| Revision as of 19:32, 12 April 2016 editVQuakr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers39,484 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 12← 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 | ||
| (87 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{Calm}} | {{Calm}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Military history|class=B | {{WikiProject Military history|class=B | ||
| <!-- B-Class checklist --> | <!-- B-Class checklist --> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
| <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | ||
| |B-Class-5= yes | |B-Class-5= yes | ||
| |Weaponry=yes | |Weaponry=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Chemistry |
{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Environment|importance=High|sustainability=y}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | {{Controversial-issues}} | ||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| *] (Jan–May 2006) | |||
| *] (May–Jun 2006) | |||
| *] (Jun–Sep 2006) | |||
| *] (Sep–Apr 2007) | |||
| *] (Apr–Dec 2007) | |||
| *] (2008—) | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 13 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ |
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
| == Sanity check == | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| There is loads of talk here about uranium causing radiation related effects. | |||
| For a quick sanity check ] has a half life of 4.5 billion years - this is so long that the radioactivity is minute, certainly being exposed to U238 dust is radiologically irrelevant . | |||
| It is a heavy metal and that causes chemical issues but anyone claiming radiological issues with U238 is either ill informed or a scaremonger. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| If you're talking about depleted uranium, you have yet to explain the fact that all kinds of birth defects and cancer swept through Falluja after depleted uranium bombs fell there. Coincidence? I think no <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:14, 1 February 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :: Mtpaley, you say "certainly being exposed to U238 dust is radiologically irrelevant ". Ok, you're on. Let's see the math. It would be a good addition to the article. ] (]) 09:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's try this analysis on for size. Herein I use e notation: 3e-2 is the scientific 3x10<sup>-2</sup>, or 0.03. | |||
| :::Typical fallout dust particles (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html) range a factor of ten on each side of a micron in size. Uranium metal density is about 20 gm/cm^3, so the average mass of a 100% uranium particle is 20 / (e-6)^3 = 2e-17 grams. 238 grams of U-238 contains 6.02e23 uranium atoms (Avogadro's law). So a typical fallout particle contains about 5 million uranium atoms, assuming the particle is 100% uranium, plus or minus a factor of 10. | |||
| :::Now, the half-life of U-238 is, as stated, about the age of the Earth, about 4.5e9 years. Roughly stated then, it takes about 4.5e9/5e6, or about a thousand years on average for a single uranium atom in that particle to decay, throwing off an alpha particle and an atom of Th-234. It is well known that thermal alpha particles (typical of decay alphas) pose little threat to humans externally; they are absorbed by dead exterior skin cells with zero detrimental effect. Internally, they may impinge on live cells, and in sufficient concentration, "burn" close cells. One alpha per 1000 years means that over an average human lifetime, uranium particles, unless present in truly huge numbers, are inert. | |||
| :::Why do people worry about fallout, then? Because it holds many substances which have much shorter half-lives than U-238. Iodine-131, for example, with a half-life of 8 days. In DU penetrators, uranium-238 is the only radioactive material present. This is a totally new concept for many anti-nuke people, that the isotopes to worry over are those with the short half-lives, not those with the long ones. Well water in Finland, for comparison, shows 220 becquerels of radioactivity per liter from dissolved radon, and is considered safe (a becquerel is one decay event per second; the hypothetical U-238 particle gives off 3e-11 Bq). | |||
| :::I disagree that this analysis should be in the article - for one, it is original research (I've not seen this calculation anywhere else), which in wikipedia is forbidden. Second, it is very rough and there are lots of simplifying assumptions - the +/- 10x multiplier, for one, "cubic" particles, and what happens with the left-over thorium, for others. So I will leave it right here. Anyone is welcome to use it elsewhere with my full permission. ] (]) 04:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The conclusions of mtpaley are consistent with by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland. ] (]) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oy, where to start. Good thing we don't do original research; this is a mess! First off, a 1e-6 m cube (1 micron cube) of U-238 would weigh 2e7 g/m^3 * (1e-6 m)^3 = 2e-11 g. You were off by six orders of magnitude due to your units error. Assuming the nonconservative activity in a 1 micron cube when dust likely to be retained in the lung (not, of course, fallout) tops out at 10 microns introduces another 3 orders of magnitude error. For a range of 1-10 micron cubes, we have 5e10 to 5e13 atoms, not 5e6 (you made a 2 order of magnitude calculation error in this step somehow, but it partially cancelled out your earlier errors). For the activity level you want to use mean lifetime; not half life. The mean lifetime of 238U is 2e17 seconds, so that is 4e6 to 4e3 seconds (1-1000 hours) per disintegration per particle. A person exposed to a uranium fire could inhale many thousands of the particles. | |||
| ::::Subsequent decay of 234Th and 234Pa daughter and granddaughter products happens instantaneously relative to the 238U half life, so the activity of the Uranium is effectively tripled to by the beta emitters. Summing up, the resulting activity is on the order of 0.01-10 Bq (a third of which will be the more damaging alphas). Hardly Chernobyl, but not the "one disintegration per 1000 years" you came up with either. Our article is accurate in reporting that the radiological hazard is negligible compared with the heavy-metal toxicity. ] (]) 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 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) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| 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) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:13|one external link|13 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| :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) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130910034418/http://www.who.int:80/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ | |||
| :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) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130616203550/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7791/7791.html to http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7791/7791.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326135205/http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/env-crime-icc-printer.pdf to http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/env-crime-icc-printer.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150719230946/http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVA2 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110904082730/http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov:80/cercla/07list.html to http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/07list.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207021914/http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/miller_NATO_2005.pdf to http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/miller_NATO_2005.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928073005/http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm to http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714231247/http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/mcclain_NATO_2005.pdf to http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/mcclain_NATO_2005.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207021927/http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/pellmar.pdf to http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/pellmar.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120013734/http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml to http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150719231030/http://www.defence.gov.au/DPE/DHS/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_sept02/ADFHealth_3_2_50-57.pdf to http://www.defence.gov.au/DPE/DHS/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_sept02/ADFHealth_3_2_50-57.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204035816/http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf to http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120321184057/http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2759.pdf to http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2759.pdf | |||
| == Radiological weapon? == | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| :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 == | |||
| Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 01:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Erroneous unreferenced sentence == | |||
| == Density of depleted uranium == | |||
| @ In Intro: "It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235; or 1 part per million every 6446 and 1010 years, respectively)." The strength of radioactivity of a radioactive substance is in no way related to its radioactive half-life. I do not know what point the writer was shooting at here, but it's a clean miss. ] (]) 05:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply|Marbux}} half-life and decay energy are indeed related for alpha emitters; see the ]. I agree a source should be added, though. ] (]) 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The article currently says: | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :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. | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| This section should be modified to make that clear. ] (]) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120013734/http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml to http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204035816/http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf to http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf | |||
| :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) | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| ::I made this change. ] (]) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ==Calorimeters== | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| 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 /> | |||
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. |
|
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | 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 | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
|
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).
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- B-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- B-Class Chemistry articles
- Low-importance Chemistry articles
- WikiProject Chemistry articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Sustainability task force articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics