Depleted Uranium Weaponry

[Antiquehunter]

Hello all,

One of my colleagues has stumbled across the following:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissaf.html

http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium

I have done some preliminary googling about, and am unimpressed by what I'm seeing. On the one hand some anecdotal evidence, on the other, people dismissing WHO and UNEP reports out of hand.

My questions:

- Is there any fire behind this smoke?

- What are the real risks to health around depleted uranium? Drinking water / airborne dust / other environmntal risks?

Simplistically, countries contintue to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan - one would expect they've done their homework, as the legal risk if troops return home and start to glow in the dark is pretty huge.

But, I'd like to be able to debunk my colleagues' findings in order to put her at ease, or be able to explain to her with confidence what the real risks are (if any) that DU poses to us who are living and working in Kabul.

Thought I'd turn it over to the forum science gurus...

Your comments greatly appreciated!

-AH.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Hello all,
My questions:

- Is there any fire behind this smoke?

Probably not

We know there are veterans with chunks of DU in their body. No health problems reported.

Quote:

- What are the real risks to health around depleted uranium? Drinking water / airborne dust / other environmntal risks?

Standard heavy metal poisening for the most part. Probably not a good idea to breath the dust.

Quote:

Simplistically, countries contintue to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan - one would expect they've done their homework, as the legal risk if troops return home and start to glow in the dark is pretty huge.

Problem is they won't glow in the dark. Low level radition poisening is a difficult one. The science is so political.

Quote:

But, I'd like to be able to debunk my colleagues' findings in order to put her at ease, or be able to explain to her with confidence what the real risks are (if any) that DU poses to us who are living and working in Kabul.

Zero. U-238 kicks out alpha radition at a very low level. Alpha radition is not going to penitrate more than a few cm of air of a bit of paper.

The study you linked to shows the uranium in the drinking water is not from depelated uranium.

[thaiboxerken]

The amount of radiation from depleted uranium is LOWER than background radiation in most of the world. It would be a good shield from radiation, actually, given it's density. Alpha radiation is big, so big that your skin will shield you against it. If you ingest it, then you can have problems. However, I don't think ingestion of DU is really a problem, is it, considering that even the alpha radiation is small?

[geni]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

However, I don't think ingestion of DU is really a problem, is it?

When a DU projectile hits a target it bisicaly turns to dust. Being near it means there is a fair chance you will breath it in.

[thaiboxerken]

Sure there is, however, the dangers from ingesting of radiation is low, since the radiation level in DU is very low. You'd be at more risk inhaling dust from the ground. DU poses more of a risk as a dense metal than from any radiological reason.

[Antiquehunter]

Thanks thaiboxer and geni - can either of you provide me some links showing the low risk of danger caused by the types of radiation found in DU?

In the anecdotal evidence of the articles I find by googling, they allege dramatically increased cancer risks, birth defects etc... so I'd like to be able to rebut with something convincing.

Thanks!

-AH.

[DRBUZZ0]

Depleted uranium is radioactive, but not very. It's primarly a weak alpha emitter.

The danger with it is not radiation, but rather chemical toxicity. It's a heavy metal. It's perfectly safe to handle with your hands, but you would want to wash them afterward.

As far as the level of toxicity, it's not acutely toxic in the same way something like arsenic(sp?) is. I've heard it compaired to lead. Obviously you would not want to ingest lead or have your kids play with it, but having a few lead weights in your tackle box or a roll of lead-based solder in your drawer isn't really anything to panic about.

From what I understand handeling the shells (prior to firing) is generally not a problem, becase they are relatively solid and often have a thin outer shell around the DU.

DU is pyromatic, so it will combust when it strikes the target, and can result in uranium smoke and aresol. Of course, if you're that close, that will probably be the least of your worries.

The dust won't stay in the air very long though. (Uranium and it's compounds are obviously very very heavy)

As for uranium poluting ground water: it certainly is possible, if there were a real real lot in a watershed area, but I would doubt that it could make a signifficant impact from just the shells.

More likely, it's narutally occuring.


One has to remember, that there are plenty of toxic things in this world. Heavy metals and other minerals can exist both in natural deposits as well as from the human activities.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Thanks thaiboxer and geni - can either of you provide me some links showing the low risk of danger caused by the types of radiation found in DU?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

All I did was Google for it, why can't you?

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Thanks thaiboxer and geni - can either of you provide me some links showing the low risk of danger caused by the types of radiation found in DU?

In the anecdotal evidence of the articles I find by googling, they allege dramatically increased cancer risks, birth defects etc... so I'd like to be able to rebut with something convincing.

Thanks!

-AH.

Here's a couple links on it. You can find more on hps.org. The Health Physics Society is really a great organization for getting real non-hyped information on radiation and radiation safety.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1906.html

[DRBUZZ0]

Anyone want to see a video of me holding some depleted uranium? Hell...I'll even put it next to my head.

I can also show you the radiation level with a geiger counter.

I'm too tired to do it now....maybe tomorrow.

[thaiboxerken]

That reminds me of Rickover drinking reactor coolant water. It's "ballsy" to those who don't understand radiation.

[DRBUZZ0]

Oh by the way:

I noticed your name suggests you are into antiques...

Do ya happen to have any fiestaware or similar products with an orange glazed color around? and older 30 years or so?

Also...any green translucent glass?

;-)

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That reminds me of Rickover drinking reactor coolant water. It's "ballsy" to those who don't understand radiation.

Someone once bet my friend he wouldn't stick a paperclip in an electric outlet. So he did...in the ground prong.

and when they asked he said "yeah. I got a pretty bad shock, but I can handle it"

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Oh by the way:

I noticed your name suggests you are into antiques...

Do ya happen to have any fiestaware or similar products with an orange glazed color around? and older 30 years or so?

Also...any green translucent glass?

;-)

None that I'd eat out of, naturally...

Yeah - and I scrape all the luminiscent material off my wristwatches too...

-AH.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

All I did was Google for it, why can't you?

Thanks, thaiboxer - I'm capable of Googling, but I was having difficulty discerning between claptrap and good science - hence my post. This field is nowhere near my areas of knowledge/expertise.

-AH.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Yeah - and I scrape all the luminiscent material off my wristwatches too...

-AH.

Um that might not be a great idea. Under the glass it's mostly harmless. You don't want to breath that dust though. If you are going to remove it to refurb the watch, you best not do it dry. And in any case. Gloves...mask...put down protective stuff.... yea

A little bit from a watch you can probably throw away... but man...you don't want that stuff piling up or anything. be careful

radium and uranium are very different

[Antiquehunter]

I was being sarcastic...

I only work on movements, anyways. I send dials out to be refurbed - I don't have the skills / tools.

-AH.

[Alphaba]

Coincidentaly, on a forum I do moderate someone posted yesterday an ultra hyped message about heath hazards resulting from use of DU ammunitions. I did then some preliminary search. Its results may be relevant here:

• WHO depleted uranium factsheet
  
  
• Depleted uranium exposure and health effects in Gulf War veterans (abstract) (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences):
  • "With the exception of the elevated urine U excretion, no clinically significant expected U-related health effects have been identified to date. Subtle changes in renal function and genotoxicity markers in veterans with urine U concentrations greater than 0.1mug(-1) creatinine, however, indicate the need for continued surveillance of these DU-exposed veterans." (NB: this study is about "Gulf War veterans who were in or on US Army vehicles hit by friendly fire involving DU munitions")
  
  
• Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10-Year Follow-Up (same study as above) (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A):
  • "Findings to date reveal a persistent elevation of urine uranium, more than 10 yr after exposure, in those veterans with retained shrapnel fragments. The excretion is presumably from ongoing mobilization of DU from fragments oxidizing in situ. Other clinical outcomes related to urine uranium measures have revealed few abnormalities. Renal function is normal despite the kidney’s expected involvement as the “critical” target organ of uranium toxicity. Subtle perturbations in some proximal tubular parameters may suggest early although not clinically significant effects of uranium exposure. A mixed picture of genotoxic outcomes is also observed"
  
  
• Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective (Environmental Health):
  • "Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk."
  
  
• Study of the reproductive effects in rats surgically implanted with depleted uranium for up to 90 days (abstract) (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A):
  • "Adult male and female Sprague-Dawley rats (P1 generation) were surgically implanted with 0, 4, 8, or 12 DU pellets (1 x 2 mm). The P1 generation was then cross-mated at 30 d post surgical implantation. Urine collected from P1 animals at 27 d post surgical implantation showed that DU was excreted in the urine of DU-implanted animals in a dose-dependent manner. DU surgical implantation did not have a negative impact on P1 reproductive success, survival, or body weight gain through post surgical implantation d 90. There were no statistically significant differences in F1 birth weight, survival, and litter size at postnatal day (PND) 0, 5, and 20. No gross physical abnormalities identified in the offspring were attributable to neonatal DU exposure. A series of neurodevelopment and immune function assessments were also conducted on F1 offspring. No group differences were observed that were related to parental DU exposure."
  
  
• Mortality among US Veterans of the Persian Gulf War: 7-Year Follow-up (American Journal of Epidemiology):
  • "In summary, over 7 years of follow-up, veterans who served in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War were at greater risk for death due to motor vehicle accidents than their non-Gulf counterparts. However, during the same period, the risk decreased steadily over time. The lower risk of death due to disease-related causes observed earlier among Gulf veterans all but disappeared in the most recent follow-up period. For both Gulf veterans and non-Gulf veterans, mortality risk remained less than half that expected in their civilian counterparts."
  
  
• Incidence of cancer among UK Gulf war veterans: Cohort study (BMJ):
  • "our results confirm that there is no overall increase in incidence of or mortality from cancer among UK Gulf veterans. Neither was the incidence of cancer higher among those veterans who reported specific exposures during their deployment. Although this study should provide some reassurance of a lack of association between deployment to the Gulf and increased risk of cancer, the long latent period for cancer requires that these cohorts should continue to be followed up and their experience of cancer monitored."
  
  
• Is Burning Semen Syndrome a Variant Form of Seminal Plasma Hypersensitivity? (Obstetrics & Gynecology) [comment: someone did suggest, without evidence, this problem might also be linked to DU exposure]:
  • "the results of this study revealed that couples from the general population with seminal plasma hypersensitivity and Gulf War couples with burning semen syndrome have similar overlapping features. The precise causes and triggers for seminal plasma hypersensitivity in general population couples and for burning semen syndrome in Gulf War couples remain unknown. However, more detailed assessment of a Gulf War population with burning semen syndrome in this investigation not only identified a subgroup of couples with seminal plasma hypersensitivity but also suggested a basis for successful treatment."
  
  
• Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of depleted uranium particles inhaled by rats (abstract) (Toxicological Sciences):
  • "Our results show that exposure to DU by inhalation resulted in DNA strand breaks in broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) cells and in increase of inflammatory cytokine expression and production of hydroperoxides in lung tissue suggesting that the DNA damage was in part a consequence of the inflammatory processes and oxidative stress."

PS: I made an extensive search on JREF Forum and found allusions and links to in depth discussions about this issue prior to 2003. Unfortunately the links don't work anymore, and the search engine(s) don't return results prior to 2003. How then to find them without resorting to paranormal means?

[clarsct]

Depleted Uranium IS used as radiation shielding, btw.

I would be more worried about being SHOT in the war zone, than what the bullets are made of, personally.

I did have some links in a thread on this topic, but I don't know what became of the thread in the forum upgrade and such.

Radiation risks from depleted uranium: negligable.

Risk of physical harm from having it flying at you at supersonic speeds: HUGE.

[ceptimus]

Most powdered metals are damaging to health. You wouldn't want to breath powdered lead, even though it's not radioactive. It's not just heavy metals either; powdered beryllium is very nasty stuff.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Alphaba

PS: I made an extensive search on JREF Forum and found allusions and links to in depth discussions about this issue prior to 2003. Unfortunately the links don't work anymore, and the search engine(s) don't return results prior to 2003. How then to find them without resorting to paranormal means?

A lot was lost last year when the forum was down, some older threads were lost.

Maybe you could find it in a google cache.

[Alphaba]

An interesting review paper:

• Bleise, A. et al. (2003). "Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): A general overview". Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 64: 93–112.

I must add that at this point I don't consider to have an informed opinion about this issue. Yet I am already retaining a few things from my search:

• The main issue is not about the effects of external exposure to DU but about the ones of fine to ultrafine particles penetrating into the organism (well, not so fine in the case of shrapnels).
  
  
• As it is manifestly a 'hot' topic, I was surprised by the limited number (~ 20 indexed in PubMed) of published in vitro and preclinical studies on DU toxicity (in retrospect this is not totally surprising as DU ammos started to be significantly used 15 years ago). This means there currently are no true working models of DU particles toxicity. Even a reasonably clear and comprehensive picture of the range and kinds of effects of DU particles on relevant biological material and processes is not really available.
  
  
• Long term effects of inhaled, embedded, and ingested particles are still poorly known. Currently, long term effects of a limited kinds of well-established exposures (e.g. shrapnels) are thoroughly studied, and only in Gulf War veterans, who represent thus the first cohort ever followed.
  
  
• Conflicting agendas are pervasive around this issue, meaning that 1) extra cautiousness must be exercised in reviewing the literature, and 2) every categorical statement has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe you could find it in a google cache.

Thank you for the tip. I'll try that.

[Aepervius]

...What do you mean about the last paragraph in the monde-diplomatic :

Quote:

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.

Also googling around I saw a lot of scare web site (uranium ! Booo ! nuklear !!!) and a few site which correctly cited concern of the resident that what is indicated as danger in the WHO docs (mainly contamination as an heavy element of food chain and table water) is clearly underestimated by the army which want to leave 70K tons of U there buried...

Actually I think le monde was exagerating, but OTOH the US army seems quite a bit taking it "easy" on the subject... Heavy metal contamination is no joke...

[Hamradioguy]

The Health Physics Journal (Peer reviewed publication of the Health Physics Society) has carried several detailed articles on the impact to human health of DU in war zones- Both Gulf War and Kosovo. Findings echo what Clarsct and other say above. Highly technical but good reading for those who are willing to wade through. Not available on line but any larger library should have back issues...or be able to obtain them.

[Beausoleil]

It's a common place that depleted uranium is an alpha emitter. It's overlooked that it's also a beta emitter.

This is because alpha decay of 238U produces 234Th (23 day half life) and 234Pa (1.2 min half life), both beta emitters. These reach equilibrium on timescales similar to their half lives, and at equilibrium there are as many 234Th decays as 234Pa decays as 238U decays. So even if you start with pure 238U , you will end up with more activity from beta emitters than alpha emitters in a few months.

[luchog]

And, since it hasn't been brought up, the US military has been phasing out the use of DU projectiles, converting to tungsten for various reasons. DU is still used as armour on many vehicles.

[phildonnia]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Oh by the way:
Also...any green translucent glass?

Incidentally, the antique stuff is not DU; it's natural uranium containing U235. Still totally harmless of course.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by phildonnia

Incidentally, the antique stuff is not DU; it's natural uranium containing U235. Still totally harmless of course.

Yes, that's true. But it's basically the same, since natural uranium contains less than 1% u-235 anyway. in actuality, it's slightly *more* radioactive than the depleted stuff.


And as far as U-238 producing betas. Yes, this is true as well. It also produces some gamma. I suppose it's normally through of as *primarly* an alpha emitter.

In natural uranium ore, most of the radiation is produced by daughter products like radium-226, bismuth-214, lead-210 ect. Those are removed during refining. And it would take a long time for those to build up to signifficant levels.

Nobody is saying that uranium is not radioactive. It certainly is, but as far as radioisotopes go, it's on the low end. I'd rather have a ton of U-238 sitting next to me than a few grams of co-60 any day ;-).


Just....don't eat it and you oughta be fine

[marting]

Yep anything "radioactive" scares people. Refined U, or DU (essentially the same) seems to have even more scare factor. Probably because of the association with weapons. Bet you can't get natural U or DU to illuminate a sheet of paper like I demonstrate with a $20 brush purchaseable all over the country like demonstrated here:



As demonstrated in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=29455
Perfectly harmless even though it will peg a GM survey meter.

[Beausoleil]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

And as far as U-238 producing betas. Yes, this is true as well. It also produces some gamma. I suppose it's normally through of as *primarly* an alpha emitter.

Odd really, since if you keep your ammunition for a year what you have is *primarily* a beta emitter and what ends up dusted round the environment is also primarily a beta (and gamma) emitter.

[Stitch]

Originally Posted by Alphaba

PS: I made an extensive search on JREF Forum and found allusions and links to in depth discussions about this issue prior to 2003. Unfortunately the links don't work anymore, and the search engine(s) don't return results prior to 2003. How then to find them without resorting to paranormal means?

http://www.archive.org/

[CyCrow]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

...What do you mean about the last paragraph in the monde-diplomatic :

Quote:

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.

Also googling around I saw a lot of scare web site (uranium ! Booo ! nuklear !!!) and a few site which correctly cited concern of the resident that what is indicated as danger in the WHO docs (mainly contamination as an heavy element of food chain and table water) is clearly underestimated by the army which want to leave 70K tons of U there buried...

Actually I think le monde was exagerating, but OTOH the US army seems quite a bit taking it "easy" on the subject... Heavy metal contamination is no joke...

Remember that the average content of Uranium in the earths crust is about 3 ppm. Found this link about the site: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Jeffer...ing-Ground.htm It says 2000 acres, not 200, and 77 tons of DU, not 70000 tons. Assuming 2000 acres, that's about 8 million square meters. 1 metre of soil depth gives 8 million cubic metres, assume density of 2.5 to gives 20 million tons of soil. 3ppm of that is 60 tons. So the extra DU is about the same as natural U, doubling average uranium concentration. In addition, DU doesn't have the whole decay-series, so there is less added than natural radioactivity.

So I fully understand the Army not wanting to spend an insane amount of money on digging it up. The DU area is also a small part of a much larger proving ground, full of unexploded munitions. This makes it unsuitable for human activities, but wildlife thrives. So the best thing to do is probably simply leave the fences and warnings, keep people out and let it nature take its course.

// CyCrow

[CyCrow]

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

Odd really, since if you keep your ammunition for a year what you have is *primarily* a beta emitter and what ends up dusted round the environment is also primarily a beta (and gamma) emitter.

The DU decay chain effectively stops at U-234 (alpha, 245000 years), after th-234 (beta, 24.5 days) and Protactinium-234m ( beta, 1.17 minutes). So we have 2 beta decays per alpha. Not sure about the energies though, but I believe the alpha decay is the most biologically significant. At any rate, harmless externally. As others have stated, you want to avoid breathing the dust, but compared to other battlefield hazards, it's negligible.

// CyCrow

[CurtC]

One thing I've noticed is that there is a marker for an uneducated source about DU. If it makes a point of the long (4.5 billion year) half-life of U238 as a bad thing, then the person who wrote it fundamentally does not understand radioactive decay.

[marting]

Another thing that most people don't realize is that U is not that rare. It's more common than mercury or silver, let alone gold. Lead is more common, but not by a lot. Potassium is slightly radioactive and the radiation from K is far higher simply because humans need a fairly large amount of it.

So drink your OJ (which contains more K than bananas) and enjoy the healthy glow.

[bobdroege7]

originally posted by CyCrow

The DU decay chain effectively stops at U-234 (alpha, 245000 years), after th-234 (beta, 24.5 days) and Protactinium-234m ( beta, 1.17 minutes). So we have 2 beta decays per alpha. Not sure about the energies though, but I believe the alpha decay is the most biologically significant. At any rate, harmless externally. As others have stated, you want to avoid breathing the dust, but compared to other battlefield hazards, it's negligible.

You have either forgotten the initial U-238 alpha or the last U-234 alpha which are all in equilibrium in about 120 days, so its 2 alphas and 2 betas

DU is also used in shielding for transporting medical isotopes which is what I make- replace my nice Tungten with DU and you better give me an alpha detecting survey meter even though the DU pigs are sealed to prevent contamination.

thanks

[Lynx2174]

Originally Posted by CurtC

One thing I've noticed is that there is a marker for an uneducated source about DU. If it makes a point of the long (4.5 billion year) half-life of U238 as a bad thing, then the person who wrote it fundamentally does not understand radioactive decay.

seriously, that's always bugged me. Whenever I read some kind of media which states that radioactive materials/waste would remain radioactive for thousands or millions of years, I can't help but think that this means that the radioactive materials in question are all but harmless unless ingested.

It's like people think that radioactivity doesn't come in quantifyable levels, but instead is just basically on or off. present or not. as if it would be better to spend your life standing next to a block of something with a half-life of 200 years instead of with something with one of a half-billion years.

just keep it out of the water supply, don't eat it, don't make it an aerosol to breathe, and don't spread radioactive calcium over dairy fields and everything should turn out peachy.

EDIT: isn't tungsten dust (ie, perhaps from hitting an enemy tank with a tungsten AP flechette) a possible carcinogen? even if not, would not it also carry the risk of heavy metal poisioning? or is it too light a metal. as element 74, it's lighter than lead.

regardless, tungsten is an inferior armor piercer, so I'd prefer my troops use DU, to reduce their risk of death by enemy fire. also it makes a fine armor.

[DRBUZZ0]

Unfortionately, people do not really have a very good idea about radiation saftey in general. Such as not understanding that "radioactive" is not a binary term. Things can be very slightly radioactive.

Often I am asked questions like: How much radiation does it take to kill you?

Well...there's no real good answer to that. How much does it take to kill you imediatly? Depending on the conditions, a real lot. How much does it take to bring a 90% chance of death in an hour....a lot less (don't remember off the top of my head).

Also: How much radiation would it take to give you cancer?

Again...impossible to answer. Radiation does not give you cancer, as such. It increases the likelyhood of it, yes. But expose different people to a certain dose, will it give them cancer? Even if somebody does come down with leukemia...how do you know it was radiation?

Of course...this gets more complicated when you get into internal and external hazards. Some materials are harmless outside the body byt very dangerous if absorbed. (for example, plutonium). In this case, mamy variables come into play, including how easily the material is absorbed and the body's ability to excete it.

There are a lot of myths out there. A friend of mine recently bought a bottle of potassium iodine, becasue he was afraid of dirty bombs. I had to explain to him that KI is a general purpose radiation treatment, but only works in preventing uptake of Iodine 131 (an especially nasty fission product)

[bobdroege7]

CyCrow ignore my last post, you are correct 2 to 1

Lynx, Tungten is heavy, about 18.5 g/cc almost as heavy as U

[Euromutt]

Originally Posted by Lynx2174

EDIT: isn't tungsten dust (ie, perhaps from hitting an enemy tank with a tungsten AP flechette) a possible carcinogen? even if not, would not it also carry the risk of heavy metal poisioning? or is it too light a metal. as element 74, it's lighter than lead.

I'm pretty certain I read somewhere that, counterintuitive as it may seem, tungsten is not chemically toxic. Sorry, correction:

Quote:

Tungsten and its compounds show generally low toxicity compared to most other metals and their compounds.

Source.
So comparatively low toxicity.

Originally Posted by Lynx2174

regardless, tungsten is an inferior armor piercer, so I'd prefer my troops use DU, to reduce their risk of death by enemy fire. also it makes a fine armor.

Actually, tungsten (mono)carbide (WC), according to that same page "has a hardness close to diamond," which makes it a damn fine penetrator, though of course it lacks the pyrophoric properties of DU. It may also be more expensive, at least for the US government; three weeks ago, ammonium paratungstate was going for up to USD270/mtu (metric ton unit), though admittedly I have no clue what DU costs.

I think the thing with DU munitions is that they were adopted in the latter days of the Cold War, when NATO forces needed the biggest technological edge they could get over the Warsaw Pact. For the US and UK, that included DU munitions. These days, though, it may be overkill to some extent; I sincerely doubt that any potential future military adversary of the US will be able to field anything against which tungsten carbide rounds won't do just as good a job. And DU remains a political hot potato, even if that is largely due to misinformation regarding its radioactive properties.