DU - Health Risk?

When a tank is destroyed and burns one hack of a lot more dangerous material is discharged into the environment, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, potent carcinogens, particulate matter etc. than is released by the small amount of dust that results from impacting DU rounds.
It all can enter the soil and water and be a potential hazard to humans.
Combat, especially armored combat, is hazardous to the environment to some extent no matter what you do. That is a risk that must be accepted sometimes
*shrug*
Just a fact of life.

 

Well if you are going to summarily dismiss all reasons that conflict with your point of view of course it isn't. To you.

Ok then, you're a zealot*.

And before you go crying the the admin over that, it's not an insult, abusive or slander, just an accurate description of your behaviour in the face of facts contradictory to your stated position.

Having seen that there will be no reasoning with you I see no further use in even trying, and no value in continuing to contribute to this thread.

Grieg, MG, I wish you the best of luck but I don't think you'll have any success with this either.


*an excessively zealous person; fanatic.

(Edit) damn typos.

 

Jens, all your arguments, even your 2 questions, have been answered over and over again. I could quote huge swathes of text from the posts above countering each argument you make, and yet you are still repeating the same claims. I would also like you to answer some of the questions that I have asked - like exactly how much dust is created by a DU round, and exactly how much of that gets into the environment? And I have a new one - how much dust needs tobe inhaled/ingested to cause a serious health risk?

I can't believe I'm writing it all out yet again. If you do not present a good answer to this then I shall stop bothering, assume a victorious debate and keep a close eye on this topic to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.


If I can summarise what seems to be your argument (apolgies if I get you wrong or leave something out)

1) DU can cause ill health because of the dust it creates when it actually penetrates armour.

2) Tungsden is just as good, and less hazardous.

3) The US Army should not use controversial weapons.

The answers given:

1) It can, if you inhale or ingest it. But then, how much of this dust is created by each penetration, and how much of that actually gets into the environment. Also, who is going to be running around in front of a tank that just got blown up? There are 3 ways the dust can get inside you - you eat it, you drink it, you breath it.

Eating - sure if you want to roam around old battlefields licking tanks and eating dirt you can. Being more serious, there is a risk of accidental contamination, as conceiveably somebody could put their hand in this dust (presumably before the rain has washed it into the river or it has blown away in a cloud?) then sometime later lick their finger. But I'll take a bet here and now that this is far less likely (given the very small amounts of dust around) than the same person accidentally treading on something that goes 'bang'.

Drinking - this requires it to get into the water supply, which either involve it reaching a river or filtering through the earth until it reaches an aquifier. Both processes involve this small amount of dust being filtered through a lot of earth, then whatever is left being released into large bodies of water. You'd have to drink the entire river in order to stand a chance of ingesting anything.

Breathing - when the round penetrates, a small cloud of dust puffs up. The portion that does not fall to the ground to be eaten or to work its way into the water supply then disperses into the atmosphere, to be breathed by... what? Anybody standing near a recently hit tank has more important worries than DU-dust - partly the clouds of other toxic fumes pouring out of a burning tank (if it burns) and partly the fact that hit tanks have a horrible tendancy to go 'bang'. All in the area will be making a hasty retreat. Besides, the concentrated cloud is unlikely to remain concentrated for long, unless DU dust has special properties, and the further it gets the less likely that it will actually be breathed in it becomes.
The Chernoble cloud did cover much of Europe, but then is was ever so slightly larger and more radioactive than the small puff of dust from a tank shell.

Overall, if every tank shell fired in the world so far had been DU, then yes, I'd think that maybe there might be a handful of people who had health problems somehow related to that. But it would still be less than the number of people killed each year by accidental discovery of old WW2 ordnance.

2) No it isn't. DU is proven to be more effective thanks to self-sharpening. Why choose a less effective weapon than you have to?

3) This is just ridiculous. It is a knee-jerk reaction at its finest. 'Public opinion is not 100% on our side, let's stop doing this'. Would you rather that the USA had not got involved with fighting Hitler's Germany? Would you rather that *insert numerous examples of damn good ideas that did not have strong public support when first conceived*?

Besides, almost every time a new weapon arrives it gathers controversy. Crossbows were banned by Papal Decree, as they were seen as the ultimate weapon that would result in the extinction of all humanity. Gunpowder weapons were thought to be from the devil, and many bad things were expected of them. Nuclear weapons... see crossbows (except for the Papal Decree).

 

Grieg, I know you're just making a joke, but your post can seem just as much a flame-bait as his did. :angry:

 

Still no answer on 2. question which was: how many tanks do you expect to meet in the war against terror?

you have only answered the first one, I got that

I start to feel that you are starting a kind of "witch-hunt" on those who is questing the use of DU ammo, I have the right to ask question on these issues like everybody have and you can answer them politly or dont answer

you keep telling about how good DU ammo is, I got that, but you seem to overlook the biological arguement there is and the only defence you use against the radiation is relating to back-ground radiation, back-ground radiation is not that dangerous to us, otherwise we would not existe, the human skin protact you against the normal back-ground radiation there is, this is biological facts
if you get radioactive material into your body its another story, its way lot dangerous to you, your cells will die which can lead to your own death, you dont need much into your body, very few uranium atoms that enter your cell and get into the DNA will start to mutante the DNA and destroy it, we are talking about few atoms duing that
other things that happens when you get it into your body is your kidney start to get damages from it because it have to get it out of your body, if your kidney fails you will die if you dont a new one fast.
the cloud over chernobyl give an idea of how long this can stay in the air, you dont have to stand next to a tank before being at risk

yes it only produce a small cloud of dust, but tell me, are you only firing a few shoots in a war? no, you are using many tonnes of ammo (DU is not only in AP rounds, its used in bombs and tomahawks missiles as well) so suddenly you have much more DU spread into the air, which increase the risk that people can get toxicated by DU

and DU was not used in ww2, so you cant draw ww2 in as an arguement

I have nothing against the americans or the brits, but I have the right to ask questions about things they are doing with out hearing "Would you rather that the USA had not got involved with fighting Hitler's Germany?" or other things, you think Im supporting the Nazis, just by asking questions about DU ammo and arguing agianst the use of it?

everybody have the right to ask question over what USA and Great Britian is doing and what kind of ammo they are using with out being put to hate, Im using my freedom to ask questions about these things, the same freedom that US/british soldiers fought and gav their lifes for in ww2, the same freedom we are fighting for that Iraq and Afghanistan shall have

 

From two pages back.

Frankly that sums it up. There is little chance of meeting tanks when fighting actual terrorists themselves, but militaries have to be prepared for any conflict, just in case. Besides, if no tanks are met, no long-rod penetrator AP rounds are fired.

No witch-hunt at all. You have the right to ask any question you want. But when the answer is repeatedly given to you, you can either accept it or argue against it. Continually re-stating your original points gets you nowhere, and incidentally tends to annoy people. Was my post above impolite?

Did you read my post above?

And I notice that you have addressed only one of the points raised about how the DU dust would get into your body, and only partially at that (see below). Incidentally, and I ask for the second time, exactly how much of this DU is required to cause ill health? Not to a cell, but to a human.

But, as noted, the Chernobyl cloud was just a teensie bit bigger than the one that is raised by a DU round, plus it involved an accident at a nuclear power plant, and was thus more radioactive than that from Depleted Uranium. Oh, and it was being constantly fed with extra material for quite a while. Even regular smoke from a fire can stay reasonably non-dispersed if the fire is big enough and the flames keep burning. I’m sure there are a host of other reasons as to why it is an invalid comparison, but those will do for now.

Firstly, you will only fire DU shells at enemy tanks, and possibly at strongpoints. So, yes, you are not going to fire many, unless your enemy has lots of tanks and/or lots of very tough strongpoints.
Secondly (and related) which bombs and which variants of the Tomahawk have DU in them? As DU is used as a long-rod anti-armour round, and neither bombs nor tomahawks are used in this fashion, I would like to know.
Please name them and provide a suitable source to back that up.

Please tell me where I drew WW2 into the argument.

No, that was an example. I was bringing up situations where a public majority was not necessarily for a situation, but the country went ahead and did it anyway, much to the benefit of humanity in general. I am sorry if you thought I was implying anything at all about you.

Sure you have that freedom, but here I will repeat what I have already said above:

Simply replace ‘impolite’ with hateful.

Actually, accusing me of hating you is, I suppose, slanderous. Or is it liable? I never can remember which is which.

 

sinissa, Hypocracy is when you say one thing, but do another.

Example:

Mr X professes to hate racism, yet hates his neighbour because he is from a different ethnic group.

Using a product now when to the best of your knowledge it is effectively harmless (yes, there is some risk but it is very very very small) is not hypocracy.


Out of interest, do you propose that we should never ever do anything new, just in case we later discover that it is harmful? Which would mean of course that the Industrial Revolution should never have happened (coal-powered), the internal combustion engine should never have been made (pollutants), heck, you should not even have started to dye cloth (some of the dyeing & fixing agents are highly toxic).

 

from page one

you only need a few particles, uranium is poorly absorded through your lungs and therefor can stay as a radiation hazard indefinitely in your body, you dont need much when it stays in your body

on the ww2 thing I misread some line in your post, and I appoligies

DU are used in bombs and tomahawks to make them better in pentrating buildings etc. so they explode inside the building and cause more damges to the building

I also find it morally questionable that on one hand to be against so call "dirty bombs" (bombs that contain uranium or other radioactive materials) and on the other hand you use uranium in ammo you self, I know the porpes with "dirty bombs" is to spread uranium in an area, but its the moral aspect in it, be against one form of using uranium in ammo while using it in ammo you self

to summen up what I have said: I have in no post at all claim that DU should be banned, I have pointed out the risk and asked questions in the use of ammo that cause that much debate, an ammo that (and as I have said my self also) have a small risk of to the health of people, I have provide with biological facts, I asked quetions to why not use a none radioactive ammo instead, I have not claimed that tungsten was better in killing tanks, I claimed it was just as good
questions I have the right to ask as a concern and what have I been called duing so:

which mean fanatic
so Im a fanatic because I ask questions?

I argue against the use of DU because there is an alternative, might not be as good as DU, but at least its not radioactive and therefor dont pose a unnecesery risk to people when it turned into dust
all rapports and envestigations into this is inconclusive because of lack of knowless on the area which they stat them self, meaning you cant trust the result blindly, you have to make more invastigations (meaning the experts on the area) into this and as long there is gabs in our knowless its stupid not to ask questions, we dont know anything about the risk of long-term exposion of DU since DU have only been used since early 1990s, so you cant just dis-miss any concern there is before we know more about this and untill then questions will still be asked from people

and I did not said YOU hated me, you used that word
I said people have the right to ask with out the risk of being put to hate, that is not an accusation against you
and I think we should stop this before it turn into something we regrade, we will never agree on these issue and so be it, we live in a democrasy and there shall be room for all opinions, I dont agree with you in this issue and you dont agree with me in this issue and we can continue untill hell freez over with out get to an agreement

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinions but everyone does not have a right to their own "facts".

Despite much misinformation being passed around by hysterical bloggers on the net regarding depleted uranium the fact remains that there is no DU in Tomahawk cruise missiles nor in bunkerbuster bombs.
That is a myth and a falsehood.
I could find sources to link stating that fact but it seems that you choose to ignore the sources that I post so I will allow you to research the question yourself if you are interested in the truth.

Dirty bombs have the purpose of spreading harmful toxic and radioactive materials in large enough quantities to sicken and kill human being. DU penetrators not only do not have such a purpose but there is no scientific data to indicate that they do so in sufficient amounts to pose more than an insignificant risk to humans.

 

everybody dis-miss the facts that dont fit their own opinions, there are sourse that say DU ammo is a risk to the people in areas where used and you your self dismiss them as mis-informations
there are rapports that say there is (a little) risk to the health when DU is used, a fact you seem to have dis-missed you self as unimported simply because the risk is small, but the risk is there

how can you tell if its dis-information or not, un-truth or not, have you made field-research on the aera of the use of DU vs. health risk in the use of it?
I have not, therefor I ask questions

and I referred to the moral aspect reguading to the issue of "dirty bombs" vs. DU and did not referred to the porpures of them, but maybe you overlooked that because it did not fit your opinion?

this rapport underbuild my statment that DU is used in bombs (look pp 29, DU were found at 3 places in kosovo, no tanks fighting took place in kosovo, so it most have been from bombs)
postconflict.unep.ch/publications/BiH_DU_report.pdf

look at the table on this site (Table 1. Known and Suspected Uses of DU Munitions in Warfare):
http://www.wise-uranium.org/diss.html#EMDEC
as you can see DU were also used by the airforce, jets dont fire tank rounds, they drop bombs, the numbers of quantity of DU in kg are also high (I know the numbers can be questionable because some of them might be estimated, but it underbuild my statment that DU is used in bombs and that high amongs of DU is used in warfare, so still a good reason to ask questions about it, I would like to know what the long-term effect of using 286,233 kg of DU on a country have on the enviorement and the health to the people there)

I can also referre to this:
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm

 

Better yet, maybe I understood that there is a significant moral difference between the intention to indiscriminately harm civilians and anyone else who comes into contact with the material (dirty bomb) and the intention to destroy the enemy tanks without incurring lost of collateral damage (DU antitank rounds). The purpose of the weapon demonstrates the intention.

That report does not support your claim that DU is used in Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombs at all. It may have escaped your notice that the Air force operates the A-10 Warthog which fires 30mm DU antiarmor rounds. Another use of DU for the Air Force are the incredibly hazardous counterweights for control surfaces on aircraft. The next time you fly on a civilian airliner chances are there will be several hundreds of pounds of DU counterweights aboard. Bring a Geiger counter along and see if yo can detect them.

Warheads, the way it was used there was a generic term and refers to weapons, most likely. He certainly wasn't referring to aerial bombs or cruise missles since neither of them use DU.

 

No it doesn't, all it means is that didn't come from a Tank vs Tank combat. Aircraft use cannon too, so for that matter do various other AFVs that don't count as tanks, such as the Bradley and Warrior amongst the types employed in KFOR off the top of my head.

Jets do fire cannon however, practically all modern jets mount at least one cannon of some description, not least of which as Grieg has mentioned the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog". Jets don't just drop bombs.

Dirty Bombs are a different matter entirely since their purpose is to spread radioactive contamination as far as possible. The purpose of a DU round is to destroy enemy armour, a very different goal. You cannot compare the firing of a DU round with the detonation of a Dirty Bomb, one is designed to take out a single tactical target as efficiently as possible in the short term, to other to cause as much widespread destruction as possible in the long term. Apples and Oranges.

 

And as far as dirty bombs go, they are specifically a terrorist weapon. If you're invading you don't want to hamper your troops by forcing them to wear radiation suits in combat (not that you'd nessessarily be sending them there but the stuff goes everywhere)

(wasn't it me who brought up the A-10 in the original thread? )

On a slightly different subject, are 'graphite bombs' considered dirty bombs? They drop a cloud of small graphite particles that short out electronics when the bomb detonates.

 

I think all you other points have been answered by others, and thanks for giving me some answers, but I do want to comment on this:

I have to admit that I genuinely regret posting that last paragraph - I was feeling annoyed and I let that get in the way. Sorry.

Sure we can agree to disagree, we could even carry on debating...

I'll stay polite now though.

 

the rapport underbuild my statment that DU is used in other then tanks rounds and if you read the rapport about the places it were found, Im not sure they use cannon to destroy depots, they are usually protected against that (bunkers etc.)
Table 1 on this site confirm my suspsion on that its not only used in cannon fire from jets:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/diss.html#EMDEC

otherwise it would one hell of alot of gun fire they have used to get an among of 246,602 kg of used DU as ammo by jets in Iraq in 1991...thats 200 tonnes of DU, how much DU does a 30 mm round contain?

I also wonder about this (from the same site as the table) if DU is so much better then anything else and the risk is so small using it, why plan to stop using it?

and its no excusse that they will use a smooth bore 120 mm gun, the gun on the M1 is a 120 mm smooth bore and it fire DU rounds

Ricky its ok, sometimes debates get overheated

 

From that table you can see that jets fired 850,950 rounds for a total of 246,602kg of DU, so under .3 Kg per shell bearing in mind of course that a mix of calibres from 20-30mm will have been fired. From this is doesn't exactly seem like there are tonnes of DU unnaccounted for that can only be explained by its use in bomb casings.

As to why our government was planning to ditch DU in AT Guns, a reported link in the tabloids with troops getting ill, bad publicity in the press and the fact that our government can be remarkably spineless probably play more than an insignificant part.

 

troops getting ill, I thourgh you said that it was highly unlikely to get sick from DU.......
from this site: http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissgw.html

somehow these 14 got uranium into their body, how?

and the long-term effect of using 200 tonnes of DU on the eviroment is?
and do you still use 30 mm (or 20 mm) to destroy depots with (like in the rapport from kosovo)?
postconflict.unep.ch/publications/BiH_DU_report.pdf
pp 29
"DU was found at three sites; the former Tank Repair Facility and former Ammunition Storage Depot in Hadzici, and Han Pijesak Artillery Storage and Barracks.."
do you use 30 mm (or 20 mm) rounds to destroy a Storage Depot?

 

I only mentioned the reported link in the tabloids as part of the reason for discontinuing using DU, not that it was actually the case.

Of course you can if that's what you've got, less chance of the rounds going off course and causing collateral damage than a free-fall bomb isn't here? In any case why not? At a tank repair facility such ammunition stands a good chance of not only penetrating buildings but also the tanks being repaired. Doesn't seem a bad idea to me, plus the rapid fire cannon on the likes of the A10 whilst probably not the most ideal weapon for anti-building work, is capable of putting a lot of rounds into a building in a very short space of time and a short pass could easily cause extensive but localised damage not only to the building but also the contents, such as the sort of machinery you might find in a repair deopt.

I don't see what point you're really trying to make here, it seems clear as I indicated from your source that there isn't vast quantities of unexplained DU being expended. Do you have any actual evidence that DU is used in bomb casings beyond your own supposition?

 

and I gave a quote on reported case of high leave of uranium in the urine of 14 US troops in Iraq, just wonder how it that can be....

you are only focusing on the repair facility, what about the ammunition storage depot which highly likely is a bunker?

and what about the 200 tonnes of DU's long term effect on the enviroment?

 

Straffing ground targets is legitate practice, regardless of the target. Do you know that the ammo store was a reinforced bunker?

Oh, and it was 14 personnel with higher-than-the-US-average level of Uranium, of whom 5 had uranium in their urine. Have any of these soldiers since had health issues? (asked for information purposes, not as a goad.)

The 200 tons of DU - where is it? all in one lump, or spread around Iraq in lumps each an average of .3kg in weight? Because if it is psread around, then frankly the environmental impact will be minimal. Far less than the impact from all the lead that was fired during the same conflict.