Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?

[Palnatoke]

I find it amusing that people uses the "depleted uranium" name. I have spend hours and hours searching my "periodic chart" (is it called that in english?) for this element "Depleted uranium". Like I didn't find "depleted iron" or "depleted lead" I never found "depleted uranium"- I only found uranium.

Anyway, uranium is some dirty stuff.


Far away from the battlefields in your cosy little unvented celler build on rocky ground you can meet and you will probably get lung cancer and other nice stuff from her - if you spend to much time down there with her, a daughter of uranium; Radon. She's a biatch not only because she most likely killed her discoverer the late, by cancer, Madamme Currie (first hag to get the nobel price in physics) but also because often she is often electrically charged and sticks to dust and other stuff that you inhale, and she's radioactive and through your life span will give you a nice dosis of radiation down in that nice pinkish lung tissue and she will likely stay with you, "until death do you apart".

Radon polution which in gasseous form vents out from rocks originiating in the decay of U238 down in the underground, is a serious concern in many areas and often give rise to a lot of construction rules and regulations concerning cellers.

I don't know about the kids that play and grow up in areas where tons of uranium has been pulverized.... they are probably fine: you know it's not like it's uranium, it's "depleted uranium".

 

[Gremlin29]

I find it amusing that people uses the "depleted uranium" name. I have spend hours and hours searching my "periodic chart" (is it called that in english?) for this element "Depleted uranium". Like I didn't find "depleted iron" or "depleted lead" I never found "depleted uranium"- I only found uranium.

DU isn't an element, it's an isotope which is probably why it wouldn't be in the periodic table of elements? Cobalt 60 isn't an element either but exists none the less and is quite a bit different from other Cobalt isotopes or even it's elemental parent. If you really want to worry about radiological waste do some research on old X-ray equipment discarded in 3rd world countries.

 

[Palnatoke]

Gremlin29

A given element (can) exist in various isotopes. Uranium is typically found in U238 and U235 in nature (there is also another very rare one). I don't know, but suspect that "depleted uranium" is left over U238 from a separation process where you have extracted the U235.
I know that some people say that in fact depleted uranium is a waste product from a nuclear proccessing plant (you know after having neutron radiated uranium in a reactor some of it turns into plutonium and a lot of other highly radioactive elements and their isotopes). Though I do not know the validity of the claim.

Whether the penetration rods are made of more or less pure uranium or is some compound does not have my interest.

Uranium naturally exists in 3 isotopes, none of these are more "real uranium" than the other. Same goes for cobalt.

 

[Todjaeger]

Gremlin29

A given element (can) exist in various isotopes. Uranium is typically found in U238 and U235 in nature (there is also another very rare one). I don't know, but suspect that "depleted uranium" is left over U238 from a separation process where you have extracted the U235.
I know that some people say that in fact depleted uranium is a waste product from a nuclear proccessing plant (you know after having neutron radiated uranium in a reactor some of it turns into plutonium and a lot of other highly radioactive elements and their isotopes). Though I do not know the validity of the claim.

Whether the penetration rods are made of more or less pure uranium or is some compound does not have my interest.

Uranium naturally exists in 3 isotopes, none of these are more "real uranium" than the other. Same goes for cobalt.

As I understand it, depleted uranium (DU) generally refers to uranium which is generally less radioactiven than other uranium isotopes and/or molecules. Exactly how this is achieved I do not know, and it might well not be public domain information either, but it certainly is possible.

I do recall comments made various physicists about the suitability (or lack thereof) of using uranium in a so-called 'dirty bomb'. The general gist of the comments were that, short of being in a fine radioactive dust, uranium was otherwise too inert to be useful unless enriched. As I recall, one of the physicists even mentioned that he had been using a hunk of uranium as a doorstop.

In essence, while the radiation from uranium is something to keep in mind, it is not as harmful under most circumstances, as most people would expect radiation to be. Greater concern is generally had due to possible exposure to radioactive heavy metal dust following the use of DU rounds, than just being exposed to the rounds themselves. Incidentally, using non-radioactive heavy metal rounds is really not much better, as they can be turned into a heavy metal dust following impact which can have essentially the same effects on someone if inhaled or ingested.

-Cheers

 

[Palnatoke]

As I understand it, depleted uranium (DU) generally refers to uranium which is generally less radioactiven than other uranium isotopes

Yes, that's also my understanding. My initial guess is that it's primarely U238, where you have removed U235 (which is used for other purposes) from a natural uranium ressource.

Rumours say that infact, it's not natural, but instead a bi-product of "waste" processing. That'll be the spend uranium from a reactor. That product consist primarely of U238, but also of the biproducts of the fission processes and neutron radiation in the reactor. including isotopes of Plutonium, Thorium, Strontium etc (but a lot of other stuff as well which is highly radioactive - to give an idea of the intensity of a "fresh" just used unshielded rod: you will not die from running against it, though you will die shortly after. It's the fission and neutron radiation bi-products that creates this radiation).

So at nuclear wate processing plant, like Sellafield or La Haque, you mechanically and chemically separates the different products. U238 and U235 for re-use and plutonium for bombs* (the rest you store for a 1/4 of a billion years)

So the speculation goes that it's the above U238 that's the source of the DP Uranium weapons - in it self that's not a problem, IF the cleaning has been done effectively and it's only U238 that's left. But you know saving money etc etc maybe the quality of the cleaning is not always stellar and perhaps there can be some stuff left...

In essence, while the radiation from uranium is something to keep in mind, it is not as harmful under most circumstances

Yes, but then again. This uranium and it's spontanious fission biproducts can perhaps be concentrated - f.ex. in the food chain or by other mechanismens and then perhaps you arrive at dangerous concentrations.
Uranium polution by it self is a serious chemical polution, to that you can add the nasty effects and products of the spontanious fission process - like Radon.


But if we have common agreement that DU is not dangerous I suggest that we get rid of uranium waste products (which is a pain) simply by pulverizing it and spread it in the air over f.ex. London, Paris, New York, Washington, Chigaco and other densly populated areas.

* Unlike popular belief plutonium of a grade and quality sustable for weapons, cannot be made in a typical ordinarry reactor used for energy production. Because while plutonium is created by neutron radiation of U235 (I think it is), which happens in every reactor, plutonium will further be transformed into something different by the same neutron radiation. So inorder to produce plutonium you have to be able to have a reactor in which you can expose U235 for just the right dosis of neutron radiation, then take it out, refine the plutonium and then expose the U235 again iterate, iterate. In a typical reactor that requires to be shutdown and restarted every time the fuel rods needs to be changed this process will take many many years. But there are exceptions - like the Canadien CANDU reactor, which the cannucks were dumb enough to sell - let alone design.

 

[Gremlin29]

But if we have common agreement that DU is not dangerous I suggest that we get rid of uranium waste products (which is a pain) simply by pulverizing it and spread it in the air over f.ex. London, Paris, New York, Washington, Chigaco and other densly populated areas.

I don't think there is a common agreement that it is not dangerous, it's the danger/exposure that's being discussed. We wouldn't want to spread thousand of tons of pulverized lead over a city either, or any other heavy metal for that matter.

Yes, but then again. This uranium and it's spontanious fission biproducts can perhaps be concentrated - f.ex. in the food chain or by other mechanismens and then perhaps you arrive at dangerous concentrations.
Uranium polution by it self is a serious chemical polution, to that you can add the nasty effects and products of the spontanious fission process - like Radon

This is a valid point however you have to consider the practicallity of that quantity of DU existing on a battlefield which I do not believe has or will exist. If lethal dose levels were as low as arsenic for example (a very nasty heavy metal) it would be a completely different matter.

 

[TonyRyan]

Du

If the serious scientific literature I read is correct, a DU projectile hitting a tank or other target, is immediately pulverised into micron-fine dust; one particle of which in the lung causes death.

It was calculated that three thousand square kilometres south of Yugoslavia is contaminated by the 12 tons of DU expended there.

The reported amount used during the Gulf War was 300 tons, so it is likely the region is also contaminated, and I seem to recall a further 200 tons was used since the second invasion.

If these reports are only partially accurate, this is going to kill a lot of civilians over the next 4 million years, or whatever dangerous life the stuff has. I find it difficult to conceive how any military advantage of a few weeks duration supersedes this in value.

 

[eckherl]

The picture on the left would make a great "what not to do" slide for a safety presentation, assuming a potential exposure to DU exists in and on that M1. The guy in the bunny suit is wearing a dust mask which isn't recognized as protection against anything other than nuisence dust, the trooper isn't wearing any type of PPE at all. Appropriate PPE for a biological hazard, maybe DNA samples?

Some dust masks that are currently being used in certain industries actually are respirators, I have around 8 different models that my workplace uses, they even have to be fit tested to each specific model that they are required to wear. I do not know the story with the trooper next to the tank but the guy decked out in the Tyvek suite with respirator does have proper protection for possible contaminated dust.

 

[Palnatoke]

Gremlin29

I think the (or one of many) problem is that it's very hard to meassure the impact of the pollution on man as well as the enviroment. Take this guy with lung cancer, was it because he as a construction worker, worked with asbestos, or because he was a smoker or was it because he grew up in Basra and inhaled radioactive dust?

Each of those could be a reason, and to sort it out you need large statistical studies over many years. At the same time the interests in not to do the studies are fairly obvious, f.ex. why search for something that might amount to a (at least "moral") crime against humanity of "Stalinistic porportions"?

On the otherhand the studies from Tjernobil (spelling?) are also not always trustworthy because of the Ukrainian Goverments clear interest in exaggerating the damage.

I know for a fact that in my part of the world expending such warheads on f.ex. a training range would be meet with a simple and very loud "No" from the public - assuming that the public is asked. Such a question would be easely and resoundingly answered by the "safety principle". Just like my above disposal idea of nuclear waste would most probably also not fly of the same reasons.
But we have little compulsions to litterally shower other people in the stuff, ironically people that we pretend to "free" and, one could easely get mislead to believe, actually someone we mean do a favour.


Personally I find figures like those posted by TonyRyan disturbing. To have a collective responsibility for the uniformed cassualties of war (and perhaps the unavoidable collateral damage) is something that's heavy but anyway something we live with. To have a collective responsibility to children getting seriously ill from now and to practical infinity, is different.

 

[Gremlin29]

Some dust masks that are currently being used in certain industries actually are respirators, I have around 8 different models that my workplace uses, they even have to be fit tested to each specific model that they are required to wear. I do not know the story with the trooper next to the tank but the guy decked out in the Tyvek suite with respirator does have proper protection for possible contaminated dust.

You are correct, dust maks are appropriate and are used in many types of industries. I'm surprised your doing fit tests for these, do all potential users perform a pulmanary function test annually? Just curious.

Those dust types of masks (assuming the correct type is chosen) only provide a protection factor of 5. For Uranium dust of any sort, that person should be wearing at a minimum a full face negative pressure respirator and that's assuming they have a negative exposure assessment. In reallity they should be wearing supplied air or SCBA. The dust mask types aren't even appropriate for lead dust contamination and uranium dust is way more toxic than lead dust. I reallize these are OSHA standards but the guy on the tank is with 99.99% certainly operating under the guidance of USACE EM 385 1-1 as either a military member or a DoD contractor and EM 385 references published PEL's hazardous/toxic substances so....that pic leads to some questions.

If the serious scientific literature I read is correct, a DU projectile hitting a tank or other target, is immediately pulverised into micron-fine dust; one particle of which in the lung causes death.

Tony, I believe you may have misunderstood. If one micron of DU in the lung is lethal, Iraq wouldn't have an insuergency problem, or much of a population either nor the rest of the world. Humans already have 90 micrograms in their bodies naturally.

Also consider this, 12 tons in 3000 square kilometers sounds like a huge pile but do you reallize that averages out to be 1 part per 2.88 million of DU per cubic meter of soil, uranium naturally occurs in soils at 3 parts per million which is alot less than the 90 micrograms we naturally have in our bodies.

Yes DU dust is toxic as a heavy metal as I've said/agreed all along. The real question is just how lethal are battlefield sites and relics really? There's been little international objective data so far (aside from the UNEP report which I believe is skewed to the side of caution) and some subjective data provided by folks that could be looking for the golden chicken (tankers that have been posted in Germany might know what I'm talking about and no, I am not/was not a tanker).

 

[TonyRyan]

Du

Thanks Gremlin.

I have more confidence in your assessment that most of what I have read; which, by the way, I did not misunderstand. Contrary to very popular belief, there is very little honesty or integrity in science or academia these days. It has become a new skill to write with apparent studied objectivity, and then lie oneself out of obscurity into relative fame.

You have put DU use in a very different perspective. Not that I am surprised. For eight years I swam daily in a creek that flows through the richest deposit of uranium in the world, named appropriately enough, Radon Springs, not far from Ranger Uranium Mine. I am still healthy, as is the Magella flood plain through which it has flowed for millions of years, and that is often regarded as one of the most prolific wildlife zones in the world... Kakadu National Park.

I have found this site to be very educational. Many thanks to you all.

 

[Gremlin29]

Tony, I am definately not an expert on DU nor am I a qualified scientist. Like you, I am digesting the info available to me and have drawn my conclussions from that. I will admit my opinions are tainted by a certain amount of subjectivity however this is based on years of professional experience in the environmental field including a number of rad projects.

The environmental field is tremendously interesting and there are some brilliant folks involved in it from the bottom up, thank god for the folks that are trying to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, some of these folks are overplaying issues for a variety of reasons including political and or economic agendas. Therfore I think you comments regarding the pursuit of fame irrespective of truth is spot on.

In any event, I think all would agree that you wouldn't want your house contaminated with DU dust, and that the battlefields need to be policed up properly at the end of hostilities or as soon as practical. DU does present environmental issues, I just think that they aren't nearly as severe as some would want them to be and until an effective replacement for the stuff is found, it will have it's place on the battlefield.

 

[Palnatoke]

Per example:

If one micron of DU in the lung is lethal, Iraq wouldn't have an insuergency problem, or much of a population either nor the rest of the world.

Now most cancer forms show up after a delay. And again this is statistics. You will, probably, increase riscs. The question is how much.

"Humans already have 90 micrograms in their bodies naturally."
But where and in which chemical form? I don't know but I am almost certain that I don't have fine crains of uranium floating around, it might be there - in water, rock settements etc. But you typically do not have uranium (oxide) floating around, unless you put it there.

Also consider this, 12 tons in 3000 square kilometers sounds like a huge pile but do you reallize that averages out to be 1 part per 2.88 million of DU per cubic meter of soil, uranium naturally occurs in soils at 3 parts per million which is alot less than the 90 micrograms we naturally have in our bodies.

Three things: First of all the interesting pollution is that which occur in the "biofilm" - the surface and perhaps (depending on the type of polutant, and if, how it enters the food chain) some inches of soil. Having the above calculation in cubic meters turns on my little red lamp.
Secondly you can not use an average calculation. clearly there are parts of say Iraq that hasn't been polluted with DU and other places that have taken a high dose (f.ex. where the battles have been fought).
What about making the calculation with a resolution of, say, square kilometers: Average concentration per square meter of surface. I am pretty sure that you find such squares with a bit more than 90 mmg uranium.
Lastly It is all about thresshold values and riscs. It is not an argument to say that there is allready N grams of this substance in circulation so increasing it with K grams where K<N, probably doesn't matter.

I don't know the right answers, but this should not be taken so lightly.

12 tons distributed evenly over 3000 Km^2, is 4 kg per km^2 or 4 micrograms per square meter. So, going from your numbers, when you have walked through 22 m^2 (your bedroom) you would risc to have picked up a life worth of uranium (90mmg), that is ofcourse untop of what you thus so far have "picked up", so going from the posted numbers we are talking about a substancially increased exposure to uranium.

 

[TonyRyan]

DU and contentious weaponry

Thanks Gremlin. I wish I was aware of this forum years ago. Some of the minds that empty their loads here are very impressive.

I was prompted to seek this site when reliable contacts repeatedly let me know that difficult-to-resist lobbies are pressuring all governments to privatise defense forces and police, and to end legislative regulation of contentious weaponry.

I feel I can cheerfully leave the DU issue to you guys and move on to perhaps more legitimate concerns.

My next subject of concern is fragmentation bombs, for use in urban theatres. The worst I have heard of scatters tiny plastic darts that penetrate the body and, over a period of two weeks, block fluid pathways and destinations causing gradual organ shut down and death.

I read a Lancet writer's article quoting an Iraqi doctor as he described the death of a 12 year old girl. He said he was not able to x-ray to locate the darts because the plastic does not show up on the photo. He had no painkillers and he said nursing the child as she screamed and writhed her way into death was the worst experience of his life.

I am hoping the entire story is a sensationalist fabrication, but if it is true, I do not see this as a weapon to disable a soldier, so much as the product of a sadistic and twisted mind. Clearly, there are two issues here: why plastic, and not metal? which would give a disabled enemy soldier some eventual hope of recovery. Secondly, why are fragmentation bombs being dropped on residential zones at all? My understanding is that this is always illegal. As we all know, it continues to happen.

 

[Gremlin29]

12 tons distributed evenly over 3000 Km^2, is 4 kg per km^2 or 4 micrograms per square meter. So, going from your numbers, when you have walked through 22 m^2 (your bedroom) you would risc to have picked up a life worth of uranium (90mmg), that is ofcourse untop of what you thus so far have "picked up", so going from the posted numbers we are talking about a substancially increased exposure to uranium.

What your saying is not illogical but keep in mind that only a percentage of that 12 tons was pulverized so if we could create a perfect distribution (we can't) the true contamination becomes even less. For certain there will be hot spots and those, should be taken care of. Also just a mention, the 90mmg is not a lifetimes worth of exposure, it is the naturally occuring amount in our bodies, and we excrete I believe .9 mmg per day. Anyway I guess somebody needs to dig up the time weighted average threshold for exposure and go from there.

My next subject of concern is fragmentation bombs, for use in urban theatres. The worst I have heard of scatters tiny plastic darts that penetrate the body and, over a period of two weeks, block fluid pathways and destinations causing gradual organ shut down and death.

I am unaware of plastic darts in US munitions, it seems unlikely that it would even be suitable due to the lack of mass. As for the why that could and should be a topic unto itself.

 

[TonyRyan]

DU and contentious weapons

Excellent points.

And regarding the lack of mass of a plastic dart, I wondered about this and presumed this was made up for by velocity; just as glass splinters can penetrate when a bottle explodes.

This was a single report, so perhaps it would be wise to dump plastic darts until I can find corroboration. But this does leave the issue of fragmentation bombs, air-fuel bombs and the like. Should this become a new thread?

My focus is on national regulatory controls and how these are rapidly dominated by the media and various lobbies, to the detriment of practical and ethical tools of warfare.

 

[Palnatoke]

Grim

I don't know what the recommeded treeshold values are, though it seems to me that we in any case are talking about an substancial increase in the amount of uranium in the local open.

How that affect the enviroment and man, I don't know, but we should be cautionous.


TonyRyan

I am hoping the entire story is a sensationalist fabrication, but if it is true, I do not see this as a weapon to disable a soldier, so much as the product of a sadistic and twisted mind. Clearly, there are two issues here: why plastic, and not metal? which would give a disabled enemy soldier some eventual hope of recovery. Secondly, why are fragmentation bombs being dropped on residential zones at all? My understanding is that this is always illegal. As we all know, it continues to happen.

I am hoping the entire story is a sensationalist fabrication

Yes, that sounds like it.

heard of scatters tiny plastic darts that penetrate the body and, over a period of two weeks, block fluid pathways and destinations causing gradual organ shut down and death.

You care to elaborate to us which mechanismn should cause that effect?
And while your at it, explain to us how tiny plastic darts are to penetrate far beyound the outer skin. You talked of velocity. Maybe you have some insight on how the velocity distribution looks if you have a swarm of tiny (actually very tiny if they are to block blood vessels) plastic darts originating in an explosion. My uninformed guess is that they will be slowed down quite fast by air friction (scale of a meter or so).

Personally, from an Enviromental point of view, I would prefer plastic to lead or tungsten. So maybe the US army has really gone "green and sustainable"

 

[TonyRyan]

DU and contentious weapons - plastic darts?

I searched the Internet using a combination of tags and got nowhere. My conclusion is that the doctor was confused by descriptions of flechettes encased in plastic; combined with his non-functioning x-ray. Or he or the interpretor got it all wrong.

In any event there is no record of any plastic dart in production other than a possible combination product...

Abstract:
1. In an antipersonnel dart, combination comprising a magnetized head adapted to deliver poison, the poison charge including a magnetic material, a stabilizing tail section telescopically carried by the said head, and a combination igniter-propellant adapted to forceably separate the head and tail sections, at impact.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3763786.html

Anyway, as you all noted, air friction and lack of mass mean it wouldn't fly, so to speak, and would not penetrate if it did; although my finger still contains the silver ball cake decoration inflicted by the enemy's .177 air rifle during the bush wars, when I was ten.

 

[Gremlin29]

Anyway, as you all noted, air friction and lack of mass mean it wouldn't fly, so to speak, and would not penetrate if it did; although my finger still contains the silver ball cake decoration inflicted by the enemy's .177 air rifle during the bush wars, when I was ten

.

That's my official first laugh of the day, good show!

 

[eckherl]

You are correct, dust masks are appropriate and are used in many types of industries. I'm surprised your doing fit tests for these, do all potential users perform a pulmanary function test annually? Just curious.

Medical lung capacity testing along with physical is conducted every three years, same time frame for fit testing with the exception being SCBA use, this has a annual requirement for fit testing.

Those dust types of masks (assuming the correct type is chosen) only provide a protection factor of 5. For Uranium dust of any sort, that person should be wearing at a minimum a full face negative pressure respirator and that's assuming they have a negative exposure assessment. reallity they should be wearing supplied air or SCBA. The dust mask types aren't even appropriate for lead dust contamination and uranium dust is way more toxic than lead dust. I reallize these are OSHA standards but the guy on the tank is with 99.99% certainly operating under the guidance of USACE EM 385 1-1 as either a military member or a DoD contractor and EM 385 references published PEL's hazardous/toxic substances so....that pic leads to some questions.

They are most likely only concerned with breathing in any dust particles, I have to agree with you that a SCBA should be utilized, a Scott pack cylinder with 30 minute air supply made out of fiberglass are not that uncomfortable or cumbersome, I have trained emergency responders in their use for confined space emergency rescue and Hazmat requirements. All DU projectile performance testing conducted by U.S defense contractors does have the requirement to use rubber suites, boots, gloves and SCBA



.