DU - Health Risk?

none of you have answered the two questions I asked

why use a round made of a material that cause so much debate and sometimes hate against you, when you have a round made of another material that kill a tank just as good, I mean a tank killed by a tungsten round is just a dead a tank as a tank killed by a DU round, you cant grade dead, dead is dead
do you use a nuke to take out a house?

the issue is causing debate, just look at this fourm, a debate that can turn into hate because many in the world might find you arrogant and not think about their concerns over this issue (or other issues), it not wise to cause concern and hate in a world where the westen democracies depence on each other more then ever

btw my writen english might be good, but there is more into understand english then to be good at write/read it, you also have to understand different sayings etc. thing that is very much culture minded, fx. I could easily translate a danish saying into english but it would not be sure that you would understand the meaning of it and therefor there is a high risk of misunderstanding

and for god know how many times Im going to say this: my name is Jens, remember the s in the end, thanks

 

Because
A) DU is, as has been stated, self-sharpening and therefore it easier to calculate the penetration (the better the initial calculation on penetration the better-made the round will be - no need for a heavier round to account for "fudge factors" - it's more efficient) and
B) DU is pyrophoric, that is, it will ignite on contact with steel compounds and therefore has significantly better after-penetration effects than tungsten.
DU is slightly LESS dense than tungsten, around 18.1 versus 19.2 specific gravity IIRC, but more than makes up for it with impact effects and the self-sharpening features

 

does a tungsten round kill a tank or does it not kill a tank?

 

My understanding from what has been posted is that DU rounds retain superior penetration at greater range. Now, fair enough dead is dead, but dead at 2km (For example) is a lot better than alive at 2km.

If I were a tank crewman I'd expect to be given the better equipment for the job and DU is just more effective. It isn't about using a nuke to take out a house since this would obviously cause a collosal amount of damage to the surrounding area, a better comparison might be the way some soldiers are using re-issued M-14s now. Sure the 5.56mm M-16 can do the job of knocking down enemy soldiers, but the 7.62mm M-14 makes extra sure of the job. Tungsten can knock out enemy tanks, but DU is better.

Hatred stemming from a debate is the fault of the debaters, not the subject been debated. Overall, warfare is going to have an impact on the environment, but I'd bet that the damage to environment from exhaust fumes from aircraft, vehicles and shipping is probably far greater than the tiny amounts of left-over DU dust from a knocked out AFV.

Should we go back to using foot infantry and cavalry incase tanks and planes make other countries think we're arrogant and don't care that the planes bombing them are also poluting the air they're breathing?

The strongest comments seem to be the accusation that the US is using anti-tank rounds as a cheap way for dumping toxic waste in other countries, to me that just doesn't hold up on any level and I'd say even defies common sense.

 

you are keeping comparing with things of which there is no alternative, please stop that, it dont make any meaning to draw in cars, airplans etc. when you dont have an alternative for them, its pointless

here we have to types of AP rounds, one cause debate the other dont, both destroy tanks, then I cant see the reason for using the round that cause so much debate over health issues and other things, a debate that is there, just go look around on the internet
many people get the feeling that you think "we dont care of what you think in the rest of the world, we do what ever we want to"

tungsten also knock out tanks at 2km, it knock out tanks at 3km and the latest one at 3,5km

 

Jens - they use DU for two simple reasons.

1) It provides a better penetration effect than Tungsten, due to the self-sharpening effect.

2) It is cheaper to purchase than Tungsten.


The US Army has discovered an AP round that is better and cheaper than Tungsten, and that is not harmful to people it is not fired at (according to the latest scientific research). Yet they are supposed to not use it because it has caused bad PR with people who haven't checked the scientific data?

 

The difference in penetration might not be that significant when shooting a generic T-72 but it might make a considerable difference when shooting a tank that has advanced composite armor or other more advanced types of armor. The US designs it's equipment to fight the Russians or the Chinese (or the Europeans if it were to come to that- highly unlikely as it may be). Sometimes good enough for one situation might not be good enough for another situation.
Given the facts that DU outperforms tungsten as a long rod penetrator and that the potential health risks are minimal there are no good compelling reasons not to use it IMO. The situation in Europe is different because of poltical considerations rather than scientific or factual reasons so from the Europeans perspective it might look differently and the political situation could change in a way that would make the US reconsider it's decision to use DU but it's doubtful that it will happen anytime soon.

 

still not a good reason not to use tungsten rods

you keep to seem to forget the human factor in the fact that people might think there is a health risk in DU ammo, a factor that lead to widely debate and the believe that US (and from times to times the rest of the westen world) is acting arrogant toward others, a believe that lead to hate and that is political (and military) unwise in a world where people use the smallest issues for terror

there is more then 6 billion people on this plante, only 300 million of them live in USA, so it does not matter what the fact is around the health issues, what matters is what people think and if people think there is a health issue, then some people start debates (which is a good thing to have and that you should not swep aside, because that will make people think that you are arrogant) and other people will use it to spark hate toward you (I can referre to the little cartoon-crisis last year as an example of what happen when people act over things they believe is truth and they dont seem to care about the facts)

so still I cant see why using a types of ammo that make so much fuz in the world when you have an alternative that do job just as well (and dont come with that it kill a tank better, you cant grade dead, dead is dead)

 

So what do you propose? Militaries of the world should automatically fold in the face of the most vocal opinion?

Just because people start debates isn't a good reason for discontinuing the use of equipment or material. If there is a genuine health risk, then weighed against the advantages of the equipment in a military situation that's one thing. Otherwise, ill informed opinion shouldn't dominate just because not following it is deemed arrogant.

I picked 2km just as a rough figure since I do not know enough about modern tank armaments to come up with an accurate one, to be honest the exact number doesn't matter, a tank with a DU round can defeat another AFV at a greater range than one with a Tungsten round, that's important enough to chose one over the other.

Jens, you're the one who came up with the comparison about nuking houses, no-one here is suggesting that. No military currently is suggesting nuking houses, there is an alternative to using tanks and IFVs, just as there is an alternative to using DU. If I were a serving soldier I'd expect the military to put the equipment in hand that would best do the job, if that means DU then so be it.

 

you have an alternative to use a nuke on house, its called a ordinary bomb and please show me where I claim that any military use nukes against a house

its a figur of that you dont need to use ammo that is way to powerful to do the job

but please show me some alternative for cars, airplans, x-ray machines, cell phones, combustion engines etc, these are some of the things that you use in the arguementation on the pullotion issue, but you have not shown any alternative to them, I have shown a alternative to DU ammo, it might be not as good as you claim DU ammo is, but its an alternative that is not radioactive and therefor the pollution is less then DU ammo (and it still kill the tanks, so what more do you want?)

 

Mike,i dont really think that US soldiers train with DU in US.And again,why te US use DU.
1.They got alot supplys of DU,and they find cheap way to "export it".
2.They find eawen cheaper then tungsten,with slight betther AP,so why not.

If some chieldren born with 3 legs...so what....they leader is fault.
If after 20y some scientis proowe that DU is hazardus,who will cleen up all DU on world? In best case wi will heard,sry it was mistake.

Pure hipocracy.

 

It is your opinion that DU and tungsten are comparable and that tungsten will do everything that DU will do. I don't share that opinion and neither does the US military. You are welcome to your opinion as long as you allow me the same latitude. I pointed out alternatives to diesel engines in an earlier post yet you ignored my post and continue to insist that nobody has pointed out any alternatives.

 

It's cheaper and better, so it's a better choice. Again, if you have any logical reasoning why going to war and firing DU at enemy tanks is cheaper than any conventional method of disposing of it please feel free to share it.

If you have any evidence that DU causes deformities please share it.

All the Du in the world? If it is such a problem please share the information you have as to how widespread the problem is, that is if it isn't jsut another ill informed supposition.

 

Simon,i readed good some stuffs about DU.It is not proowed that it cause deformation,and allso it is not prooven that DU dont cause deformations,and DNK mutation.So conclusion is,that DU is potencialy dangerous to DNK material.US attacked iraq coz u suspect that Iraq got chemichal weapons (and they wrong),so why not stop using DU if u folow same principe? Hipocracy Simon,notthing more.

 

lol...No arguing with that logic..it's impeccable

*grieg looks at flame bait as it trolls past*
*grieg ignores flame bait...too obvious and crude*
*grieg looks for worthy posts to debate*

 

And I never said you made that claim, you made that comparison however.

There is equally a very real alternative to using AFVs, not using them, after modern infantry AT weapons are very effective, they still kill tanks, so why use cannon and DU or even Tungsten at all?

..and when all's said and done aircraft are just a supporting arm to the infantry. The job can be done without them, so why contribute to the pollution.

Equally, as has been mentioned, the use of lead in bullets. A bullet will kill with the use of a harder and less heavy metal, so why use something as toxic as lead?

Lead does the job better than a more solid penetrator, DU does the job better and cheaper than a Tungsten penetrator. It's a better choice. Yes you have an alternative to DU, but it doesn't do the job as well.

Radiation through X-rays is another matter, as is radiotherapy, it has medical applications which are weighted against the downsides.

Alternatives for ICEs in cars, I saw one yesterday, an electric car, or walking/cycling/etc.

Mobile phones, I really can't help with. String and yoghurt pots perhaps? :roll:

 

yes, I still wonder why you have not put DU in bullets as well, you seem so kean on using it in everything else, then why not bullets?

you still seem to ignore the 2 quetions I asked:

1) can tungsten round kill any tanks we are likely to meet on the battlefield today (T-55, T-72, T-80 and similar tanks) at the distance of 3km which the most likely range that you are engaging the enemy in?

2) how many tanks do you expect to meet in the war on terror?

when tungsten do the job good enough then I see no reason to use DU ammo

the risk to the health have not been confirmed nor have it been dis-missed, the risk is there no matter how small you make it, even the rapport from WHO stat there
when a DU round hit its targe the uranium turn into aerosols (a cloud of small particles) that is carried away with the wind (just think of the radioactive cloud after Tjernobyl accident as an example of uranium turned into aerosols) this can be inhailed, it can be with the rain lead into watersupplies etc. if this radioactive aerosols get into your body (lungs if inhailed) you will be radiated with alpha radiation which is the most dangerous type of radiation if it get into your body (outside your body the skin is enough to protect you against it)
The uranium atoms can also enter your cells and get into the DNA where it will destroy the DNA which lead to cell-dead

tungsten still does the job well, how can you call a destroyed tank not a well done job, you cant grade how much destroyed, destroyed is, when a tank is dead, its dead


http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_li ... dod122.htm

 

Because the ability to pierce armour at range is not as important in bullets.

DU is toxic, but not radioactive and certainly not comparable with the radioactive cloud over Chernobyl. Uranium and Depleted Uranium are different things. Depleted Uranium is nowhere near as radioactive as Uranium and the entire shell is not turned into a cloud of radioactive Uranium atoms, by its very nature its radioactivity is depleted.. DU is not U.

 

ok, let me explain it to you what I mean when Im referring to chernobyl, since you seem to misunderstood it

I used the cloud as an example on how uranuim form aerosols (small particles in the air) when burned, chernobyl happend in a very large scale, but it does not matter of how much uranium you have, it all act in the same way

DU is radioactive, its uranium, uranium is unstabil and radioactive, its simple physic

when uranium burn, not matter if it depleted uranium (depleted mean that you remove the more unstabil U-235 and U-234 isotopes from it, but its still U-238) when U-238 burns it react with the oxygen in the air and therefor turn into uraniumoxide

and btw. in Europe it have been suggested to make lead in bullets illgal because of the pollution it make

 

Ack I don't know who to side with....must be a good debate.

Uranium is a radiotactive element in any form be it depleted or not (so is basically everything else but we'll ignore that I guess). Depleted is just a heck of a lot less radioactive then, say the stuff going into a reactor (and sure as hell less than the stuff coming out).

It's dangerous given enough time and amount of the material, but it could be a lot worse. Like nukes (ok so nukes use plutonium, but it's the same idea. IIRC either Fat Man or Little Boy used uranium and modern nukes are a several (maybe even a hundred) times more powerful them them so if people consider how much was destroyed by those two, than a modern nuke becomes that much more scary as does the whole MAD scenario.)