraniam extremely toxic. Its certainly toxic and radioactive enough for the army to have stringent guidelines for its handling and storage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
GP, I couldn't care less if its more or less toxic then this thing or that. The question is if it is appropriate to use this admittedly toxic element in this application.
I've already stated that I have little problem with the use of DU in armor, since the assumption is that most of it won't be dispersed across the terrain, even if it is pierced by a shell it will only effect a localized area and the vast majority of the DU will remain in a relatively safe state.
Large anti-armor sabot rounds also seem acceptable since they have a specific use, a relatively low fire rate, and presumably once the armor is cleared off the field they won't be used for willy-nilly shelling across the countryside.
So, I have changed my mind on these 2 subjects, but what really bothers me, what I didn't know before, is that smaller caliber rounds are used in chain guns on Apaches, BFVs, A-10s and who knows what else. Presumably these will be used for all sorts of targets, not just armor, and will spray enormous amounts of DU on the battlfield in incredibly small amounts of time.
I've also read about the prospect of having DU explosive shells, a DU exterior, presumably to make more effective shrapnel? I don't think the unrestricted proliferation of this material in these areas is a thing we want to see.
As for you not wanting to do research for me, tough noogie, I was very clear in my first post and expect you to either offer useful information or bugger off. My one concession is that if MtG says that I'm wasting time in my last 2 points I will quickly shut up (as he obviously has some knowledge of the subject and is willing to share it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thanks for the post MtG. What I'm wondering is, these studies seem to downlay the effects of DU while admitting there are hazardous effects, do they address how much of this stuff is strewn over a battlefield or a countryside after a conflict.
Afterall we use it in tank rounds, chainguns in A-10s, Apaches, Bradley fighting vehicles and I'm not sure what else. How much of this stuff are we spewing indiscriminately across the countryside, do we limit its use in urban situations? Wouldn't the shear volume of an admittedly extremely toxic and radiological substance mean that the effects these studies say are minimal will add up? Especially if we're selling DU munitions on the arms market or other countries start developing their own DU ammo, what will be the result? |
First, regarding GP, he's very useful to talk to on a peer to peer or at least close level. His patience for lack of intellectual rigor is a bit thin, though. 
A couple of points: Cumulative effects (of anything) only matter if there's a concentration at some point that increases a particular individual's exposure. If you have a dead tank here, another one half a mile away, ten more two hundred meters apart in a town forty miles away, there's no accumulation of effect unless someone decides to go to each site, or unless there's some process that leads to the contaminants being concentrated to a central location.
The major hazard of DU is if it's inhaled, and studies have shown that the presence of DU in the air around a vehicle that's been hit becomes nearly nil within a matter of minutes. Then what's left is a fine dust, that is denser than everything else around, so it's the last stuff to get kicked up by the wind, and the first to settle out. Tanks and vehicles disperse for a number of reasons in combat, so killed vehicles follow that pattern as well. It's rare that you actually get them within 15-20 meters of each other on a road, and on open ground, separation is more like 50-200 meters, so there's not a lot of concentration from the vehicle position.
DU rounds are the most effective vehicle killers out there, so think about it this way: What's a worse hazard, a DU round that is one round, one kill, or a less effective round made of something half the toxicity of DU, but it takes three or four rounds fired to actually kill the vehicle?
Another point with toxic and radiologic risk assessment is that you can't magically isolate the effects of one agent. In GW 1, the long term health effects of Saddam blowing the Kuwaiti oil fields are many orders of magnitude above the total effects of combat related actions. DU is just one hazard, albeit a low grade one, but in wars, you have burning fuel, burning paints, burning synthetic rubber, burning ammunition propellants, burning hydraulic fluid, and all sorts of nasty stuff.
This happens for a relatively short time, and then gets added in to the overall budget of other toxic/radiologic exposure for each individual - everything from being out in the sun to smoking to exposure to industrial pollutants, pesticides, automobile smog, etc.
To assume that DU is, in and of itself, a significant enough hazard to warrant a (largely unenforceable) ban or other restriction, is a conclusion that has no factual support, and really isn't worth much study beyond what has already been done.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-05-2003 03:35
But if you compare to radioactive radiation, you get much much more radiation by moving to a place with a solid bedrock foundation. Living in Colorado, for example, exposes you to more radioactive radiation than working at a nuclear power plant. 
[mumbles] $%*#@ Jimmy Carter
|