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 in missiles. DU is also used as a counterweight in some missiles, and even some aeroplanes (cruise is an example). It is used bcause it is so dense, so lots of inertia can be packed into a small shell. > > 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 PENTAGON figure is 325 tons, and some agencies put the figure as high as 900 tons. I know who I'd rather believe. Conventional explosivces contain DU, unfiortunately!! and the hit rate is about 25%. All in all, there is plenty of DU in Iraq. As i demonstrated before, there is plenty of DU around in the world, look at our nuclear programs.!! USA alone has 500,000 tons DU stockpiled. 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 Another myth: someone who claims to understand nuclear science, but clearly doesn't. Greg, are you a physicist? Alpha radiation may be the most short ranged, it is true that paper stops alpha particles in their tracks. However, alpha radiation is actually the most energetic. It is its particle size which means it is short ranged. Helium nuclei (alpha particles) are massive in comparison to electrons (beta radiation) or photons (gamma radiation). Hence they are more likely to hit another molecule in a short distance. The energy of the particle is several mega electronvolts (MeV) - and this is where the mutagenic effects manifest themselves. If you inhale an alpha source, which lodges in your lungs, all the radiation is absorbed by you lung tissue, whichis quickly irradiated, changing the DNA (ie cancer). If you inhale a gamma source. 99.9% of the radiation passes through your body and back out again, so it is a lot less damaging. Also, heavy metal poisoning is a reality. The fact that it is a heavy metal means that body can not metabolise it out easily. Talk about BS....... in respiratory and kidney problems, rashes and, > longer-term, bone cancer, as well as damaged reproductive and neurological > systems. > As are other things. As is DU > Iraqi civilians -- many more than the 100,000 who died in the conflict > or as a result of the war -- also suffer from a range of similar health > problems. > > Families of soldiers should be very worried. > > A huge amount of ordnance has already been unleashed in Iraq, and > there is no way of knowing how many thousands of tons of depleted uranium > will find "permanent storage" in the rubble of Iraq, its soil and the bodies > of its people and U.S. occupying forces. The only use, for DU, is Tank to Tank fighting, the 25 mm chain gun on the Bradley and the 30 mm gatling gun on the A-10 Warthog, and DU is not the only option for those uses, other metals are available and have been used for making SABOTs. Since the majority of the fighting and ordinance is not being used on Anti-Tank fighting, then it is more than safe to say only a fraction of it may be DU, even if the US even is using it. Plenty of DU is being dropped on Iraq. Each Cruise missile has some in it, and shells of all diameters have DU in them. Any 'piercing' ammunition will probably contain the metal. 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 rosy fantasies of a democratized Arab world might make for good > sound bites. But the reality of widespread DU use brings to mind the epitaph The only known wide spread use of DU in this war so far, has been in the e-mail that this post is responding to, and much of it, is fiction. Hmm, I wonder where you get your fiction from, Greg. > > Susanna Hecht is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Social > Research at UCLA. She is head of the environmental analysis and policy > program. > A professor knows to do research. If she had checked her facts about DU, how it is used, and the type of ordnance used in both Gulf wars, she could not have made as many phony/fake claims as she did. So, Prof Greg, where did you get your research from?? I have at least provided references to my claims. To suggest that an eminent scientist is making it up is a serious allegation! Greg H. Tom T -- Tom Tibbits PG, EXSS, The Blackett Laboratory, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BW http://www.sc.ic.ac.uk/~q_pv/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ 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/
