Depleted uranium birth defects

Dr.Sid said:
So while some radiation is acceptable for most people, usually no radiation amount is taken as acceptable for pregnant mothers.
Click to expand...

No it's not, since it's simply impossible to ever have no radiation. What's important is to compare the extra radiation from DU to the normal dose you get anyway. Unless you have a particularly large amount, you're unlikely to be able to see any difference from the noise.

Huh, I went through some calculations and came up with a dose of about 2.7mSv/yr, which would be about equivalent to background radiation. Then I found this site, which is probably a lot better than relying on all the assumptions I'd had to make. Obviously it still relies heavily on how much you assume people are exposed to, but checking out a variety of different amounts, enrichments, and exposure methods that seemed reasonable to me, I still only got 3.5mSv/yr as the highest. So it may actually be a measurable increase over background radiation, but is still less than taking a couple of flights, smoking, or living in Cornwall.

Of course, heavy metal poisoning probably isn't very good for mothers either.

BenBurch said:
So, the question to ask is which is the least bad choice factoring in both munition efficacy and resulting toxic waste contamination.
Click to expand...

Well, as noted above uranium is actually not as bad as many heavy metals. And while tungsten isn't too bad either, the alternatives to DU are generally alloys including cobalt and/or nickel, which are.
 
It would be nice to think there was an alternative to blasting people with all sorts of heavy metals.
 
Cuddles said:
No it's not, since it's simply impossible to ever have no radiation. What's important is to compare the extra radiation from DU to the normal dose you get anyway. Unless you have a particularly large amount, you're unlikely to be able to see any difference from the noise.
Click to expand...

It's impractical to do but there are places on Earth where you could lower the natural background radiation by shielding with DU. And arguably shielding against more dangerous forms of radiation. This isn't relevant to the munitions issues, since that is additional radiation and not shielding, but it's interesting to note.
 
quarky said:
It would be nice to think there was an alternative to blasting people with all sorts of heavy metals.
Click to expand...

You can't use a cucumber to open a can of spam. When you want to stop a modern armored tank, the options are limited.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
It's impractical to do but there are places on Earth where you could lower the natural background radiation by shielding with DU. And arguably shielding against more dangerous forms of radiation. This isn't relevant to the munitions issues, since that is additional radiation and not shielding, but it's interesting to note.
Click to expand...

From wikipedia in Uranium 238WP:

"
238U is also used as a radiation shield — its alpha radiation is easily stopped by the non-radioactive casing of the shielding and the uranium's high atomic weight and high number of electrons are highly effective in absorbing gamma rays and x-rays. It is not as effective as ordinary water for stopping fast neutrons. Both metallic depleted uranium and depleted uranium dioxide are used for radiation shielding. Uranium is about five times better as a gamma ray shield than lead, so a shield with the same effectiveness can be packed into a thinner layer.


DUCRETE, a concrete made with uranium dioxide aggregate instead of gravel, is being investigated as a material for dry cask storage systems to store radioactive waste."
 
ponderingturtle said:
Chemical weapons would get rid of heavy metals as well. Also napalm.
Click to expand...

well, technically they just get rid of all the soft bits inside the heavy metals, but yeah.

Actually, the English (IIRC) use HESH (High Explosive Squash Head)warheads in some of their tank killers. Instead of penetrater, it uses a high velocity round of soft metal. The idea is that when it impacts the side of a tank, for example, it transmits the force directly to the armor. This can cause spalling of the armor on the inside, so the broken off bits of armor and any other item inside the tank that isn't bolted down become high-velocity projectiles inside the vehicle (think Tank Crew Pong). Don't know the effectiveness fo these compared to penetrators, though, but considering they're not in primary use my guess is "not very".
 
Hellbound said:
well, technically they just get rid of all the soft bits inside the heavy metals, but yeah.

Actually, the English (IIRC) use HESH (High Explosive Squash Head)warheads in some of their tank killers. Instead of penetrater, it uses a high velocity round of soft metal. The idea is that when it impacts the side of a tank, for example, it transmits the force directly to the armor. This can cause spalling of the armor on the inside, so the broken off bits of armor and any other item inside the tank that isn't bolted down become high-velocity projectiles inside the vehicle (think Tank Crew Pong). Don't know the effectiveness fo these compared to penetrators, though, but considering they're not in primary use my guess is "not very".
Click to expand...

It's pretty old concept .. AFAIK it was actual just after the WW2. This lead to introduction of special layers similar of bulletproof fabric to the inner surfaces of some tanks. I guess it still might be effective to some amount though.
But at least west armor is of totally different construction these days - multilayer with ceramic elements. Such armor would is especially made against RPGs, but it will be rather effective against squash heads. As for armor piercing, DU is number one choice.
Actually some DU is told to be used in armor of some designs, because concentrated mass of DU is best to be stopped by concentrated mass of DU.
Many current AT missiles are guided above the tank and made explode feet from the top hatches .. there is shaped charge directed right bellow. That is pretty effective against current tanks, and available also for smaller vehicles, and it can be even made small enough to be carried by foot soldier. But I guess newer tanks will somehow react on this too. Hot thing in defense is for example active defense. Tank automatically fires small 'grenades' against incoming missiles, knocking them out of the way, or destroying them completely. This too is much harder to apply against DU penetrator.
 
Dr.Sid said:
It's pretty old concept .. AFAIK it was actual just after the WW2. This lead to introduction of special layers similar of bulletproof fabric to the inner surfaces of some tanks. I guess it still might be effective to some amount though.
But at least west armor is of totally different construction these days - multilayer with ceramic elements. Such armor would is especially made against RPGs, but it will be rather effective against squash heads. As for armor piercing, DU is number one choice.
Actually some DU is told to be used in armor of some designs, because concentrated mass of DU is best to be stopped by concentrated mass of DU.
Many current AT missiles are guided above the tank and made explode feet from the top hatches .. there is shaped charge directed right bellow. That is pretty effective against current tanks, and available also for smaller vehicles, and it can be even made small enough to be carried by foot soldier. But I guess newer tanks will somehow react on this too. Hot thing in defense is for example active defense. Tank automatically fires small 'grenades' against incoming missiles, knocking them out of the way, or destroying them completely. This too is much harder to apply against DU penetrator.
Click to expand...

Yes, Pop-up targetting and reactive armors :). The reactive armor isn't so much to shoot down missles, but it goes off when a HEAT round hits, and the explosion disrupts the plasma jet formed by the round (the plasma jet gives HEAT it's penetration). Wouldn't be as effective against an APFSDSDU*.

*-Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium
 
Hellbound said:
well, technically they just get rid of all the soft bits inside the heavy metals, but yeah.

Actually, the English (IIRC) use HESH (High Explosive Squash Head)warheads in some of their tank killers. Instead of penetrater, it uses a high velocity round of soft metal. The idea is that when it impacts the side of a tank, for example, it transmits the force directly to the armor. This can cause spalling of the armor on the inside, so the broken off bits of armor and any other item inside the tank that isn't bolted down become high-velocity projectiles inside the vehicle (think Tank Crew Pong). Don't know the effectiveness fo these compared to penetrators, though, but considering they're not in primary use my guess is "not very".
Click to expand...
In the US it's called HEP, High Explosive, Plastic.
The performance of HEP/HESH is severely reduced if the target's armour includes an anti-spall layer or liner which stops the fragments before they can injure the crew or ignite ammunition. Until this was common (mid '60s) HESH was a very viable contender in the AP weapons field; the introduction of laminate armour, which tends to stop the shockwave, finally eliminated it as a MBT killer, even before reactive armour.

The round has a number of advantages:

  • it doesn't need the high velocities of saboted KE rounds, thus allowing a lighter weapon and making it a viable choice for missiles and similar
  • it was a better general purpose round; greater HE filler and less directionality
  • it was a far better anti-fortification 'bunker buster' than KE, straight HE or HEAT (shaped/hollow charge) rounds
  • it was more compatible with rifled cannon, one of the reasons it lasted in British service, than saboted or shaped charge types
Vehicles mounting rifled cannon (Scorpion, 105mm Leopard variants) still use the round and it may see a comeback if FIBUA remains the norm for future conflicts it's also used by engineers, e.g. the 165mm demolition gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom