| Revision as of 22:13, 5 September 2017 editVQuakr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers39,484 edits →Edit on shaped charge warheads and uranium: ct← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:19, 5 December 2024 edit undoTypoBoy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,288 edits →Density of depleted uranium: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 21 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 = 13 | |counter = 13 | ||
| Line 43: | Line 29: | ||
| |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> | |||
| == Edit on the contamination of uranium with other isotopes == | |||
| }} | |||
| Here are the edits I want to integrate in the page re. contamination of uranium with other isotopes : | |||
| Natural uranium contains about 0.72% U-235, while the DU used by the ] contains 0.3% U-235 or less, according to the US Mod, but this is debated<ref>{{cite news|last1=Koeppel|first1=Barbara|title=More Evidence Suggests Radiation Caused Illness in U.S. War Zones|url=https://washingtonspectator.org/radiation-war-zones-koeppel/|accessdate=21 March 2017|publisher=Washington Spectator}}</ref>. In urine tests of civilian populations in Afghanistan, for which the mean concentration of uranium was found to be considerably greater than what is regarded as a reference range, the U234/U238 ratios were consistant with natural uranium (not depleted)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Durakovic|first1=Asaf|title=The quantitative analysis of uranium isotopes in the urine of the civilian population of eastern Afghanistan after Operation Enduring Freedom|journal=Military Medicine|date=2005|pmid=15916293|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15916293|accessdate=21 March 2017}}</ref> | |||
| Asaf Durakovic found several occurences of uranium 236 contamination in veterans<ref>{{cite news|last1=Simons|first1=Marlise|title=Doctor's Gulf War Studies Link Cancer to Depleted Uranium|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/world/doctor-s-gulf-war-studies-link-cancer-to-depleted-uranium.html|publisher=New York Times}}</ref>. | |||
| DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium, according to the US army<ref name="USOSD"> U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense</ref>. The radioactivity near tanks destroyed by these weapons, however, can reach at least up to 1000 times the average background radiation<ref>{{cite web|title=High levels of radioactive pollution seen in the south|url=http://www.irinnews.org/fr/node/193357|website=IRIN|accessdate=21 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html|publisher=Christian Science Monitor}}</ref>. Trace ]s (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armor<ref name="USOSD"/> as well as in weapons<ref>{{cite news|title=Iraq, Depleted Uranium Contaminated with Deadly Plutonium|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2001/1/17/iraq_depleted_uranium_contaminated_with_deadly|publisher=Democracy Now}}</ref>. | |||
| One formulation has a composition of 99.25% by mass of depleted uranium and 0.75% by mass of ], but there is a debate regarding the isotopic composition or the uranium that is used because of the findings of non depleted uranium in battlefields<ref>{{cite news|last1=Koeppel|first1=Barbara|title=More Evidence Suggests Radiation Caused Illness in U.S. War Zones|url=https://washingtonspectator.org/radiation-war-zones-koeppel/|accessdate=21 March 2017|publisher=Washington Spectator}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Durakovic|first1=Asaf|title=The quantitative analysis of uranium isotopes in the urine of the civilian population of eastern Afghanistan after Operation Enduring Freedom|journal=Military Medicine|date=2005|pmid=15916293|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15916293|accessdate=21 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/unep81.doc.htm|title=UN Press Release UNEP/81: Uranium 236 found in depleted uranium penetrators|publisher=UN|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simons|first1=Marlise|title=Doctor's Gulf War Studies Link Cancer to Depleted Uranium|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/world/doctor-s-gulf-war-studies-link-cancer-to-depleted-uranium.html|publisher=New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Iraq, Depleted Uranium Contaminated with Deadly Plutonium|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2001/1/17/iraq_depleted_uranium_contaminated_with_deadly|publisher=Democracy Now}}</ref> | |||
| Please tell me where does that violate ANY Misplaced Pages policy. I have been undoed by ]. Thanks. ] (]) 22:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| == Edit on shaped charge warheads and uranium == | |||
| Here are the changes I want to bring on the "Ammunition" section re. shaped charges and uranium : | |||
| It is known since the years 70s that uranium can be used as a liner in shaped charge warheads<ref>{{cite book|title=Trends in the use of depleted uranium|date=1971|publisher=National Academy of Science|pages=38|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=qJArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=shaped+charge+liner+uranium&source=bl&ots=y1QG-EIyHf&sig=GE4XeIc25mhKH6mv2bR-6ycn6S8&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilnvnGvejSAhXLhRoKHeR2CSEQ6AEIczAQ#v=onepage&q=shaped%20charge%20liner%20uranium&f=false}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Building characteristics into a shaped charge to achieve unique performance requirements|journal=International Journal of Impact Engineering|date=1995|volume=17|issue=1-3|pages=121-130|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0734743X9599841E|accessdate=21 March 2017}}</ref>. Many shaped charge warheads patents include uranium as a liner. The "K-charge" patent EP 1164348 A2 notes that "other metals that have been disclosed as useful for shaped charge liners include depleted uranium and their alloys<ref>{{cite web|title=K charge patent|url=https://www.google.com/patents/EP1164348A2?cl=en&hl=fr|website=Google patents}}</ref>". Another seems to acknowledge that it is better, for incendiary (reactive) purposes, to use non-depleted uranium as it differenciates "depleted uranium" used for kinetic purposes and "uranium" used for incendiary purposes. | |||
| Please tell me where does that violate any Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks. ] (]) 22:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Claiming that a specific warhead must contain uranium because a patent application says uranium ''could'' be used violates common sense, ], and ]. Claiming natural uranium is more flammable/pyrophoric than DU based on a patent application indicates a pretty remarkable lack of knowledge of chemistry, and of course also violates the same content policies. ] (]) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does not says that uranium IS used in liners, it only says it COULD. It was thoroughly studied ( see for instance here http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2007/ARL-SR-150.pdf on page 86). Jane's also reported once that uranium is used in "some guided weapons" which could include shaped charge warheads. https://web.archive.org/web/20011108102307/http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw010108_1_n.shtml | |||
| ::Regarding the effects of radioactivity on inflammability (the latent heat of the radioactivity acting as the activation energy), two chemists (one in a metallurgy lab, and one "agrégé" (French high exam for professors)) have told me that I am right, so I thought that simply making mention of the patent without explaining could be meaningful, but I acknowledge this contradicts WP:SYNTH.] (]) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "which could" | |||
| ::: ] (]) 23:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If you read the uranium liner shaped charge patent for drilling wells https://www.google.ch/patents/US4441428, you'll see that "tests show that the penetration of such a Uranium jet is about 87 centimeters, a factor of 3.5 greater than expected and a factor of 5 times that measured for the copper jet and for an iron jet 5.4 times greater." In this regard claims that the main metal used in shaped charges is copper is highly dubious. ] (]) 20:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Re these weapons I actually claim, based on personal work and on a testimony, they use nano levels of nuclear fission. U236 all around Iraq and Afghanistan (UMRC work), the micro flashs you see when these weapons explode (bunker busters, anti tank missiles, cruise missiles etc), tritium I have found in high volumes near Canjuers military camp in southern France and beryllium consistently used in uranium weapons (see Observatoire des Armements report, October 2001 "La production des armes à uranium appauvri") do confirm that. A former tank driver from the French army confirmed all that. Won't insert it in the encyclopedia because personal research.--] (]) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is conspiracy theory garbage. Take it somewhere other than Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| == Edit on the biological effects of uranium weapons == | |||
| Since the Ammunition section of the article mentions the dangerousness of alternatives to uranium, I found it meaningful to integrate as well information on the dangerousness of uranium itself. Here is what I propose to add : | |||
| The carcinogenic effect of uranium weapons comes from the alpha particles that induce tumors when inhalated or ingested in the body, because of the high ] of alpha particles (up to 20 times the RBE of gamma rays : for the same amount of energy, alpha particles will create up to 20 times more damage than gamma rays) - a 2,5 microns pellet in the body, with a RBE of 10, will deliver 1,7 Sievert per year to the body<ref>{{cite web|last1=Facts and Figures|url=http://www.umri.link/research/scientific-facts-figures/|website=Uranium Medical Research Institute|accessdate=21 March 2017}}</ref>, that is a level of severe radiation poisoning, sometimes fatal. | |||
| ] | |||
| WHO statistics available for 2004 (downloadable ) show that Iraq has the highest levels of leukemias and lymphomas in the world. Afghanistan is almost second. Both countries were heavily bombed before (Iraq was bombed in 1991 and 2003-2004, Afghanistan in 2001-2002). Leukemias and lymphomas are both blood cancers which are suspected to be related with uranium contamination. Uranium is sprayed as a fine powder by these weapons at impact or explosion. The clouds of oxidised dust are able to travel and represent a danger when ingested or inhalated. Uranium is able to travel in the body - for instance from the nose to the brain of the rat, in a . | |||
| ** | |||
| The chart comes from XKCD but this XKCD carefully provided all of its sources on the chart ! | |||
| == Yacht keels == | |||
| So please tell me again where do I violate any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :The UMRI source is incorrect by about 9 orders of magnitude, unsurprising since it fails ]. ] is a great webcomic, but is unusuable as a source for anything except itself. Claiming a causal relationship between DU weapons use and cancer mortality rates based on generic WHO disease rates violates ]. ] (]) 22:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have another source of calculation which provides very similar results (60 milliSieverts per year for a 1 micron particle, 7,5 Sieverts per year for a 5 microns particle : http://bienprofond.free.fr/hiroshi/2005/IrradiationUA.htm (in French)). These calculations (in the article in French) were made by Maurice Eugène André, who was NBCR protection instructing officer for NATO. The XKCD chart, as I said, mentions its sources but if you want here is a page by the insurer Allianz which says exactly the same https://www.allianz.com/en/about_us/open-knowledge/topics/environment/articles/110407-radiation-how-much-is-harmful.html/#!m07960b8c-086f-4934-829d-1ed6bff167ab | |||
| ::To me the causal relationship between use of uranium weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan and the high rate of leukemias / lymphomas is simply common sense. It confirms everything that has been noted - the actual article says "Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential. A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."" ] (]) 22:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, at least that site shows their work. When a dose/fatality chart talks about exposure, they are talking about whole body instantaneous dose not exposure of a 50 μm sphere around a particle over the course of a year. The French-language source still fails ], anyways. ] (]) 03:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yet 7,5 Sieverts over the course of a year for a 5 microns particle is well above all accepted yearly levels of exposure, even for nuclear industry workers. The actual work of Maurice Eugène André, who made the calculations in the French language link, was to command NATO missiles while based in the Black Forest, so he also had to calculate where the fallout of a nuclear attack would come, in order to protect civilians and soldiers. (as you know fallout contains high levels of plutonium which works like uranium in the body since it also emits alpha particles, a lot more than uranium 238 - btw here is an example taken with the body of a monkey http://nonuclear.se/images/deltredici.d5.particl.of.pu650px.jpg "Hot" or radioactive particle in lung tissue", photo by Del Tredici, Burdens of Proof by Tim Connor, Energy Research Foundation, 1997) ] (]) 20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| :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? == | |||
| == Edit on missiles and bombs and uranium == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| :That doesn't make it a radiological weapon, which are nuclear weapons or ] used for area denial, . ] (]) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I would like also to suggest an edit including the following elements : | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| - It has been demonstrated that the Baghdad Al Amariyah bunker destroyed in 1991 by two GBU 27s (killing more than 400 civilians that had taken shelter there, in a fire) was still radioactive in 2002 (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsX41A8JiBw&feature=youtu.be&t=8m47s video] from movie Irak, d'une guerre à l'autre, on ). | |||
| - There are reports that uranium is being used as a counter-ballast in missiles - for instance, this on the Balkans, in the annex. The "Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness" training video for the US military that Doug Rokke had to make also included the mention of the use of uranium in missile ballasts (see ). | |||
| - The BBC also reported that GBU bunker buster are believed to contain depleted uranium (see ). | |||
| == incorporated DU will directly harm body cell DNA == | |||
| To me the detection of peaks of uranium in Aldermaston air filters (see https://pyrophor.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/aldermaston.png?w=768), that rise when battles are waged in Afghanistan / Iraq, also is a good demonstration of the use of uranium in missiles and bombs : take the Anaconda Op in Afghanistan, tanks weren't involved so no possibility that the uranium detected in the filters comes from APFSDS shells, and it is very unlikely that dust from 30 mm straffing rounds would be able to rise at several kilometers of altitude and travel across the world. Compare with clouds of dust from missiles / GBU bombs. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Best regards,--] (]) 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's the film with ] as a talking head, right? Seems about par for your usual credulous standards on sourcing. Your clip begins by someone using a hand-held counter / dosimeter to measure alpha radiation. If you ever meet a real health physicist, ask them to explain why that's nonsense. | |||
| :: Also you seem confused over the first interim GBU-27s used in the Gulf (a seeker head on a recycled 8" steel gun tube), compared to the production versions with the DU penetrator. ] (]) 20:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 1) Please I need the source regarding GBU with DU penetrator, could you provide it if you have ? Thanks Andy ! | |||
| ::: 2) Geiger counters have been very frequently used to monitor uranium contamination because of the 49 KeV gamma rays of 238U. The CRIIRAD for instance recommends their use for that purpose even though there are differences whether you select HP0.07 or HP10. ] (]) 14:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Gamma from DU? Please, if you're trying to find "the hot spot in the room" from a small piece of hot material, then you might use a gamma counter based on a windowless or shielded G-M tube. But for a site survey of a site that's not heavily contaminated (and this is far from a heavily contaminated site, whoever you ask), then waving such a counter around at waist height isn't the way to go about it. It's a Kim & Aggie job, vacuuming up dust and bagging it. ] (]) 15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well of course alpha spectrometry is better but much costlier. CRIIRAD, though, recommends some Geigers for DU detection (there is also the beta minus of daughter products 234Th and 234Pa that can be detected by these Geigers), at least for a general survey of the contamination landscape. Would you please send me the source regarding DU penetrators in production versions of GBU 27 ? Thanks !!! ] (]) 16:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Density of depleted uranium == | |||
| It would also make a lot of sense to include the , for WDU clearly is an acronym for Warhead Depleted Uranium (Parsch reports it is "explosive", not "dummy" as mistated elsewhere). ] (]) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Please provide a reliable source that explicitly states that all warheads with a WDU designator contain depleted uranium. That is an ] claim. ] (]) 19:28, 11 May 2017 (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 modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://archive.is/20130113114319/http://www.wise-uranium.org/dhap991.html to http://www.wise-uranium.org/dhap991.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104145155/http://www.euradcom.org/publications/ecrruraniumrept.pdf to http://www.euradcom.org/publications/ecrruraniumrept.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123082540/http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp to http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614010814/http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm to http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm | |||
| *Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140108135436/http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf to http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320193122/http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p213.pdf to http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p213.pdf | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml | |||
| :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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| ::I made this change. ] (]) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| ==Calorimeters== | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:33, 26 July 2017 (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