Talk:Depleted uranium: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:55, 18 September 2003 editFinlay McWalter (talk \| contribs)Administrators75,981 edits justification of UK DU claim← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:19, 5 December 2024 edit undoTypoBoy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,290 edits →Density of depleted uranium: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	concern about chemical toxicity of depleted uranium munitions: is this about the remains of used munition or also about handling munition? - ] 08:05 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
			{{talkheader}}
			{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=B
			<!-- B-Class checklist -->
			<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
			\|B-Class-1= yes
			<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
			\|B-Class-2= yes
			<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
			\|B-Class-3= yes
			<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
			\|B-Class-4= yes
			<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
			\|B-Class-5= yes
			\|Weaponry=yes
			}}
			{{WikiProject Chemistry\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=High\|sustainability=y}}
			}}
			{{Controversial-issues}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 13
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=90}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki>
			}}

			== Yacht keels ==
	----

			At least one of the French ]s that were built as ] challengers used a DU keel, possibly ]. I'm looking for references, any help appreciated. ] (]) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
	''Recent studies of scientific bodies outside the USA and the UK''

			From memory it was one of the yachts financed by ], which means in 1970, 1974, 1977 or 1980, so it wasn't France 3 which was a 1983 effort. ] (]) 17:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
	Which studies? Where can one find them?
			:I'm now less confident that it wasn't ]. There was involvement by a ] or ] involved in that one too. ] (]) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
			:There was a Sydney headline "A Baron of beef" at the time but I can't find it in Trove. ] (]) 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

			== Radiological weapon? ==
	''Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body as bigger doses may be. While bigger doses kill cells, smaller doses only damage them. While dead cells are replaced by the body, these damaged cells are a possible source of cancer.''

			Can be the DU ammo be categorized as a radiological weapon? Though not used as an area-denial material, the DU has the secondary effect of contaminating the targets it hit (tanks, armoured vehicles, bunkers, etc.). The US vehicles struck by friendly DU rounds in both the Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq had to be "washed" as they represented some radiological hazard.----] (]) 00:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
	As far as I know, that is nonsense. What kind of study said that? The more radiation you get (the integral), the worse it is. It is false that "big doses kill cells" while "smaller doses only damage them", both big and small doses kill and damage a certain amount of cells, but of course big do more of both, killing (some cellules) and damaging (many others).
			:That doesn't make it a radiological weapon, which are nuclear weapons or ] used for area denial, . ] (]) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
			:: Well, as DU creates vast contamination areas on battlefields, there is no way to deny that this aspect actually does exist. However, this is not an effect intended by the military. At least they claim not to intend such effects. Nevertheless it might be seen as a criminal act to cause such contamination as an unintended, but predictable and well known effect of DU use. So this is a rather tricky issue. ] (]) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

			== incorporated DU will directly harm body cell DNA ==
	I suggest this be removed, and the source for any other claims be verified. -- ] May 27 10:14 UTC 2003

			There should be at least some explanation in the text concerning DU dusts entering body cells when inhaled. This causes radioactive radiation to be created directly in body cells, obviously causing direct harm to cellular DNA, thus probably causing cancer and various birth defects. So far, there is no such aspect mentioned in the article... ?! ] (]) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
	:This isn't nonsense, it's the basis for chemotherapy. That's why radiation is used to treat cancer - or maybe it's not used anymore, I'm not up on this. Strong doses of radiation will kill weak (e.g. cancerous) cells and leave healthy cells still alive, hopefully. I don't find this passage that ridiculous. ]

			== Density of depleted uranium ==
	::I think you mean 'radiotherapy', not 'chemotherapy'. A higher <i>intensity</i> of (normally local) radiation can be better than low intensity, and of course different kinds of radiation affect in different ways, but in the article it is said <i>dose</i>, which is just the total amount integrated. And for the same kind of radiation, the higher the dose the worse it is (you may still want a high dose to treat a cancer, but that's a very particular case, it's because it is more effective against cancer, not better for the rest of the body). By the way, I didn't say it was ridiculous! Change "nonsense" for "wrong" if you prefer a less loaded word, that's what I should have said anyway. - ] May 28 08:37 UTC 2003

			The article currently says:
			:Depleted uranium is notable for the extremely high density of its metallic form: at 19.1 grams per cubic centimetre (0.69 lb/cu in), DU is 68.4% denser than lead.

			This is misleading; depleted uranium has the same density as natural ]. It's just that its lower radioactivity makes it useful in applications where the radioactivity of natural uranium would be a problem.
	Article about the damage by radiation: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/lis/14534/1.html
	And something in English as well: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/19/12220 .
	The German article above seems to refer to the English article mentioned right after it. As far as I know, that is pretty good proof, especially when remembering my VERY conditional style when adding these things to the article, so suit yourself.

			This section should be modified to make that clear. ] (]) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

			:Technically, depleted uranium is marginally denser than natural uranium, since U-238 has a higher atomic mass than U-235. ;-) But the difference is less than 0.1%, so I would also support a rewording for clarity. One could also mention that DU is not the densest material - gold and most other precious metals are denser, osmium by almost 20%. ] (]) 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
	--]
			::I made this change. ] (]) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


			==Calorimeters==
	http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14636/1.html German article about possible harm about DU ammunition,
			I've read a significant amount about these calorimeters, the closest I have come to finding that radioactivity is a desirable property is a mention of using it to calibrate the calorimeter. I think we need something far more solid to show that it is a desirable feature, as I see no mention of it vs. Pb, the benefits I saw mentioned are pragmatic relating to the properties of the resulting instruments in detecting scintillations. Of course what I have read has only scratched the surface, so the text may well be correct. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
	http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/puma/radio/Uran_Munition.html#_3.4_Uranverbindungen about DU aerosols,
	http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12222/1.html refers to a UN study about DU ammunition. --]

	:Uhm, I didn't mean any personal attack or anything, sorry if it looked like that. Thanks for adding the links, I think that the article has improved much with them. About the effects of radiation, please see my reply to Graft a few lines above. And just in case you were wondering, I am as much against the use of DU as one can be. - ] May 28 08:37 UTC 2003

	----

	Guess now I have the facts I need to supply for my claims added into the link section. --]

	----

	Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --]

	----

	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"). --] 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
	: Edited to add this information (while not removing the other information). --] 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... ] 22:55 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

	:: Oops sorry I hadn't seen the second page. OK. Fair enough. ] 22:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


	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 ]''. 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. -- ] 22:55, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:19, 5 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Depleted uranium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Sustainability High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Yacht keels

At least one of the French 12 metre yachts that were built as America's Cup challengers used a DU keel, possibly France 3. I'm looking for references, any help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

From memory it was one of the yachts financed by Marcel Bich, which means in 1970, 1974, 1977 or 1980, so it wasn't France 3 which was a 1983 effort. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm now less confident that it wasn't France 3. There was involvement by a Baron Bic or Baron Bich involved in that one too. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a Sydney headline "A Baron of beef" at the time but I can't find it in Trove. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Radiological weapon?

Can be the DU ammo be categorized as a radiological weapon? Though not used as an area-denial material, the DU has the secondary effect of contaminating the targets it hit (tanks, armoured vehicles, bunkers, etc.). The US vehicles struck by friendly DU rounds in both the Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq had to be "washed" as they represented some radiological hazard.----Darius (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a radiological weapon, which are nuclear weapons or dirty bombs used for area denial, . VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, as DU creates vast contamination areas on battlefields, there is no way to deny that this aspect actually does exist. However, this is not an effect intended by the military. At least they claim not to intend such effects. Nevertheless it might be seen as a criminal act to cause such contamination as an unintended, but predictable and well known effect of DU use. So this is a rather tricky issue. 88.67.87.171 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

incorporated DU will directly harm body cell DNA

There should be at least some explanation in the text concerning DU dusts entering body cells when inhaled. This causes radioactive radiation to be created directly in body cells, obviously causing direct harm to cellular DNA, thus probably causing cancer and various birth defects. So far, there is no such aspect mentioned in the article... ?! 88.67.87.171 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Density of depleted uranium

The article currently says:

Depleted uranium is notable for the extremely high density of its metallic form: at 19.1 grams per cubic centimetre (0.69 lb/cu in), DU is 68.4% denser than lead.

This is misleading; depleted uranium has the same density as natural uranium. It's just that its lower radioactivity makes it useful in applications where the radioactivity of natural uranium would be a problem.

This section should be modified to make that clear. TypoBoy (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, depleted uranium is marginally denser than natural uranium, since U-238 has a higher atomic mass than U-235. ;-) But the difference is less than 0.1%, so I would also support a rewording for clarity. One could also mention that DU is not the densest material - gold and most other precious metals are denser, osmium by almost 20%. Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I made this change. TypoBoy (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Calorimeters

I've read a significant amount about these calorimeters, the closest I have come to finding that radioactivity is a desirable property is a mention of using it to calibrate the calorimeter. I think we need something far more solid to show that it is a desirable feature, as I see no mention of it vs. Pb, the benefits I saw mentioned are pragmatic relating to the properties of the resulting instruments in detecting scintillations. Of course what I have read has only scratched the surface, so the text may well be correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

Categories: