Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 1

message: I added a section stating: DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK.  Evidence for this is found  in  on p56, which quotes a Lewis Moonie, a UK defence minister :  Two types of DU-based munitions are available to British Forces, a 120 mm anti-tank round and 20 mm round used by some Royal Navy ships.  I didn't add this to the main page's references, as I figure the issue is minor and uncontentious, and the quoted document as a whole isn't suitable source material. -- Finlay McWalter 22:55, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use 

message: === IAEA papers ===
I think the article comes off too much on the side of opponents of DU usage, and downplays the evidence against its danger by falsely implying that such evidence comes only from the US and UK.  I'd consider the International Atomic Energy Agency one of the more reliable sources of such information, and they claim that DU has little if any health risks.  They're also hardly known as a US ally, being of the principal critics of the US's handling of the Iraq thing.  Their information page about DU can be found here: .  In particular, see their answer to the question "Is DU a health hazard", here:  (the conclusion is "no"). --Delirium 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: Edited to add this information (while not removing the other information). --Delirium 22:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: Hrmm, having only glanced at it, that report seems to deal specifically with Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf war, not other wars where the DU exposure may be higher... Evercat 22:55 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: Oops sorry I hadn't seen the second page. OK. Fair enough. Evercat 22:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: Link 3 above no longer works; the IAEA site apparently has been reorganized. --Alan Nicoll 19:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
=== Other reasons for critizism, use of Uranium in history, non-fissibility, etc. ===
Moved this here because it's style is non-NPOV. Besides interesting information it contains blatant lies.
“Some of us believe that this issue is a red herring, and US military use of depleted uranium is condemned for exactly the same reasons as napalm, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel flechette munitions were decades ago:  a not-inconsiderable number of European intellectuals hate America and will seize upon anything whatsoever that they can imagine a way to criticize in order to create a controversy where none existed before.”
:This is highly speculative. Also, wikipedia should not express "our" opinion.
“Note that uranium has long been known to be less toxic than lead; uranium compounds were used commonly in glazes for pottery in Europe for more than one hundred years (if you collect antique earthenware or pottery, you may have some in your collection--look for pottery with a deep red, orange, or burnt umber glaze, dating from before 1940), because it was known to be less toxic than lead.  Uranium salts were also once added to decorative glassware to give the glass an iridescent gold or green appearance; this glassware is called Annagruen or Annagelb glass in Germany, or "vaseline glass" in the US.”
:Information about the toxiciy is welcome, though i think the historic use of uranium salts in glasses should fits better on the page about.
“To the extent that uranium demonstrates toxicity, it acts as a heavy metal toxin similar to lead or mercury, differing principally in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys first and begin causing damage there rather than in the central nervous system (and it is quite capable of killing you, just as mercury or lead is).  Depleted uranium is not especially radioactive (it is what's left after the fissile isotopes are removed for use in nuclear power or nuclear weapons) and does not seem to present any significant radiological hazard.  As a heavy metal toxin, tungsten is considerably more poisonous than uranium.”
:DU has about 40% the radioactivity natural Uranium. Nobody every claimed that there was a danger of nuclear fissions with DU.
Wikipedia should not try to make one side look silly by showing false or silly arguments for that side. — Hokanomono 09:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ? 

message: Moved this here because it's style is non-NPOV. Besides interesting information it contains blatant lies.
“Some of us believe that this issue is a red herring, and US military use of depleted uranium is condemned for exactly the same reasons as napalm, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel flechette munitions were decades ago:  a not-inconsiderable number of European intellectuals hate America and will seize upon anything whatsoever that they can imagine a way to criticize in order to create a controversy where none existed before.”
:This is highly speculative. Also, wikipedia should not express "our" opinion.
“Note that uranium has long been known to be less toxic than lead; uranium compounds were used commonly in glazes for pottery in Europe for more than one hundred years (if you collect antique earthenware or pottery, you may have some in your collection--look for pottery with a deep red, orange, or burnt umber glaze, dating from before 1940), because it was known to be less toxic than lead.  Uranium salts were also once added to decorative glassware to give the glass an iridescent gold or green appearance; this glassware is called Annagruen or Annagelb glass in Germany, or "vaseline glass" in the US.”
:Information about the toxiciy is welcome, though i think the historic use of uranium salts in glasses should fits better on the page about.
“To the extent that uranium demonstrates toxicity, it acts as a heavy metal toxin similar to lead or mercury, differing principally in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys first and begin causing damage there rather than in the central nervous system (and it is quite capable of killing you, just as mercury or lead is).  Depleted uranium is not especially radioactive (it is what's left after the fissile isotopes are removed for use in nuclear power or nuclear weapons) and does not seem to present any significant radiological hazard.  As a heavy metal toxin, tungsten is considerably more poisonous than uranium.”
:DU has about 40% the radioactivity natural Uranium. Nobody every claimed that there was a danger of nuclear fissions with DU.
Wikipedia should not try to make one side look silly by showing false or silly arguments for that side. — Hokanomono 09:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other reasons for critizism, use of Uranium in history, non-fissibility, etc. 

message: I have just removed the NPOV tag.  It was put there a few days ago by 
an anonymous user without it being clear why on this page. Perhaps it was related to the section on Health concerns. Did the user feel it is too biased towards supporting the adverse health concerns camp or too biased against the opposite camp.  Perhaps it is for some completely different reason. Who knows.
I have therefore assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was just trolling. Apologies in advance if it was genuinely meant, but if you put it back then please make the reason clear here. Then at least we will know what to discuss to address it. --Jll 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag?

message: "it is 70% denser than lead thus each round is heavier, and therefore carries more kinetic energy"
If you fire a lead round and then a depleted uranium round from the same weapon, the same amount energy is conveyed to each round, ie they carry the same amount of kinetic energy.  I assume this means that they have the same impact energy.  So, the only reason to use depleted uranium rounds (apart from the fact that they incinerate tank crews) is that their higher density allows a smaller, more aerodynamic shape.  Is my reasoning correct? --Commander Keane 11:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that, and the reduced friction in the air, and the fact that uranium powder spontaneously burns in the air... Rama 11:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It's also important to think of the volume of armor that needs to be moved out of the way before a slug can strike something vital.  While there's often a significant mass of air to move out of the way as well, denser projectiles will apply more pressure to the armor, apply their momentum to a smaller cross-section of the target, and penetrate more effectively.  I recommend rewording the quoted passage, but I'm not quite sure how. (edit) From the Sabot page: For reasons why a smaller diameter projectile is desirable, see external ballistics and terminal ballistics.--Polyparadigm 21:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinetic energy 

message: Due to the lack of experimental data, the approach taken was to estimate the typical levels of exposure on the battlefield over a wide range of scenarios, and the worst-case exposures that individuals are unlikely to exceed. These estimated values have then been used to assess the potential health risks from radiation. The report also considers epidemiological studies of occupational exposures to uranium in other situations as an independent source of information on the risks of inhaling DU particles, although it recognises that the parallels may not be precise.
Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime.
The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population.
Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable.
Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years.
This report was referenced to support this edit:
The mainstream media, however, has consistently shed light on stories of DU related illnesses and birth defects from the children of soldiers recently returning from conflicts involving Depleted Uranium. As early as September 3, 2000, CNN reported that Dr. Asaf Durakovic was treating cases of soldiers contaminated with Depleted Uranium in the First Gulf War of 1991.  Time Magazine has featured several articles about the growing concern over the dangers of Depleted Uranium, one about NATO soldiers on January 9th, 2001  More recently, The New York Daily News' Juan Gonzalez reported in a front page article about the war's littlest victim, referring to the newborn daughter of a soldier suffering from Gulf War Syndrome who was born with three fingers missing. The soldier in question tested positive for Depleted Uranium.  	 
-		 
Moreover, a comprehensive study by The Royal Society, a fellowship of over 1400 distinguished scientists, researchers and professors, found that Depleted Uranium poses serious health risks for civilians as well as soldiers.  
DV8 2XL 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from the Royal Society Report