the viability of depleted uranium bullets

Well, the first problem is that, in all reality, you don't even want the bullet to go through your enemy. If a bullet exits your enemy, it's just lost energy. You want every last bit of energy to be dissipated in your enemy. That's what'll maximize damage
 
Uranium ammunition ought really be banned. I even consider it worse than mines and bomblets. Those can be detected and defused, involving some work. But virtually nothing can be done against radioactive dust.

Wikipedia says concerning the invetorey numbers of DU shells(edit):

country | organization | number | year reported

United States DOE 480,000 2002
Russia FAEA 460,000 1996
France COGEMA 190,000 2001
United Kingdom BNFL 30,000 2001
Germany URENCO 16,000 1999
Japan JNFL 10,000 2001
China CNNC 2,000 2000
South Korea KAERI 200 2002
South Africa NECSA 73 2001

Which includes an error though, the DU shells in Germany are exclusive property of the US forces here. Our army neither has nor uses them.
 
Uranium is more useful as a radiation shield than a radiation source due to its incredibly low activity. It has a half-life the age of the earth.

It is actually more dangerous as a chemical than a radiation hazard; heavy metals are bad for your system... think lead.
 
The word depleted doesn't really mean a whole lot to some people here...
 
The word depleted doesn't really mean a whole lot to some people here...

Yeah U238 is barely radioactive, but people hear "Uranium" and think omg nuclear=omg radiation=dumbasses:lol:

Now if we were shooting off Plutonium 244 bullets or something that would be a big deal, but U238 is not radioactive to any signifigant degree.
 
The bunker buster bomb does not contain DU. That is a common oft repeated internet myth. That myth is the heart of the claims that Afghanistan is heavily polluted with DU. Those claims are totally false.
I didnt say that Buker busters contained uranium, i said that bunker busters are probably more effective at busting bunkers than a DU shell would be.

Direct fire tank and artillery would gain no advantage by using DU munitions to fire at a bunker unless the bunker was armored. DU is no more effective at piercing concrete than an explosive round. DU rounds DO NOT explode!

Do sand/grind bags provide a good defense against DU rounds? (i know that in ww2 Sherman crews used sandbags to provide extra defense against German at-rounds, but those were obviously not DU)
 
Yeah, we really need used uranium bullet shells lying around....
 
Yeah, we really need used uranium bullet shells lying around....

Why would the shells be made out of anything other than brass?
 
I would admit that DU rounds in a handgun would be downright nasty, but I don't think it'd be worth it. There are plenty of other types of rounds that work very well with handguns.

sourboy said:
Yeah, we really need used uranium bullet shells lying around....
It's part of the projectile that fired.

Merkinball said:
Why would the shells be made out of anything other than brass?
Or steel.

Spoiler :
M900.jpg


Basically it's a piece of depleted uranium encased in what looks like a normal bullet. When the "bullet" hits the target, the stuff around the depleted uranium core breaks away and the very dense DU core proceeds to punch through the less dense armor.

Or at least that's how I remember it. I could be wrong.
 
Yeah U238 is barely radioactive, but people hear "Uranium" and think omg nuclear=omg radiation=dumbasses:lol:

Now if we were shooting off Plutonium 244 bullets or something that would be a big deal, but U238 is not radioactive to any signifigant degree.

uh...depleted uranium still radiates 60%(*) of the natural uranium radiation. That means it is hardly less dangerous than natural uranium. While uranium, if handled properly, isn't much of a threat, using it as bullets is not exactly proper handling. That will result in dust, and uranium dust is not very healthy. A typical bullet contains more than enough uranium to kill you by radiation. Of course it's not as dangerous as other isotopes, but the risks cannot be simply handwaived like that.

edit: (*) that is initially. Depleted uranium will actually get more radioactive as time passes.
 
uh...depleted uranium still radiates 60%(*) of the natural uranium radiation. That means it is hardly less dangerous than natural uranium. While uranium, if handled properly, isn't much of a threat, using it as bullets is not exactly proper handling. That will result in dust, and uranium dust is not very healthy. A typical bullet contains more than enough uranium to kill you by radiation. Of course it's not as dangerous as other isotopes, but the risks cannot be simply handwaived like that.

edit: (*) that is initially. Depleted uranium will actually get more radioactive as time passes.

According to Wikipedia there are no reported instances of cancer traced to Uranium (238), and the primary danger is that if consumed it is poisenious. Also it only radiets Alpha Particles which also are non-harmfull unless consumed, it looks pretty safe except for some danger from Radon gas and being poisenious if consumed.
Sure it's not the healthiest thing, but neither is lead, or the chemicals we put into shells to make them explode. The poster who said DU rounds were far worse than landmines or submunitions from cluster bombs is totally off his rocker. Submunitions and landmines are very real threats that kill many people, U238 is just mildly unhealthy if you eat it, and has yet to actually kill someone. These sentiments are ridiculous.
 
uh...depleted uranium still radiates 60%(*) of the natural uranium radiation. That means it is hardly less dangerous than natural uranium. While uranium, if handled properly, isn't much of a threat, using it as bullets is not exactly proper handling. That will result in dust, and uranium dust is not very healthy. A typical bullet contains more than enough uranium to kill you by radiation. Of course it's not as dangerous as other isotopes, but the risks cannot be simply handwaived like that.

edit: (*) that is initially. Depleted uranium will actually get more radioactive as time passes.

Well holy crap! It's a wonder any of friends are still alive from the war! I mean, if a BULLET is enough to kill you, what about football sized SABOT rounds?

Also Tank Guy, a bullet wouldn't be structured like a SABOT round. At least I don't think they would. I think it'd be just like any other bullet. It would almost have to be if you wanted to use them in other handguns.
 
According to Wikipedia there are no reported instances of cancer traced to Uranium (238),
you mean to depleted uranium. There are instances of cancers traced to regular uranium (which also mainly consists of U-238)

and the primary danger is that if consumed it is poisenious. Also it only radiets Alpha Particles which also are non-harmfull unless consumed, it looks pretty safe except for some danger from Radon gas and being poisenious if consumed.

And that's the reason why it is not such a bright idea to blow up stuff with it and creating lots of dust if you intend to walk on that battlefield without protection afterwards: You won't be able to avoid consuming some of it. It probably won't outright kill anybody, but the cancer risk is going to be higher.

Sure it's not the healthiest thing, but neither is lead, or the chemicals we put into shells to make them explode. The poster who said DU rounds were far worse than landmines or submunitions from cluster bombs is totally off his rocker. Submunitions and landmines are very real threats that kill many people, U238 is just mildly unhealthy if you eat it, and has yet to actually kill someone. These sentiments are ridiculous.

That U-238 has yet to kill someone is a very bold statement to make. There is a difference between saying there have been no cases linked and saying that nobody ever died from it. And there are certainly some, who have been killed by U-238 in some time and place.

I certainly agree that hysteria about uranium ammunition is not helpful, especially if you ignore landmines and other way more dangerous stuff. But carelessly shouting "It's called 'depleted', duh" is not going to help either.
 
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/



WHO MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEPLETED URANIUM AND HEALTH:
Spoiler :
The World Health Organization (WHO) today published Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects, a monograph containing a number of recommendations regarding depleted uranium (DU) and human health. The monograph is the product of a review of the best available scientific literature on uranium and depleted uranium. It provides a framework for identifying the likely consequences of public and occupational exposure to DU.

"DU has the potential to have chemical and radiological effects on health, but we found in the review that exposure to DU would have to be significant before any health effects are observed," said Dr Mike Repacholi, Coordinator, Occupational and Environmental Health, WHO.

In order to protect against significant exposure, WHO recommends that:

* exposure to DU of young children be monitored and preventive measures are taken, as children might be at particular risk of exposure because of the way they play;
* heavily affected DU munitions impact zones be cleaned up and treated in the same way as if any other heavy metal waste had contaminated the soil. Such sites should be cordoned off until clean-up takes place. Disposal of DU fragments should come under appropriate national or international recommendations for disposal of radioactive materials;
* drinking water and food, if contamination is suspected, be monitored and appropriate action is taken;
* individuals who believe they have been exposed to DU and are concerned see their medical practitioner. However, general screening of populations living in areas where DU munitions were used is not called for.

Available at http://www.who.int/environmental_information/radiation/depleted_uranium.htm, the monograph contains a comprehensive scientific assessment of the chemical and radiological risks of DU for health. It was undertaken by WHO as part of its ongoing environmental health reviews. Information is given on situations where exposures might arise for workers and the general public, the likely routes and potential health risks of intake of DU with different solubility characteristics. Estimates of levels of exposure that are unlikely to lead to health effects are provided.

The greatest potential for DU exposure occurs after conflict when people living or working in affected areas could inhale dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

A by-product of the process of uranium enrichment, DU has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium and significant chemical toxicity.

Measurements of environmental DU at selected sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicate localized contamination (within a few tens of meters of impact sites) at the ground surface. This suggests that the likelihood of health consequences to the local population is very low unless people are active at the impact sites or the DU progresses in significant quantities to the food chain or ground water.

The monograph indicates that there are still important gaps in knowledge about the effects of DU on the human body and identifies areas for future research. For instance, further studies are needed to clarify the understanding of the extent of kidney damage and its possible reversibility. DU munitions were used in conflicts only relatively recently and the science has not yet thoroughly addressed this exposure situation.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2001/en/pr2001-22.html

At least no one has been silly enough yet to start calling DU a war crime.
 
you mean to depleted uranium. There are instances of cancers traced to regular uranium (which also mainly consists of U-238)
DU=pure U238. In nature Uranium comes in roughly 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235. DU has the more dangerous U235 (What's used in nuclear reactions and is dangerous) removed so it is solely the relatively benign U238. Fuel reactor rods are 3-5% U235... It's very important to note the difference between U235 and U238, the former is used in reactor fuel and is highly radioactive, the latter is used for bullets and barely radioactive

And that's the reason why it is not such a bright idea to blow up stuff with it and creating lots of dust if you intend to walk on that battlefield without protection afterwards: You won't be able to avoid consuming some of it. It probably won't outright kill anybody, but the cancer risk is going to be higher.
I'm sure it's not the brghtest idea, but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than spraying things like Mustard gas, or other nasty chemical agents we use in warfare. I mean it's a mild pollutant used only for anti-armor attacks which means the total number of hits creating dust is very low etc. I'de consider it an extremely small concern next to everything else. The people screaming OMG DU=Warcrime are really just trying to smear the United States and/or the Military Industrial complex. There's plenty of better ways to do that which involve actual problems.

That U-238 has yet to kill someone is a very bold statement to make. There is a difference between saying there have been no cases linked and saying that nobody ever died from it. And there are certainly some, who have been killed by U-238 in some time and place.
That's what Wikipedia said... Don't know if it's accurate just repeating that.

I certainly agree that hysteria about uranium ammunition is not helpful, especially if you ignore landmines and other way more dangerous stuff. But carelessly shouting "It's called 'depleted', duh" is not going to help either.
Fair enough...:goodjob:
 
DU=pure U238. In nature Uranium comes in roughly 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235. DU has the more dangerous U235 (What's used in nuclear reactions and is dangerous) removed so it is solely the relatively benign U238. Fuel reactor rods are 3-5% U235... It's very important to note the difference between U235 and U238, the former is used in reactor fuel and is highly radioactive, the latter is used for bullets and barely radioactive

I know the difference between U-235 and U-238, but it is not as big as you make it sound. U-235 is not highly radioactive, barely radioactive but more than U-238 would be a better term. Both isotopes are the most stable of the uranium isotopes, all others are way more radioactive. Because the activity of both is not that far apart and because natural uranium is mostly U-238, most of the radiation coming from any natural uranium will be from the U-238, not from the U-235. Of course if the uranium is enriched there will be a point where the radiation from the U-235 becomes dominant.

And at the danger of going offtopic: The reason why U-235 is used in nuclear reactors is not because of its radioactivity (as I said it isn't that active) but because it releases more energy in fission than it costs to induce the fission, making a chain reaction possible. U-238 can do fission as well, but it does not release enough energy to sustain a chain reaction.
 
Hmm, I'm no expert, but I'm almost sure I remember hearing horror stories about soldiers in the first gulf war working around DU and experiencing health problems. It's anecdotal, I suppose, and I'm not sure if it was from the radiological or chemical properties, but still. That *** just can't be good for you...

Not that the military cares....
 
Back
Top Bottom