Depleted Uranium

Vylo · Sep 28, 2008

The radioactivity of DU is neglible. It is the toxicity that kills.

Being against all things nuclear is a very poor choice, considering fusion may very well break the input:output barrier within even months. If it does it can provide a massive amount of power with a little waste in the form of beta radiation.

The only problem with fission is how wasteful it will be when fusion comes to fruition. What will you do with fission plants? They would be virtually useless.

Wyzaard · Sep 28, 2008

Panzerkampfwagen said:
As opposed to say an improvised explosive devise?

Would you like to go out in a fireball in .1 seconds, or increasingly debilitating pain for years?

Wyzaard · Sep 28, 2008

Vylo said:
Being against all things nuclear is a very poor choice, considering fusion may very well break the input:output barrier within even months. If it does it can provide a massive amount of power with a little waste in the form of beta radiation.

Source? I'd be interested in reading about that.

R0D · Sep 28, 2008

r21c said:
Depleted Uranium - The killer that is unnoticed.

So how will the US clean that mess up?

Ha?

4.6 billion years christians! Possibly to the end of time.

I see a post cleared up the fear factor on U-238.

I will try to help build on top of that education.
Depleted uranium is used because it has a high density; it is very hard, but not brittle. Wolfram Carbide is the alternative artillery and Wolfram Carbide dust is toxic when inhaled. If neither of these items are desirable for use in conflict, people have several choices-
Stop ALL conflicts around the world
Stop ALL countries from having or making tanks
or come up with a suitable replacement in artillery against tanks

BTW-
Did people know that uranium and thorium are throughout the Earth's crust?
Their decay chain produces radium, which decays into radon (found in homes). Just thought that might help put things in perspective since a few posters seemed to think depleted uranium was a highly radioactive weapon.

Panzerkamfwagen · Sep 28, 2008

Wyzaard said:
Would you like to go out in a fireball in .1 seconds, or increasingly debilitating pain for years?

Why would they use DU in radioactive shielding if it's radioactive?

Allahuakbar · Sep 28, 2008

Panzerkampfwagen said:
Why would they use DU in radioactive shielding if it's radioactive?

The pain was a reference to the toxicity.

Wyzaard · Sep 28, 2008

Panzerkampfwagen said:
Why would they use DU in radioactive shielding if it's radioactive?

It's heavy density... it's still mildly radioactive and chemically toxic.

Allahuakbar · Sep 28, 2008

Wyzaard said:
It's heavy density... it's still mildly radioactive and chemically toxic.

Bananas are more radioactive.

Vylo · Sep 29, 2008

Wyzaard said:
Source? I'd be interested in reading about that.

Someone I know personally working on fusion at the Princeton plasma lab.

They have had trouble keeping the reaction stable, but the addition of lithium seems to be the key to solving that problem and has given them much greater results. It is predicted that the large reactor, ITER will produce 5 times as much power as required to sustain the reaction due to the addition of the a lithium system.

ACougar · Sep 29, 2008

I disagree, if you seen an enemy vehicle that was killed with a depleted uranium round, you will most likely be told to stay out of it... and if you have any sense you will avoid it.

Panzerkampfwagen said:
Lucky I don't dabble in chemical voodoo for a living.

Well, if I go to Iraq, I'm not likely to be worried about DU...

r21c · Oct 15, 2008

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00085.htm

I read this a long time ago, here it is.

OphidiaPhile · Oct 15, 2008

keith99 said:
Ah bring up the magic word radioactive and get the responce. Look things up. Depleted Uranium is actually used in shielding!

Now the chemical properties seem pretty nasty. But that is pretty standard for heavy metals.

And armor piercing anti tank rounds for the GAU 10 in the A/10 Wart Hog.

JBJoe · Oct 15, 2008

ACougar said:
I disagree, if you seen an enemy vehicle that was killed with a depleted uranium round, you will most likely be told to stay out of it... and if you have any sense you will avoid it.

Depleted Uranium is pyrophoric. On impact it superheats and explodes, resulting in a dispersal of fine dust of U-238 particles. You should stay away from a vehicle killed with DU because the stuff is a toxic heavy metal.

It works great for penetrating armor, however the military should really consider abandoning the stuff because of its chemical toxicity. I believe that SOP for a destroyed vehicle is to bury it. Again this is more to do with heavy metal poisoning than radioactivity (U-238 is weakly radioactive alpha emitter).

Allahuakbar · Oct 15, 2008

JBJoe said:
U-238 is weakly radioactive alpha emitter

This is not completely correct. U-238 has a ridiculous half-life, a billion years off the top of my head, and while it is an alpha emitter, it is some other variant of uranium that is of concern with natural decay. If I remember correctly 234 beta minus decays, and 235 emits a helium nucleus as well.

Panzerkamfwagen · Oct 15, 2008

ACougar said:
I disagree, if you seen an enemy vehicle that was killed with a depleted uranium round, you will most likely be told to stay out of it... and if you have any sense you will avoid it.

Why would anyone want to go near a T-72 that's cooking off?

zjl56 · Oct 15, 2008

Depleted Uranium is absolutely harmless on the radioactive side, you would need more then the mass of the earth to achieve of a fission reaction with that stuff, but it has other dangers. The reason that it is used as a weapon is that its a cheap source of dense material that can shred any metal it goes through, perfect for tank shells. The reason why it should be phased out,though, is that this stuff is just as dangerous as cadmium, lead, and even mercury to the elemental nature of it.

Already the military is trying to phase out all sorts of lead products due to the horrible after effects on training sites. So, the next generation tank might follow suit with regards to depleted uranium.

JBJoe · Oct 15, 2008

Allahuakbar said:
This is not completely correct. U-238 has a ridiculous half-life, a billion years off the top of my head, and while it is an alpha emitter, it is some other variant of uranium that is of concern with natural decay. If I remember correctly 234 beta minus decays, and 235 emits a helium nucleus as well.

U238 has a half-life of 1.41 x 10^17 seconds. If you had a mole of it, you would have (6.022x10^23 atoms, or 238grams - a little less than 13 cubic centimeters) after 1.41 x 10^17 seconds, you would expect 3.011x10^23 alpha particle decays to occur.

3.011x10^23 decays / 1.41x10^17 seconds ~= 2,000,000 alpha particle decays/second.

It is completely correct to call U238 weakly radioactive.

Depleted Uranium

Stick with the King!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stick with the King!

U.S. Army Retired

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency