Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 7/25/2003 11:26 -0400, you wrote: >> Finally, depleted uranium ammunition is *not* a "weapon of mass >> destruction." > > Very true. Unless one considers a four-man tank crew a "mass" which I > don't. ;) > >> It is quite a conventional weapon, but made of unconventional, if >> imaginative, material. > > I guess a very relevant point to the original .sig's validity is, > what is the remaining radioactivity level in a depleted uranium slug > and how much uranium is actually in there? I have no idea, and really > don't even care, but the answers could matter to the guy's point of > view. > > > -- > Rodolfo J. Paiz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, I really wanted to stay out of this, but I thought, being a former Chemistry major thought I'd offer some insight. The amount of uranium is fairly considerable, however, the radioactivity level is quite diminished, hence the name 'depleted' uranium. The radioactive content level of early 90s depleted uranium was not much more than an average amount in a day out in the sun. Long term exposure to ANY radiation is bad, but in this case, the tank crews in the M1A2 Abrams, which my mother built parts for, the exposure was nil. They use depleted uranium armor in that tank. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
