Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Paul: The safety of innovations, such as irradiated foods, is always based upon the opinion of the corporate spokesman, or his hired hand in government. The corporate mouth monkeys tell you what "a safe level" is, others say none is safe. Liver Cancer: Danger of Radiolytic Products in the Diet June 26, 2000 This scientific materials in this document were prepared by chemist Jeffrey Reinhardt, M.Sc., co-founder of The National Coalition to Stop Food Irradiation. Summary a.. FDA estimates the amount of Radiolytic Products (RP) in foods irradiated at 100 Krad at 0.3 parts per million (PPM). Source. b.. 100 Krad is the maximum permitted dose of irradiation for fruits and vegetables. Poultry may receive 3 x 100 Krad, red meat may receive 4.5 x 100 Krad, frozen meat may receive 7 x 100 Krad, spices receive 30 x 100 Krad. Therefore this calculation is a low estimate if people eat a diet containing irradiated meat and poultry as well as fruits and vegetables. c.. Assumes consumption of 7.5 ounces of irradiated foods with an average water content of 80% (fruits and vegetables range from 75-90%) with 0.3 PPM of RPs. 7.5 ounces is a large serving of fruit or one piece of fruit and one serving of poultry or meat. d.. If only 1 out of 10,000 RP molecules is a potential carcinogen, co-carcinogen or mutagen, then for every 7.5 ounce meal with 0.3 PPM of RPs, 2,560 potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic RP molecules will contact each cell in the adult liver. See the entire calculation. e.. Irradiation depletes anti-oxidant vitamins in food, which help regenerate the liver. f.. Over a long period of time, the RP assault on the liver combined with fewer anti-oxidants in the diet will create a "fertile field for the ultimate growth of cancer cells" and "almost certainly evolve" to produce liver cancer. g.. "Even at one-tenth the concentration of radiolytic products known by the FDA to be formed by irradiation at 100 Krad, irradiation of foods in the human diet represents predictably unacceptable risks to the public's health." -- FDA estimate of amount of RPs produced "Calculations based on radiation chemistry clearly indicate that irradiation doses of 100 Krad or less yield a concentration of total radiolytic products in food that is so limited that it would be difficult to detect and subsequently measure toxicological properties. In addition, at this dose unique radiolytic products (URPs) will be on the order of 3 parts per million (PPM), and since the number of individual URPs is likely to be greater than ten, the amount of any particular URP will be considerably less than 1 PPM. Finally, our estimates of URPs may be exaggerated. "Hence, because of the low level of total unique radiolytic products (URPs) produced, it is concluded that food irradiated at doses not exceeding 100 Krad is wholesome and safe for human consumption. This rationale is based solely on an estimate of the concentration of individual URPs produced by the radiation dose to the food, and pertains even if a high proportion of the total human diet is irradiated at 100 Krad." p. 16, Recommendations for evaluating the safety of irradiated foods. Final report, July 1980. Director, Bureau of Foods, FDA. However, Paul, anyone familiar with homeopathic medicines would wonder at statements like these. Homeopathic medicines are made by taking a small amount of an element, mixing it with a quantity of pure water, boiling the water away, and then mixing the recovered element in a filler. The package or bottle will indicate the strength, such as 6X or 30 X. 30X means that the original element was mixed in 30,000 times as much pure water. The water was boiled away. The residue was mixed with 30,000 times as much inert filler and made into tiny pills. Tests have been done that showed the original element could not be found in the pill. Yet in double blind studies done by opponents to homeopathic medicines they proved these medicines work. In fact about 16% of the British and French adhere to homeopaty as their preferred form of health care, including the British Royal Family. If a pill containing an untraceable amount of an element can affect your health, what is a "safe dose" of "Radiolytic Products" that are found in irradiated foods? I say 'zero" EdB - Original Message - From: paul van den bergen To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 06:53 am, John E Hayes III wrote: > bratt wrote: > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new&q
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
One of those things not for public consumption. Don't want the peasants to understand much more than pitchforks. Metallurgy is one of those things I see as being an art as well as a science. The art enters when an experienced metallurgist makes the comment "It did what?". Another example is rifling. Notice spin stability is abandoned and many canon are smoothbore. Steel is a wonderful material but not when contaminated with copper or gilding metal. The erosion of rifling has more to do with failure induced by alloying than actually with friction. Uranium is quite willing to donate an electron and like any metal this process is enhanced by temperature. The residue combusts and makes the penetrator an incindiery. Nasty stuff. Not only fire, then you have chemical toxicity. Not something you want in your neighborhood. Kirk -Original Message- From: paul van den bergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:44 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 03:25 am, kirk wrote: > You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in > milliseconds. > Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you > normally encounter. > The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and > later. > There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it > is. > > Kirk that was the impression I got from the paper I read... that there was some reaction that U underwent that was pyrophoric, that it involved iron and that it produced U oxide powder. the specifics were vague... so I left it at pyrophoric and neglected to mention oxygen... I did get the distinct impression that the pyrophoric effect was definitely an after impact (e.g. ignites feirce fire after penetration) as opposed to an explosive effect... infact explosive force was not mentioned. reading between teh lines I got the impression that there was a reaction between the Fe and the U, where I thought it more likely that the Fe had a catalytic effect on oxidation or similar. this is because I could not see a thermodynamics case for a strongly exothermic reaction between U and Fe... but that's just idle speculation on my part. -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 06:53 am, John E Hayes III wrote: > bratt wrote: > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" > > industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons > > grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of > > which gets more deadly than the use before. > > I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both > *good* things. well I would have a hard time arguign that nuclear medical advances are a bad thing I understand there are serious waste issues, but other than that, what's the bad? irradiated food has certain advantages and disadvantages... like many things it can be abused. given a choice between importing disease and irradiation, I'd recommend irradiation as a quarantene measure any day. using it as a general all purpose cleanliness food solution... that pushes all the wrong buttons for me... on the other hand, I suspect that the issue is as much about education, information, advertising (marketing) and vested interests more than it is about health risks... in all cases good or bad... -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:50 pm, Appal Energy wrote: > Food Irradiation is a good thing? > > I wonder how the world survived for so many millions of years prior to its > "availability?" well, mostly by dieing... :-) but I take your point - and it rasies an interesting point too... is our use of technology reducing our evolutionary survival ability? (I have an answer of sorts... which is that it depends how robust an evolutionary force social evolution (or memes if you prefer) is...) > > "Oh waiter!!! I'd like a side order of week old shell fish that just came > in from the Vindicator plant. And could I get an extra serving of sauce?" > > Todd Swearingen > > - Original Message - > From: "John E Hayes III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:53 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > bratt wrote: > > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several > > "new" industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. > Weapons grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each > > of which gets more deadly than the use before. > > > I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both > > *good* things. > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Food Irradiation is a good thing? I wonder how the world survived for so many millions of years prior to its "availability?" "Oh waiter!!! I'd like a side order of week old shell fish that just came in from the Vindicator plant. And could I get an extra serving of sauce?" Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "John E Hayes III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > bratt wrote: > > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of which gets more deadly than the use before. > > > > I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both > *good* things. > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Your struggle with denying the concept there may be something more than oxidation and kinetic energy occuring is something to behold. When penetrating iron oxidation occurs later because even if the atmosphere was 100% oxygen, which it isn't, how much O2 can you get there in under a millisecond? Thats all the time there is, penetration is a done deal by then. Note -- the more iron there is the more uranium oxide there is. Could it be? Is it possible -- that residual heat promotes the oxidation. Does it seem reasonable that the energy is just kinetic? Have you penciled it? Do you know how to pencil it? What is the specific heat of iron, of uranium -- how much mass is involved? What is the velocity? When you say it does not stand up you better be ready to show us the numbers. I spent my working life in aerospace. I happen to have a great deal of actual experience with what you call theory. Now you want to teach me freshman chemistry? >because "after" there is no energy to cause any "side reaction". Ok, just how much energy is left in less than 1/1000 of a second of cooling? And just how much oxygen did you get to the uranium in less than 1/1000 of a second? Enough to melt armor? Sure Sparky. I believe that. You couldn't get that much oxygen to the site of the reaction even if it were a liquid. >Experts say: The real trick is knowing who knows what they are talking about. Anyone can put up a webpage. When all else fails try logic. Kirk -Original Message- From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:11 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing I read the whole theory, and it does not stand up, because "after" there is no energy to cause any "side reaction". DU is pyrophoric, and ignites in whole or in part upon impact. The powder left is uranium oxide. An oxide is a binary compound of oxygen. Experts say: http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/special/index2.html DU is approximately 2.5 times denser than iron and 1.7 times denser than lead. This high specific gravity means that, as a projectile fired from a tank or aircraft, it carries enough kinetic energy to blast through the tough armor of a tank. Furthermore, the impact of this penetration generates extreme heat. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it burns on impact and can set the target on fire http://mapage.noos.fr/radiation/DU/InfoDU.html (Depleted) Uranium is used in munition because of its extremely high density and therefore its penetrating power. It is used in metallic form. On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which causes the uranium - which is anyway pyrophoric, which means that it easily reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore (partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine powder. Uranium oxide(s) are not soluble in water. When such small particles are inhaled after resuspension, they can deposit in the lung. The lung fluids may dissolve extremely slowly the uranium oxide particles and uranium is carried away in the body fluids. Part of it will be excreted, part of it will be deposited in different organs of the body, the critical organ being the kidney, as it is for other heavy metals. The health impact of uranium in this case will be only related to its chemical toxicity which is by far higher than the radiotoxicity. In case that such particles would be ingested and not inhaled, the particles will pass the body without being dissolved and without having any impact on health. EdB - Original Message - From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:58 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > >That is a side reaction and > > later. > > Pays to read the whole email. > > Kirk > > > -Original Message- > From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen, there must be > some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on the > scene. > > Back to Bombs: > DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS > > America's big dirty secret > > Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002 > > > The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb > currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the > air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has > also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last > decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. > > by RO > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http:
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
http://www.iaea.or.at/icgfi/documents/cyclobutanones.htm What's New Cyclobutanones in irradiated foods US consumer advocacy groups called Public Citizen and Center for Food Safety recently alleged that cyclobutanones, a group of compounds which occurs in minute quantities in irradiated fat containing food, "cause genetic damage in rats, and genetic and cellular damage in human and rat cells" in its "Hidden Harm" story. The French-German research collaborative group (Eric Marchioni, Dominique Burnouf, Henry Delincee, Andrea Hartwig, Michel Miesch, Francis Raul and Dalal Werner) in frame of an EU Interreg programme recently investigated the potential toxicity of 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-DCB) in vivo. This work was supported by the European Union through the Upper Rhine Interreg II Programme, and by Ae'rial (Strasbourg), Federal Institute for Nutrition, Karlsruhe, CNRS, Karlsruhe University, and University' Louis Pasteur. They used pure compounds of 2-DCB at a concentration hundreds of time of that which could be created in irradiated food in their toxicological studies. The summary of their results is provided below: a.. Summary of the latest Toxicological Testing (Dec. 2001) - Original Message - From: John E Hayes III To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing bratt wrote: >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of which gets more deadly than the use before. > I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both *good* things. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 03:25 am, kirk wrote: > You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in > milliseconds. > Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you > normally encounter. > The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and > later. > There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it > is. > > Kirk that was the impression I got from the paper I read... that there was some reaction that U underwent that was pyrophoric, that it involved iron and that it produced U oxide powder. the specifics were vague... so I left it at pyrophoric and neglected to mention oxygen... I did get the distinct impression that the pyrophoric effect was definitely an after impact (e.g. ignites feirce fire after penetration) as opposed to an explosive effect... infact explosive force was not mentioned. reading between teh lines I got the impression that there was a reaction between the Fe and the U, where I thought it more likely that the Fe had a catalytic effect on oxidation or similar. this is because I could not see a thermodynamics case for a strongly exothermic reaction between U and Fe... but that's just idle speculation on my part. -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
bratt wrote: >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons grade >Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of >which gets more deadly than the use before. > I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both *good* things. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
I have seen parts of it elseware. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "bratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 17:46 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > Did you read this one: > > http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm > - Original Message - > From: Greg and April > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:05 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > I didn't get much out of "DU use in munitions", but, got more info. with > "DU Munitions". > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Did you read this one: http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm - Original Message - From: Greg and April To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing I didn't get much out of "DU use in munitions", but, got more info. with "DU Munitions". Some of what I found is: "One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the spotting round for the Davy Crockett mortar warhead." ( It is unclear on if it is still in use.) "DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army's 25mm BUSHMASTER cannon (M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series tanks) and the 120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The M1A1 (HA), the Heavy Armor variant of the M1A1, also employs layered DU for increased armor protection. The Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks and a 25mm DU round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers." "The Army has tested limited quantities of small caliber DU ammunition (5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50 caliber). However, the Army produced these rounds in limited quantities for developmental testing only and evaluation and never type-classified them for standard use." "The 50-caliber sniper rifle did fire an API (armor piercing incendiary) round, but the round did not contain DU. There have been similar claims that cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU. DU is used to simulate the weight of a nuclear warhead in the developmental testing and evaluation of the nuclear version of certain cruise missiles, but no cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU." "The US Navy designed its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) as a last-ditch defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide range of materials before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum (DU-2Mo).[203] Phalanx production started in 1978, with orders for 23 systems for the US Navy and 14 systems for foreign militaries. However, in 1989, the Navy decided to change the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten, based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact." Russia claims to have a shaped charge warhead using DU as the liner, but the US, is still investigating ( I suspect that the pyrophoric properties of DU and the cost effectiveness of copper or copper / nickel would make it questionable for it's use in this role, unless it has significantly superior effects). The Army also uses trace amounts as an epoxy catalyst. DU is also used as armor, on the M1-A1 and M1-A2, in which case a sheet of DU is sandwiched in between conventional sheets of armor and the entire thing sealed with welds. In cases were tanks ( with DU armor ) burned, no DU or DU Oxide escaped, unless the armor was breached first, I have not yet found any evidence that this has happened, it has been one or the other. Approximately 340 tons of DU ( not counting the pre-positioned Marine supplies on ships, it is estimated that this portion comes out to less than 30 tons ), most of which was used by the Air Force with the 30 mm cannon on the A-10 ( the total amount hear is unclear due to the fact that the DU rounds were mixed with HEI rounds at a rate that varied between 6 DU - 1 HEI and 4 DU - 1 HEI depending on the mission ). Other nations in the coalition forces, used DU, but less than the US. It has been found that DU of the smaller calibers ( 30 mm and less ) a lower percentage of DU Oxide is formed upon hits, and in most cases the penetrator stayed in the armor if it hit but did not punch through, and this limits the amount of DU Oxide. The amount of DU Oxide produced is in direct correlation to the total amount of Kinetic Energy expended on the target, a softer target has less energy expended on it than a harder target, so less of the DU penetrator turned to DU Oxide. In many cases, if the DU penetrator hit a soft APC, only trace amounts of DU Oxide were found, unless it hit a engine ( or other significantly hard item ) in which case the amount's of DU Oxide were higher. DU is also used in numerous commercial applications: ballast and counterweights; balancing control devices on aircraft (civilian and military); balancing and vibration damping on aircraft (civilian and military); machinery ballast and counterweights; gyrorotors and other electromechanical counterweights; neutron detectors; radiation detection and shielding for medicine and industry; shipping container shielding for radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and spent nuclear fuel rods; chemical catalyst; pigments; x-ray tubes. It seems that as long as it
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
I read the whole theory, and it does not stand up, because "after" there is no energy to cause any "side reaction". DU is pyrophoric, and ignites in whole or in part upon impact. The powder left is uranium oxide. An oxide is a binary compound of oxygen. Experts say: http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/special/index2.html DU is approximately 2.5 times denser than iron and 1.7 times denser than lead. This high specific gravity means that, as a projectile fired from a tank or aircraft, it carries enough kinetic energy to blast through the tough armor of a tank. Furthermore, the impact of this penetration generates extreme heat. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it burns on impact and can set the target on fire http://mapage.noos.fr/radiation/DU/InfoDU.html (Depleted) Uranium is used in munition because of its extremely high density and therefore its penetrating power. It is used in metallic form. On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which causes the uranium - which is anyway pyrophoric, which means that it easily reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore (partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine powder. Uranium oxide(s) are not soluble in water. When such small particles are inhaled after resuspension, they can deposit in the lung. The lung fluids may dissolve extremely slowly the uranium oxide particles and uranium is carried away in the body fluids. Part of it will be excreted, part of it will be deposited in different organs of the body, the critical organ being the kidney, as it is for other heavy metals. The health impact of uranium in this case will be only related to its chemical toxicity which is by far higher than the radiotoxicity. In case that such particles would be ingested and not inhaled, the particles will pass the body without being dissolved and without having any impact on health. EdB - Original Message - From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:58 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > >That is a side reaction and > > later. > > Pays to read the whole email. > > Kirk > > > -Original Message- > From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen, there must be > some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on the > scene. > > Back to Bombs: > DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS > > America's big dirty secret > > Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002 > > > The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb > currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the > air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has > also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last > decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. > > by RO > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
I didn't get much out of "DU use in munitions", but, got more info. with "DU Munitions". Some of what I found is: "One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the spotting round for the Davy Crockett mortar warhead." ( It is unclear on if it is still in use.) "DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army's 25mm BUSHMASTER cannon (M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series tanks) and the 120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The M1A1 (HA), the Heavy Armor variant of the M1A1, also employs layered DU for increased armor protection. The Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks and a 25mm DU round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers." "The Army has tested limited quantities of small caliber DU ammunition (5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50 caliber). However, the Army produced these rounds in limited quantities for developmental testing only and evaluation and never type-classified them for standard use." "The 50-caliber sniper rifle did fire an API (armor piercing incendiary) round, but the round did not contain DU. There have been similar claims that cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU. DU is used to simulate the weight of a nuclear warhead in the developmental testing and evaluation of the nuclear version of certain cruise missiles, but no cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU." "The US Navy designed its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) as a last-ditch defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide range of materials before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum (DU-2Mo).[203] Phalanx production started in 1978, with orders for 23 systems for the US Navy and 14 systems for foreign militaries. However, in 1989, the Navy decided to change the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten, based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact." Russia claims to have a shaped charge warhead using DU as the liner, but the US, is still investigating ( I suspect that the pyrophoric properties of DU and the cost effectiveness of copper or copper / nickel would make it questionable for it's use in this role, unless it has significantly superior effects). The Army also uses trace amounts as an epoxy catalyst. DU is also used as armor, on the M1-A1 and M1-A2, in which case a sheet of DU is sandwiched in between conventional sheets of armor and the entire thing sealed with welds. In cases were tanks ( with DU armor ) burned, no DU or DU Oxide escaped, unless the armor was breached first, I have not yet found any evidence that this has happened, it has been one or the other. Approximately 340 tons of DU ( not counting the pre-positioned Marine supplies on ships, it is estimated that this portion comes out to less than 30 tons ), most of which was used by the Air Force with the 30 mm cannon on the A-10 ( the total amount hear is unclear due to the fact that the DU rounds were mixed with HEI rounds at a rate that varied between 6 DU - 1 HEI and 4 DU - 1 HEI depending on the mission ). Other nations in the coalition forces, used DU, but less than the US. It has been found that DU of the smaller calibers ( 30 mm and less ) a lower percentage of DU Oxide is formed upon hits, and in most cases the penetrator stayed in the armor if it hit but did not punch through, and this limits the amount of DU Oxide. The amount of DU Oxide produced is in direct correlation to the total amount of Kinetic Energy expended on the target, a softer target has less energy expended on it than a harder target, so less of the DU penetrator turned to DU Oxide. In many cases, if the DU penetrator hit a soft APC, only trace amounts of DU Oxide were found, unless it hit a engine ( or other significantly hard item ) in which case the amount's of DU Oxide were higher. DU is also used in numerous commercial applications: ballast and counterweights; balancing control devices on aircraft (civilian and military); balancing and vibration damping on aircraft (civilian and military); machinery ballast and counterweights; gyrorotors and other electromechanical counterweights; neutron detectors; radiation detection and shielding for medicine and industry; shipping container shielding for radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and spent nuclear fuel rods; chemical catalyst; pigments; x-ray tubes. It seems that as long as it remains sealed, DU has broad and accepted range of usage that is bound to grow as time grows by, and most people are not going to worry about it. With this in mind, I have to ask the question, are we going to see the day when we are using DU battery packs? Greg H. - Original Message ----- From: "bratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 00:01 Su
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
>That is a side reaction and > later. Pays to read the whole email. Kirk -Original Message- From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen, there must be some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on the scene. Back to Bombs: DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS America's big dirty secret Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002 The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. by RO Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZKLNcC/pEZFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
iction and vomiting) could have resulted from radiation contamination. On 5 December, when a friendly-fire bomb hit coalition soldiers, media representatives were all immediately removed from the scene and locked up in a hangar. According to the Pentagon, the bomb was a GBU-31, carrying a BLU-109 warhead. The Canal+ documentary shows an arms manufacturer's sales representative at an international fair in Dubai in 1999, just after the Kosovo war. He is presenting a BLU-109 warhead and describing its penetration capabilities against superhardened underground targets, explaining that this model had been tested in a recent war. Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence, on 16 January this year admitted that the US had found radiation in Afghanistan (10). But this, he reassured, was merely from DU warheads (supposedly belonging to al-Qaida); he did not explain how al-Qaida could have launched them without planes. Williams points out that, even if the coalition has used no DU weapons, those attributed to al-Qaida might turn out to be an even greater source of contamination, especially if they came from Russia, in which case the DU could be even dirtier than that from Paducah. Following its assessment mission in the Balkans, UNEP set up a post-conflict assessment unit. Its director, Henrik Slotte, has announced that it is ready to work in Afghanistan as soon as possible, given proper security, unimpeded access to hit sites, and financing. The WHO remains silent. When questions about the current state of the DU research fund were addressed to Jon Lidon, spokesman for the director general, Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO did not answer. Yet Williams urges that studies begin immediately, as victims of severe UD exposure may soon all be dead, yet with their deaths attributed to the rigours of winter. In Jefferson County, Indiana, the Pentagon has closed the 200-acre (80-hectare) proving ground where it used to test-fire DU rounds. The lowest estimate for cleaning up the site comes to $7.8bn, not including permanent storage of the earth to a depth of six metres and of all the vegetation. Considering the cost too high, the military finally decided to give the tract to the National Park Service for a nature preserve — an offer that was promptly refused. Now there is talk of turning it into a National Sacrifice Zone and closing it forever. This gives an idea of the fate awaiting those regions of the planet where the US has used and will use depleted uranium. * Journalist, Geneva (1) See website (2) The internet sites of Janes Defense Information, the Federation of American Scientists, the Centre of Defense Information. (3) See FAS Website (4) FAS and USA Today (5) Chronology of environmental sampling in the Balkans (6) See Deafening silence on depleted uranium, Le Monde diplomatique English edition, February 2001. (7) La Guerre radioactive secrète, by Martin Meissonnier, Roger Trilling, Guillaume d'Allessandro and Luc Hermann, first broadcast in February 2000; updated and rebroadcast in January 2001 under the title L'Uranium appauvri, nous avons retrouvé l'usine contaminée by Roger Trilling and Luc Hermann. (8) The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Planning of Attacks on Iraqi Chemical and Biological Warfare Targets (9) For example "New Evidence is Adding to US Fears of Al-Qaida Dirty Bomb", International Herald Tribune, December 5, 2001; "Uranium Reportedly Found in Tunnel Complex", USA Today, December 24, 2001. (10) "US Says More Weapons Sites Found in Afghanistan", Reuters, January 16, 2002. Translated by the author Related sites: http://madison.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=3377&group=webcast A Review of its Properties, Potential Danger and Recent Use in Yugoslavia http://zolatimes.com/V5.44/afghan_uranium.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/afghanistan.html http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold - Original Message ----- From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in > milliseconds. > Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you > normally encounter. > The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and > later. > There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it > is. > > Kirk > > -Original Message- > From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:59 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > How DU reacts on impact: > > On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, > which causes the uranium - which is pyrophoric, which means that it easily > reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore > (partially
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in milliseconds. Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you normally encounter. The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and later. There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it is. Kirk -Original Message- From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:59 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing How DU reacts on impact: On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which causes the uranium - which is pyrophoric, which means that it easily reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore (partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine powder. EdB - Original Message - From: kirk To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000 fps. Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very classified, because of their applications interest. DU obsoletes steel armor. Kirk -Original Message- From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with little energy transfer to the armor or the DU. Iron may resist the blow long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the earth should it hit. Aluminum armor has a real big problem though when it comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to start burning on it's own. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to > burn... > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
How DU reacts on impact: On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which causes the uranium - which is pyrophoric, which means that it easily reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore (partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine powder. EdB - Original Message - From: kirk To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000 fps. Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very classified, because of their applications interest. DU obsoletes steel armor. Kirk -Original Message- From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with little energy transfer to the armor or the DU. Iron may resist the blow long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the earth should it hit. Aluminum armor has a real big problem though when it comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to start burning on it's own. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to > burn... > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000 fps. Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very classified, because of their applications interest. DU obsoletes steel armor. Kirk -Original Message- From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with little energy transfer to the armor or the DU. Iron may resist the blow long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the earth should it hit. Aluminum armor has a real big problem though when it comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to start burning on it's own. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to > burn... > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DUuse+hazard.html Depleted Uranium: Uses and Hazards, by Doug Rokke, 2001 Doug Rokke, Ph.D. (This paper is an updated version of the paper presented in the British House of Commons; London, England; on December 16, 1999) http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61 The San Francisco Times Dr. Doug Rokke's address on Depleted Uranium The following is a copy of the Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, at the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 17th Annual Leadership Breakfast, at the U.S. Senate Caucus Room on November 10, 2000. Adrian Cronauer was Master of Ceremonies. http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 Sunday Herald US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal' By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction. DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children. Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'. Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.' The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident. According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts. DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict. It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war. 'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission. The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure. In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert. The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling. A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers. Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions. 'To do so is a crime against humanity. 'We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU.' He called on the US and UK to 'recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation'. He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately. 'It is equivalent to a war crime.' Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU contamination. The Sunday Herald has pre
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Please state sources. - Original Message - From: "bratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 22:36 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > There are three basic forms of DU rounds. The "sabot" which is just an armour piercing round, armor >piercing "incendary" and "shaped charge" which is an explosive round. > All the API that I know of, use zirconium or a conventional ( non DU ) pyrotechnic bursting charge, not DU for the incendiary component. Shaped Charges are made most often with a copper liner, with copper nickel next favored. If DU was used, they would have to reduce the weight of the explosive component, which the round relies on in the first place, not a good idea. > > Rounds used range from 20MM to 105MM > > 105's are artillary shells. Some rounds are finned. The M1 has a 105mm gun. What about the 120mm smoothbore guns of the M1-A1? Artillery barrels can not handle sabots, the best they can use is shaped charge warheads if it looks like armor is about to turn them into scrap. > > One of the first uses of DU was in mortar round warheads. When was this, and for what use was the DU used in them? > > Then, there Is the Hellfire anti-armor missile fired by Apache helicopters > Single shaped charge, duel shaped charges, or straight blast, depending on the model used. Last I checked, DU wasn't used in any of them. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with little energy transfer to the armor or the DU. Iron may resist the blow long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the earth should it hit. Aluminum armor has a real big problem though when it comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to start burning on it's own. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to > burn... > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
>DU has no place in Tomahawks, >artillery shell or any other >exploding ( >chemical explosion) >type of munitions, because, >despite this persons claims, > DU >is not an explosive. Partially correct, partially wromg. There are three basic forms of DU rounds. The "sabot" which is just an armour piercing round, armor piercing "incendary" and "shaped charge" which is an explosive round. Rounds used range from 20MM to 105MM 105's are artillary shells. Some rounds are finned. One of the first uses of DU was in mortar round warheads. Then, there Is the Hellfire anti-armor missile fired by Apache helicopters EdB - Original Message - From: paul van den bergen To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:04 am, Greg and April wrote: > > > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. > > > > The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is > > only > > > useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. > > > > > No DU is not an explosive, and it is not being claimed to be an > > explosive by Hoagy, > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to burn... -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:04 am, Greg and April wrote: > > > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. > > > > The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is > > only > > > useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. DU has no place > > in > > > Tomahawks, artillery shell or any other exploding ( chemical explosion > > ) type of munitions, because, despite this persons claims, DU is not an > > explosive. > > > > > No DU is not an explosive, and it is not being claimed to be an > > explosive by Hoagy, > > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely. apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely to burn... -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
I hope it gets out, this time. - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 13:31 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. -- Never said it wasn't -- It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. - The penetration rod, is made entirely of DU, not just the tip. The only case were just a tip might be DU, is the bigger/biggest bunker buster bombs, but, I don't have any information on them other than they are made from recycled artillery barrels. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. --- The original reason, that DU was used, is that it is heavy like a Tungsten penitrator, but, not as brittle. This allowed the penitrator to get through the armor, without snapping when it first hits, this is why the use of Tungsten was discontinued, velocities were getting so high that the Tungsten penitrators were shattering on the armor. The fact that so much of it was available, only made it all that more desirable to use. It was my understanding that it was not until just before the shooting started in the first Gulf War that they started to have an idea of the dangers involved, but, buy then it was to late, because it had already been sent to the front lines and most of the 120 mm APFSDS available was the DU. --- > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > The reason that HEAT is used ( and there is no DU used with them ), is that they are ( for the most part ) independent of Kinetic Energy to do the job, this allows tank crews to stand off outside of KE effective range of SABOTS ( around 3.5 - 4 km max.depending on the type of armor your facing ), and still take out a target. > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > > Whether or not hte dust was 'figured' to be in the attack, the fact remains that the dust produced by these shells is highly toxic and radioactive, --- Again, never said it wasn't. -- and under geneva convention such weapons are actually illegal, due to the toxicological side-effects The fact that it is pyroic is neither here nor there. -- I have had, on a few occasions to read the Geneva Convention, but, can not recall the sections dealing with such, can you supply them? -- Napalm is a much more effective incendiary. > - And your point is? To knock out a tank, you need to do 2 things, you need to penetrate the armor and ether kill the crew or start the ammo or fuel to burning. Any thing else still leaves a dangerous opponent that can kill you. Napalm can not ensure this. - > > > > DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but > > poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry against > > using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as in > artillery > > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. > > The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is only > useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. DU has no place in > Tomahawks, artillery shell or any other exploding ( chemical explosion ) > type of munitions, because, despite this persons claims, DU is not an > explosive. >
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Definitely subsidized as well but I think nuke is the most costly form of energy -- unless you wanted to power your house with flashlight batteries. -Original Message- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:45 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing Dear Kirk, What you are saying is true and in fairness even more so for the Oil industry than for the Nuclear industry. Hakan At 08:25 AM 4/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: >When they give the numbers for nuclear they usually don't disclose subsidies >and true costs. Nukes are favored because centralized power is the economic >paradigm. I think centralized power has a lot of liabilities and >inefficiencies. It is a good business model though if you are the seller. >And that is the problem -- the sellers control politics and industry. They >are industry. > >Kirk > >-Original Message- >From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:26 AM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > >Dear Bratt, > >The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the >EU commission and included the social costs to the environment >and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest >fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you >include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk >problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical >issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful >applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on >my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful >applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not >see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and >this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect >for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. > >Hakan > > >At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and > >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very > >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive > >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > > > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" > >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons > >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of > >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > > > > >.- Original Message - > > From: paul van den bergen > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > > the > > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > > actually READ ON > > > references: > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > > > > >http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > > continues > > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of >nuclear > > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the >stuff: > > > > load > > > > > > it > > > > > > > into warheads. > > > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > > War. It was > > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, >to > > > give a higher percentage of one shot ta
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Dear Kirk, What you are saying is true and in fairness even more so for the Oil industry than for the Nuclear industry. Hakan At 08:25 AM 4/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: >When they give the numbers for nuclear they usually don't disclose subsidies >and true costs. Nukes are favored because centralized power is the economic >paradigm. I think centralized power has a lot of liabilities and >inefficiencies. It is a good business model though if you are the seller. >And that is the problem -- the sellers control politics and industry. They >are industry. > >Kirk > >-Original Message- >From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:26 AM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > >Dear Bratt, > >The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the >EU commission and included the social costs to the environment >and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest >fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you >include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk >problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical >issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful >applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on >my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful >applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not >see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and >this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect >for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. > >Hakan > > >At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and > >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very > >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive > >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > > > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" > >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons > >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of > >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > > > > >.- Original Message - > > From: paul van den bergen > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > > the > > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > > actually READ ON > > > references: > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > > > > >http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > > continues > > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of >nuclear > > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the >stuff: > > > > load > > > > > > it > > > > > > > into warheads. > > > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > > War. It was > > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, >to > > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy >and > > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. >It > > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is > > milled in > > > to a very precise shape. > > > > > > Yes, let&#
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
When they give the numbers for nuclear they usually don't disclose subsidies and true costs. Nukes are favored because centralized power is the economic paradigm. I think centralized power has a lot of liabilities and inefficiencies. It is a good business model though if you are the seller. And that is the problem -- the sellers control politics and industry. They are industry. Kirk -Original Message- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:26 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing Dear Bratt, The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the EU commission and included the social costs to the environment and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. Hakan At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > >.- Original Message - > From: paul van den bergen > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > the > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > actually READ ON > > references: > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > continues > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > > load > > > > it > > > > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > War. It was > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is > milled in > > to a very precise shape. > > > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because > Uranium is a > > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when > fired > > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy > metal' > > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is > > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which > can be > > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium > > mined is DU (
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
eatened by the kind of physical or economic meltdowns that have done in the nuclear power industry. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Worldwatch Institute 1776 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20036 telephone: 202 452-1999 fax: 202 296-7365 - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing Dear Bratt, The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the EU commission and included the social costs to the environment and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. Hakan At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > >.----- Original Message - > From: paul van den bergen > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > the > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > actually READ ON > > references: > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > continues > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > > load > > > > it > > > > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > War. It was > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is > milled in > > to a very precise shape. > > > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because > Uranium is a > > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when > fired > > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy > metal' > > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is > > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which > can be > > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind th
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
alley would have been closely monitored, the site, about 20 miles from the Colorado River, raised fears that radioactive particles could migrate to the river or into other drinking water sources. Now, critics of the latest policy fear that similar radioactive waste will instead wind up in poorly designed landfills, where it could emit radiation at levels more than 10 times higher than would have been permitted at the Mojave Desert site. [more] http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-02988jan12.story?coll=la%2D news%2Dscience That isn't even real nuclear waste, just contaminated stuff. ... at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington state, DuPont and other private firms manufactured plutonium for weapons from 1943 to 1987 under close government supervision. In the process they created 54 million gallons of radioactive liquids, sludges and salts, about a million gallons of which have already leaked into the ground and are now measurable in the Columbia River -- an event considered impossible until it happened. (Technical surprise.) In addition to the 54 million gallons held in tanks, substantial additional quantities of radioactive wastes lie buried in shallow pits at Hanford. As a consequence, tumbleweeds (Russian thistles) growing on some parts of the Hanford site absorb radioactivity through their roots. (Technical surprise.) To prevent this mobile vegetation from releasing radioactivity by blowing off-site, or burning up in a fire, the government continually collects them and solves the problem by burying them in the ground. [NY TIMES Sep. 12, 2000, pg. D3.] The "hot tumbleweed" problem will solve itself through natural radioactive decay after 240,000 years have passed. To help get this problem into perspective, Homo sapiens (modern humans) have roamed the earth for about 100,000 years. Hanford is not alone. In October, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that its previous estimate of plutonium buried in shallow pits and trenches had increased ten-fold. (Management surprise.) These are bomb-making residues buried between 1943 and 1987 at Hanford, Washington; Los Alamos, New Mexico; the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; the Oak Ridge National Laboratory near Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and the Savannah River complex near Aiken, S.C. [more] http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2223 Controlling Technologies -- Part 1: The Importance Of Surprises http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2227 The Importance Of Surprises -- Part 2: Waste Management Forever Excellent articles, by the way. Best Keith >.- Original Message - > From: paul van den bergen > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to the > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > actually READ ON > > references: > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > >http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E62 >22FEA > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > > load > > > > it > > > > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that >is milled in > > to a very precise shape. > > > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because >Uranium is a > > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Dear Bratt, The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the EU commission and included the social costs to the environment and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. Hakan At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > >.- Original Message - > From: paul van den bergen > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > the > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > actually READ ON > > references: > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > continues > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > > load > > > > it > > > > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > War. It was > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is > milled in > > to a very precise shape. > > > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because > Uranium is a > > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when > fired > > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy > metal' > > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is > > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which > can be > > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium > > mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the > fissile > > isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of > > U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons > > that to get rid of properly. > > > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > > > > "warhead > > > > > p
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of which gets more deadly than the use before. .- Original Message - From: paul van den bergen To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to the acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > actually READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > load > > it > > > into warheads. > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in > to a very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium > mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile > isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of > U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons > that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > > "warhead > > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type > of round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round > that is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is > stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns > to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. > This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU > > that > > can > > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and > > pollute ground water. > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor > ), it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) > this encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the > s
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Put it back in the hole it was taken out of. Kirk -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:55 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > USA alone has 500,000 tons DU stockpiled. Tom, As the balance of my efforts have shifted from "waste to energy" (to be read "incineration" of all types) to efficiency (to be read "coal fired power plant issues") to converting FFAs to esters, I'm just a wee tad rusty on my nukes. Forgetting for a moment the whole idea of "Atoms for Peace," (whoever thought that one up should be summarily shot) and disinformationalists who have promised to eat an entire gram of plutonium to "disprove" concerns for its toxicity (when solid, not airborne)... just what useful purpose can 500,000 tons (1,000,000,000 pounds) (billion with a "b") of U238 be put towards? There has got to be something. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually > READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF 06D > http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > > plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load > it > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > "warhead > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > can > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > > ground water. > > > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), > it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this > encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the same > thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
> USA alone has 500,000 tons DU stockpiled. Tom, As the balance of my efforts have shifted from "waste to energy" (to be read "incineration" of all types) to efficiency (to be read "coal fired power plant issues") to converting FFAs to esters, I'm just a wee tad rusty on my nukes. Forgetting for a moment the whole idea of "Atoms for Peace," (whoever thought that one up should be summarily shot) and disinformationalists who have promised to eat an entire gram of plutonium to "disprove" concerns for its toxicity (when solid, not airborne)... just what useful purpose can 500,000 tons (1,000,000,000 pounds) (billion with a "b") of U238 be put towards? There has got to be something. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually > READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF 06D > http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > > plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load > it > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > "warhead > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > can > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > > ground water. > > > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), > it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this > encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the same > thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small caliber ) is > made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in the Gulf > War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the farthest > confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
"The DU weapons used in the Gulf War included 120, 105, 30, 25 and 20mm rounds for use by tanks, aircraft, naval cannon and machine guns. The cruise missiles used to attack major sites in and around Baghdad and major cities carried DU as counterweight to stabilise flight - this would also burn on impact. An estimated 74 per cent of the larger DU weapons containing DU penetrators missed their targets: 'representing a considerable radiological and toxicological hazard to the local environment. People and animals will be affected, as will the water supply. Children playing with these penetrators would be particularly vulnerable,' says Hooper2." and then if you've really got the stomach for it, read about the degenerative diseases and birth deformaties in grossly disproportionate numbers. No doubt there is a debunking team working full time to put a "disinformation" spin on it so that everyone can sleep better thinking that it's all pascifist propaganda. A few from that team can be found on this list. Hard to say if they're on a payroll or not. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually > READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF 06D > http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > > plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load > it > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > "warhead > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > can > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > > ground water. > > > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), > it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this > encourages fuel and amm
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to the acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > actually READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: > > load > > it > > > into warheads. > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in > to a very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium > mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile > isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of > U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons > that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > > "warhead > > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type > of round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round > that is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is > stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns > to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. > This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU > > that > > can > > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and > > pollute ground water. > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor > ), it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) > this encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the > same thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small caliber ) > is made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in the > Gulf War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the > farthest confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made by the > Brits., and it was made over 5 km, with 2 HEAT rounds. > > The dust is a by product of the hit, and is for the most part uranium > oxide, and was never figured to be a factor in the attack. > > Whether or not hte dust was 'figured' to be in the attack, the fact > remains that the dust produced by these shells is highly toxic and > radioactive, and under geneva convention such weapons are actually illegal, > due to the toxicological side-effects The fact that it is pyroic is > neither here nor there. Napalm is a much more effective incendiary. > > > DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but > > poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry > > against using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as > > in > > artillery > > > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. > > The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is only > useful ) in defeatin
RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
Tungsten is harder and quite dense. It is not used. Uranium is used because it enters into a reaction with iron when above a critical temperature. That reaction is exothermic. It goes way beyond pyrophoric sparks. The ignition is supplied kinetically but it goes way beyond that energy -- thus the signature, the bright flash and then a MELTED hole without a shaped charge. As a result there is a move into aluminum armor. Softer weaker metal but no exothermic reaction. If it were a kinetic phenomena aluminum would be an inferior choice to steel by far. As for toxicity uranium nails kidneys. Way beyond any radiological phenomena. Toxic effect is chemical. You absolutely don't want it in the water table. Kirk -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:17 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing So the reported amount of 350 tons in one article, the same amount that one of our avid military supporters on this list "doubted" so vigoursly and attempted to dismiss so off-handedly solely upon his "doubt," is not so inaccurate after all? And these guys are only speaking "residual" "Estimates of residual dust now range from the Pentagon's 325 tonnes to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tonnes." And what of that "mother of all tank battles" that occured in Gulf War I - you know, the one that was so little reported? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually > READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF 06D > http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > > plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load > it > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > "warhead > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > can > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
So the reported amount of 350 tons in one article, the same amount that one of our avid military supporters on this list "doubted" so vigoursly and attempted to dismiss so off-handedly solely upon his "doubt," is not so inaccurate after all? And these guys are only speaking "residual" "Estimates of residual dust now range from the Pentagon's 325 tonnes to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tonnes." And what of that "mother of all tank battles" that occured in Gulf War I - you know, the one that was so little reported? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Tom Tibbits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually > READ ON > references: > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF 06D > http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > > plants and various military activities. > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load > it > > into warheads. > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a > higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the > right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not > loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a > very precise shape. > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective > "warhead > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > positions. > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of > round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that > is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that > can > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > > ground water. > > > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), > it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this > encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the same > thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small caliber ) is > made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in the Gulf > War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the farthest > confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made by the Brits., and it > was made over 5 km, with 2 HEAT rounds. > > The dust is a by product of the hit, and is for the most part ur
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but actually READ ON references: http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEAF06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > plants and various military activities. > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load it > into warheads. > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a very precise shape. Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because Uranium is a remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when fired into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy metal' and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU is preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which can be got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all uranium mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the fissile isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo of U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in weapons that to get rid of properly. > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective "warhead > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified positions. Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that is being talked about in conjunction with DU. Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several pounds is stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy turns to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide dust. This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See later. > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that can > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > ground water. > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the same thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small caliber ) is made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in the Gulf War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the farthest confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made by the Brits., and it was made over 5 km, with 2 HEAT rounds. The dust is a by product of the hit, and is for the most part uranium oxide, and was never figured to be a factor in the attack. Whether or not hte dust was 'figured' to be in the attack, the fact remains that the dust produced by these shells is highly toxic and radioactive, and under geneva convention such weapons are actually illegal, due to the toxicological side-effects The fact that it is pyroic is neither here nor there. Napalm is a much more effective incendiary. > > DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but > poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry against > using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as in artillery > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is only useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. DU has no place in Tomahawks, artillery shell or any other exploding ( chemical explosion ) type of munitions, because, despite this persons claims, DU is not an explosive. No DU is not an explosive, and it is not being claimed to be an explosive by Hoagy, he correctly states that it is employed in the tips of shells, rounds and
Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
- Original Message - From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 09:42 Subject: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power > plants and various military activities. > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load it > into warheads. > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf War. It was developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, to give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy and hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. It is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is milled in to a very precise shape. > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective "warhead > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified positions. Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT type of round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) round that is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that can > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute > ground water. > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just punch through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like common cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits armor ), it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger spark ) this encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do the same thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small caliber ) is made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in the Gulf War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the farthest confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made by the Brits., and it was made over 5 km, with 2 HEAT rounds. The dust is a by product of the hit, and is for the most part uranium oxide, and was never figured to be a factor in the attack. > > DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but > poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry against > using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as in artillery > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and is only useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. DU has no place in Tomahawks, artillery shell or any other exploding ( chemical explosion ) type of munitions, because, despite this persons claims, DU is not an explosive. > > Such warheads were used very successfully by the U.S. in the Gulf War, > when more than 350 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq, and later > in Kosovo when about 13 tons of DU were exploded in the conflict there. > To claim that "350 tons of DU was dropped on Iraq", and "about 13 tons exploded in Kosovo" when DU in not used by dropping or is exploded, is cast doubt on some of the other "research" this person has done in this area. Indeed I doubt that the US even had 350 tons of DU Sabots in the entire theater, let alone in the was able to drop on Iraq. Consider that each Anti-Tank round weighs under 100 lbs. and only a portion of that is the DU Sabot. If you take divide 100 lbs ( for each Anti-Tank Sabot round ) into 350 tons, and figure in each attack had better than a 80% first shot tank kill, this means that a hell of a lot of BS is being passed around, because Iraq never at any time had enough tanks for 350 tons to be used ( let alone the tanks that got away ), especially when you consider that many of the tanks were killed with conventional explosives. > The "Balkan syndrome" that emerged among the military and civilians > after the U.S. bombing there bears a similarity to the Gulf War syndrome. > > Though the findings are controversial, many scientists now see these > afflictions as the result of heavy metal poisoning and possibly exposure to > very low levels radiation. > While heavy metal poisoning is a possibility, the Alfa rays that DU gives off are the weakest of all radiation, and a piece of paper can block them, let alone the clothing that people wear. As to DU causing Gulf War syndrome, consider that some scientist have been finding similarities of GW syndrome with symptoms of Vets from other wars including the US Civil War > DU is implicated in respiratory and kidney problems, rashes and, > longer-term, bone cancer, as well as damaged reproductive and neurological > systems. > As are other things. > Iraqi civilians -- many more than the 100,000 who died in the conflict > or as a result of the war --
