Depleted uranium article

[X-man]

I highly doubt that. Tungsten steel is almost equal to the density of DU with roughly about half the weight.

Whaaaaat??? If the density and volume are the same, they will weigh the same...So Tungsten rounds have less volume?

 

Please explain what you mean....

[HansRoaming]

I highly doubt that. Tungsten steel is almost equal to the density of DU with roughly about half the weight. Dont think many people would be able to man handle some rounds that heavy.

 

Have a look, some are DU and some are Tungsten.

[Fudd]

I highly doubt that. Tungsten steel is almost equal to the density of DU with roughly about half the weight. Dont think many people would be able to man handle some rounds that heavy.

 

Devil Dog...

 

If they occupy the same volume, and their densities are equal, then the weight of the object would be equal.

 

The only way your above argument would work, is if the density of tungsten was approx half of DU. If that was the case the speed at which the "lighter" round travels would have to be proportional to the energy lost by decreasing the mass of the round... (it's velocity would have to be much higher than the DU round).

 

I know... there is no MCI for Physics...

Edited March 9, 2009 by Fudd

[Fudd]

Here is more information about DU and environmental risks: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/environ/index.cfm

 

DU rounds are not what you should be worried about, its the large amounts generated and stockpiled by nuclear facilities.

 

If an A-10 fired a few DU rounds into my backyard, I wouldn't be declaring it a nuclear waste site... I just wouldn't want to be breathing the air until the particles settled.

 

An excerpt take from here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html

 

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long since the uranium has been separated from the lighter isotopes so that its decay products start to build up. If thorium-234 (half-life 24 days), protactinium-234 (half-life 1 minute) and U-234 have built up through decay of U-238, then Th-234 and Pa-234 will give rise to some beta emissions and U-234 is an alpha emitter. On this basis, in a few months, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of around 40 kBq/g quoted. (If it is fresh from the enrichment plant and hence fairly pure the activity is 15 kBq/g, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium. Fresh DU from enriching reprocessed uranium has U-236 in it and more U-234 so is about 23 kBq/g.)

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route. See also Appendix and WHO fact sheet on DU.

 

CAVEAT: I'm not advocating the use of DU, I'm just saying that its not as terrible as some would want you to believe. Check the science on it, thats all....

Edited March 9, 2009 by Fudd

[nscode]

And when they settle they get into your watter and into plants that you eat.

[Fudd]

Taken from the WHO fact sheet: "Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low. "

[hitman]

Whaaaaat??? If the density and volume are the same, they will weigh the same...So Tungsten rounds have less volume?

 

Please explain what you mean....

Think I meant mass, not density. Tungsten is lighter but almost as hard as DU. Just like Titanium is harder and stronger than steel, but weighs less than aluminum. If you cant get the picture, its because I dont know how to explain it at the moment...my brain is about to fry right now. :(

[CE_Mikemonster]

If an A-10 fired a few DU rounds into my backyard, I wouldn't be declaring it a nuclear waste site... I just wouldn't want to be breathing the air until the particles settled.

 

With all respect mate, is that what you would actually say?

[Fudd]

Bottom line is that I fail to see how the DU rounds are any more risky than lead rounds. War is war, so while I probably would be upset about an A-10 shooting something in my back yard, I would probably be more worried about the radiation exposure from radon gas in my basement or the radaition exposure from a flight across country or the radiation exposure fom the x-ray at the dentist office... and the list goes on.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Fudd

[CE_Mikemonster]

I know what you mean Fudd, based on your sources I decided to look more into it (i've previously just heard media reports).

 

Opinions tend to be very polarised and to be impartial is quite hard considering the campaigns waged by certain groups (Press vs Governmenal organisations). The sheer amount of Anti-DU sites online was staggering (and mostly all of them terribly edited lol).

 

Apparently DU doesn't naturally accumulate well in the foodchain, and the majority of uranium taken into the body is got rid of by the body in several days.

 

What you have to consider though is how many rounds are fired for each target - when you think how many are spread around the target site it can add up.

 

Quite good reading here - although I am very wary of misinformation or exclusion of certain facts from organisations with an interest in presenting information on a topic:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml

[EtherealN]

On weight comparison of Tungsten and Uranium, the same number density of them will lead to a lighter material in the former case. This due to the fact that the isotope in DU, Uranium 238, quite simply is heavier per atom than the Tungsten material which (if I have understood it correctly) would mostly be made of Tungsten 182-186.

 

The real clincher which I have no clue about is whether you would actually get the same number density in the two materials.

 

As for radiation, Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, which while it would sound nasty actually means it is relatively safe, since the activity it can release will be spread out over a rediculously long amount of time.

 

There are however synthetic isotopes of Tungsten with half-lifes around a hundred days, though they don't undergo alpha decay and then definitely leave the area of my knowledge in particle physics. :P And of course, I suspect a synthetic nucleus would be a lot more expensive than a natural one. :P

 

Anyhow, when talking about densities and volumes and thereafter weight it is important to remember that different nuclei and their various isotopes do vary in weight. You can therefore have the same density but differing mass.

 

Now I'll stop going semi-offtopic. Sorry. :P

Edited March 9, 2009 by EtherealN
I was stupid an chose the rarest of natural Tungsten isotopes in my assumptions.

[X-man]

Anyhow, when talking about densities and volumes and thereafter weight it is important to remember that different nuclei and their various isotopes do vary in weight. You can therefore have the same density but differing mass.

I fail to understand this :huh: :)

Edited March 9, 2009 by X-man

[Fudd]

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html

 

p = m/v

 

You cant have the same density but differing mass unless its a gas or liquid and subject to different temperatures and pressures.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Fudd

[X-man]

Mass, weight or whatever. Im with Fudd on this one...

Edited March 9, 2009 by X-man

[Fudd]

I'm no expert in this department, but come on gents!

 

Maybe if we ask Yo-Yo real nicely, he could maybe give the forums a remedial class in physics.

 

I'm sure though you'd rather have him focus on DCS A-10 than be teaching physics fundamentals. Maybe its time to enroll in community college :P

[hitman]

You can have the same density in any form, whether it be liquid, solid or gas. You can compress anything and have a denser material, and it doesnt increase the atomic weight of the molecule, until you start fusing molecules together. We dont need fusible rounds, do we? Ask those folks at Eniwetok if they want more fusion. Im sure they could care less about a little DU dust after a few dozen thermonuclear devices were tested there.

Edited March 9, 2009 by hitman

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If an A-10 fired a few DU rounds into my backyard, I wouldn't be declaring it a nuclear waste site... I just wouldn't want to be breathing the air until the particles settled.

Is this suppose to be a joke of some kind?

[Fudd]

Is this suppose to be a joke of some kind?

 

No, its meant to illustrate the fact that the only scientifically proven significant route of exposure that has had above di minimus risk to populations is through inhalation.

 

The exposure of radiation from DU rounds probably does not exceed background and even then thats not the most risky part of DU.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No, its meant to illustrate the fact that the only scientifically proven significant route of exposure that has had above di minimus risk to populations is through inhalation.

All right, that was not a joke!

 

Now can you elaborate, for how long should people stop breathing around DU dust particles? A month, a year or for few hundred years?

[hitman]

Unless your sniffing the dirt, your pretty safe from breathing in poison, and even then you have to be licking the dirt to get a substantial amount, which isnt any more hazardous than lead.

[EtherealN]

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html

 

p = m/v

 

You cant have the same density but differing mass unless its a gas or liquid and subject to different temperatures and pressures.

 

Yes, if comparing two materials you can have differing mass with the same number density. Number density is just the amount of atoms within a given volume. So if we assume that Tungsten and Uranium 238 form identical structures (or at least almost identical) when solid and the bonds are of comparative strength, the number density, that is - number of atoms - would be identical as would the "hardness" of the material. So the density would be the same, but mass (and therefore, in our practical world, weight) would differ since Tungsten is a lighter element (at least all the isotopes I've seen referenced as anywhere near stable don't go above 186).

 

Clincher here being that I have absolutely no clue on the particulars of what kind of structure, compared to each other, they form when solid. So it might very well be that my example is blatantly false when applied to these two materials simply because they don't achieve the same number density when solid.

[GGTharos]

All right, that was not a joke!

 

Now can you elaborate, for how long should people stop breathing around DU dust particles? A month, a year or for few hundred years?

 

 

For the same amount of time you need to stop breathing around lead particles ... the same ones every AK out there shoots. ;)

[EtherealN]

Yeah, I'd like to see the supersonic projectile that does not release some parts of itself in aerosol form upon impact. Seriously, that would be interesting to look at, so if anyone knows of one, shout out. :)

 

To my mind, the big ruckuss with depleted uranium seems to be basically that it's uranium. It is therefore radioactive. And anything radioactive has been seriously stigmatized since Three Mile and Chernobyl. (Hilariously, sometimes to the point that popular opposition to nuclear energy has led to old plants being retained instead of being replaced with newer designs, and thereby increasing risks.)

 

Though of course, it's never bad to err on the side of caution, but when we are talking about a weapon of war I suspect that the war itself will have significantly greater impact on the wellbeing of the population than the uranium in some of the ammunition.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

For the same amount of time you need to stop breathing around lead particles ... the same ones every AK out there shoots. ;)

Here's one more! You too, GGTharos, suggest people should "just" stop breading around the sites where DU is used? :no_sad:

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP

[EtherealN]

The point, Veljko, is that the exact same risk is present anywhere there are lead projectiles going off. Which is a LOT more common and do the same kind of harm, as the radioactivity of Uranium 238 is negligible due to it's rediculously long half-life. The harm in both cases is the toxisity of the material when introduced in an organism that does not have an effective method of ridding itself of heavy metals - like humans.

 

That one should be careful with Uranium 238 is a given, but if the specific concern is harm on non-combatants in the area then you will have to give equal or greater attention to ammunition that contains lead.