Should NATO ban the use of depleted uranium?

[Machjo]

It is good strategy for Canada, wherein the populace needs/wants to believe one thing while the government does another. It is a very practical approach given Canada's alliances and economic dependencies.

So you think dishonesty in government and twofacedness is a good thing?

[bush_cheney2004]

So you think dishonesty in government and twofacedness is a good thing?

If it's effective...yes. By "good" I mean a strategy that works...not any silly notions about morality. Nation states have interests to protect....foreign and domestic. Sometimes this means...gasp..."dishonesty".

[segnosaur]

Given all that, it seems bizarre to me that DU can be used by the military to harden the tips of their bullets and shells. I read a report it was used on machine gun and rifle bullets in Iraq.

Ummm... where exactly is this report that shows DU was used in rifle/machine gun bullets?

DU is usually used for larger munitions (e.g. shells capable of taking out tanks, or for 'bunker buster' bombs.) or for tank armor. I am unfamiliar with any use in DU for small arms ammunition. Hey, maybe it was, but I'd like to see a little evidence.

[segnosaur]

Actually, if you look at my post, I already dealt with the issue of inhalation when I pointed out that if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat. I rather suspect that the average Iraqi civilian is not going to be in a position where they are in regular contact with DU in a form that will pose a significant dander.

There are abandoned Iraqi tanks lying out in the open that were attacked by DU munitions. On impact they do create dust, these tanks are still highly radioactive, and they're lying out in the open to any uneducated and curious passer by who knows little to nothing of radiation to approach it out of natural curiosity.

Ummm...

First of all, I'm sure there are destroyed Iraqi tanks lying around. I rather suspect that those tanks are probably not in the core of the cities where the bulk of the population resides.

And secondly, yes, it would be inadvisable to go poking around destroyed Iraqi tanks. But it would also be a bad idea to go poking around such tanks even if they were destroyed by more conventional munitions. Are you suggesting that there is some long lineup of people eager to jump into bombed-out Iraqi tanks? Is there any indication that all of those people suffering from birth defects have been inside a destroyed tank?

Some building struck by DU munitions had been torn down in Fallujah, and apparently some of them landed in the water, possibly allowing some DUst making it downstream into the drinking water supply.

Ummm... "apparently"? Have any references to show that there actually is DU in the water supply?

And as for the particles, can you be sure that the wind did not blow them into the air miles away from their original location or even into the water supply? Well over 300 tons is a lot of DU lying around or floating around depending on its composition.

300 tons may sound like a lot, but as I pointed out before, Uranium is a naturally occurring element. Whatever contribution the added DU may add to the naturally occurring uranium may be statistically insignificant.

Then how do you explain that authorities in Fallujah are now advising women to not have children?!

For the same reason that the government advised pregnant women in Canada to avoid rain water after Chernobyl (even though there was no real risk). Its a combination of scientific ignorance, politicians wanting to be seen as 'doing something', and general panic (with only a tiny bit of reasonable concern added in).

Hey, maybe there is a reason for concern. But simply showing some news report of unfortunate birth defects is not convincing if you're actually looking for scientific evidence.

Clearly there is concern of an epidemic of reproductive organs having been damaged among the local population. Granted it's not been conclusively proven that it's because of DU, but so far the symptoms appear to match the effects of radiation. At the very least we owe them further studies and research to determine what the cause is. Clearly this is something that happened after Saddam's regime, whatever it may be.

Actually, we still don't know if there actually is something going wrong in Iraq. We haven't yet seen any studies showing any statistical increase in birth defects or other health problems.

Do you remember the movie "Erin Brockvich"? It told the supposedly true story of a woman trying to fight for the town of Hinkely in California, after their water supply was contaminated with a chromium compound. This compound was supposedly causing horrible medical problems (cancers, neurological problems, etc.) She won a large settlement.

Only problem is, it was all a lie... after the settlement, they actually looked at the numbers. The average rate of illness in the town was the same as in every other town in the area that did not get exposed to the chromium. People were getting sick, but it was just the regular, every day set "back ground" illness that happens everywhere. People ended up falsely accusing the chromium but it had no statistical effect.

I just hate to see bad science do the same thing here with Depleted Uranium.

(edited to fix quote tags)

Edited June 28, 2010 by segnosaur

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummm... where exactly is this report that shows DU was used in rifle/machine gun bullets?

Right...typically DU is not used for small arms munitions. However, there are special rounds in the "smaller" calibres designed to take advantage of DU's pyrophoric properties against certain targets. I saw a demonstration of a .50 cal round (M2 "Ma Deuce") at Quantico many years ago. DU is considered a true "magic bullet" by the military with compelling properties that outweigh its negatives.

DU is usually used for larger munitions (e.g. shells capable of taking out tanks, or for 'bunker buster' bombs.) or for tank armor. I am unfamiliar with any use in DU for small arms ammunition. Hey, maybe it was, but I'd like to see a little evidence.

Correct...more commonly used in the 30mm (A-10 Thunderbolt GAU-8 Gatling gun) and larger. Very common as a long rod penetrator with aluminum sabot casing in tank munitions (kinetic energy round against armor}.

Edited June 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

Ummm... where exactly is this report that shows DU was used in rifle/machine gun bullets?

Right...typically DU is not used for small arms munitions. However, there are special rounds in the "smaller" calibres designed to take advantage of DU's pyrophoric properties against certain targets.

Interesting. I figured that because of the close proximity that might occur when using small arms that they would consider it unsuitable for rifle/machine gun bullets.

Of course, is that actually in regular use, and is there any evidence that such rounds were actually used in Falluja (or anywhere else in Iraq)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do we use it?

...Next chart. Why do we use it? This is the result. What we want to be able to do is strike the target from farther away than we can be hit back, and we want the target to be destroyed when we shoot at it. We don't want to see rounds bouncing off. We don't want to put our soldiers in the position that you see, if you watch "Kelly's Heroes," where they load tank rounds with paint in order to blind the target. And I'm sure everybody in here has probably seen "Kelly's Heroes" once, because in World War II we faced a problem of not having the overreach we have today. We don't ever want to go back to that. And we don't want to fight even. Nobody goes into a war and wants to be even with the enemy. We want to be ahead, and DU gives us that advantage. We can hit, and they can't hit us.

During the Gulf War we had tanks engaged in situations with multiple Iraqi tanks that were shot, hit -- not penetrated -- and proceeded to destroy all three of the targets that engaged them, including shooting through a sandbag and destroying one of the Iraqi tanks. It really happened. That's how much advantage it gives us. So we don't want to give that up, and that's why we use it.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2058

[ZenOps]

To me this is a silly question.

Of course it should not be banned. There are far worse metals out there.

Inside of your old NiCD batteries, Cadmium is a ridiculously dangerous metal that has the potential to contaminate any household where a battery happens to be compromised.

Cobalt is far more useful from a radiation standpoint. Other metals are just as hard as uranium.

Before you ban uranium, you should probably ban 12 to 20 other metals and isotopes before that - if that is the consensus. Most metals do have legitimate uses outside of war however, so banning them will probably hurt progress as well.

Uranium just happens to be abundant, thats all.

Edited June 29, 2010 by ZenOps

[Remiel]

Most metals do have legitimate uses outside of war however, so banning them will probably hurt progress as well.

I think we have two different questions here. One is, " Do we ban the use of depleted uranium altogether? " and one is, " Do we ban the use of depleted uranium in munitions? " This thread is really about the latter. The first one, banning it from any use, is hardly necessary.

[ZenOps]

I think we have two different questions here. One is, " Do we ban the use of depleted uranium altogether? " and one is, " Do we ban the use of depleted uranium in munitions? " This thread is really about the latter. The first one, banning it from any use, is hardly necessary.

I think you've got it. That is the right question to ask.

To add: Cadmium does have use, but definitely not as a household battery. Cadmium (in the toxic form used in batteries) in my opinion should be banned from any consumer uses.

Edited June 29, 2010 by ZenOps

[Bonam]

Banning something from use in weapons is meaningless. In peacetime, everyone might only be too happy to comply. In wartime, nations will use whatever it takes to get the job done regardless of ink on a dusty old page. Depleted uranium is legitimately used for its extremely high density and thus ability to penetrate armor.

I also find the whole debate over "health risks" associated with weapons quite ironic. The whole point of these things is to KILL PEOPLE. Of course there are health risks. Duh.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Banning something from use in weapons is meaningless. In peacetime, everyone might only be too happy to comply. In wartime, nations will use whatever it takes to get the job done regardless of ink on a dusty old page. Depleted uranium is legitimately used for its extremely high density and thus ability to penetrate armor.

There have been a number of munitions that have been banned. Dum Dum rounds...poison gas...biological weapons....that being said, the evidence needed to argue that DU is inhumane is not there.

[Remiel]

Banning something from use in weapons is meaningless. In peacetime, everyone might only be too happy to comply. In wartime, nations will use whatever it takes to get the job done regardless of ink on a dusty old page. Depleted uranium is legitimately used for its extremely high density and thus ability to penetrate armor.

I also find the whole debate over "health risks" associated with weapons quite ironic. The whole point of these things is to KILL PEOPLE. Of course there are health risks. Duh.

But that is the whole point, Bonam. Of course weapons are designed to kill in combat. Weapons that continue to kill after hostilities have ceased are problematic.

[Sir Bandelot]

There is no other weapon I can think of, where the dust and debris remains a hazard to anyone, for many thousands of years.

And anyone who disagrees that it's a hazard, must claim to know more than the US military's own training literature...

[M.Dancer]

And anyone who disagrees that it's a hazard, must claim to know more than the US military's own training literature...

*chortle*

In 1993, the DoD and the VA instituted a medical surveillance program for depleted uranium exposures occurring during the 1991 Gulf War. Since then the VA Medical Center in Baltimore has been evaluating almost 80 survivors of friendly fire incidents involving DU during in the 1991 Gulf War. They are invited for comprehensive medical evaluations every two years. About one-fourth currently have embedded fragments of depleted uranium, and many have marked elevations of uranium in their urine. To date, there have been no adverse clinical effects noted in these individuals related to DU; specifically, there has been no kidney damage, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or other uranium-related health effects. No babies born to this group have had birth defects. The VA plans to continue monitoring these individuals indefinitely.

http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp

[M.Dancer]

Weapons that continue to kill after hostilities have ceased are problematic.

Of course they are....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-kills-G-ttingen-experts-attempt-defuse-it.html

It is safe to say that UXBs have killed far more after the fact than DU (which has killed none that I am aware of)

[segnosaur]

There is no other weapon I can think of, where the dust and debris remains a hazard to anyone, for many thousands of years.

Ummm... How about plain old lead (used in bullets)? Its not radioactive, but it is a heavy metal, so it can remain a hazard basically forever. It can cause neurological problems in developing children (among other problems).

Or how about Tungsten (which might replace DU for some purposes... ). Again, its not radioactive, but there have been a few indications that it can be carcinogenic in certain circumstances (See: http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Tungsten-Poisoning.htm).

And anyone who disagrees that it's a hazard, must claim to know more than the US military's own training literature...

Yeah I'm sure there are a lot of warnings. Part of that may just be precautionary.

By the way, I'm still waiting to see some actual science and/or statistics showing:

- There actually IS a problem with birth defects in Iraq

- That such problems are actually associated with Depleted Uranium