| Revision as of 05:35, 8 April 2018 editJusdafax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,858 edits Add WikiProject Environment/sustainability template← 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 | ||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 18 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 |
{{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 44: | 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 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}} | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just modified 2 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://web.archive.org/web/20070514012751/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11309.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11309.asp | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100318003818/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml to http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Studies indicating negligible effects == | |||
| It is somewhat concerning that most of the quoted studies appear to be from sources that - to put this politely - have a direct interest in the outcome of their work. That is, the quoted entities are: | |||
| # A literature review by Rand Corporation | |||
| #An editorial paper (i.e. not a study) in the Archive of Oncology (this in turn states that " a considerable part of the research work presented here has been sponsored by local government authorities.") It also appears from the editorial that the entire edition of that publication was to discuss this concern - but unfortunatley the rest of the edition is not available at that link. | |||
| #A study "from the Australian defense ministry". | |||
| #The ] (no study, just a statement). | |||
| #A study by ], which in turn is "a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International" and "is one of three ] research and development laboratories". | |||
| Rand Corporation, the Australian Defence Ministry, and Sandia are all reliant on the largesse of governments that support the use of depleted uranium and thus non-neutral parties. The Archive of Oncology seems to be a more promising source, but the provided link is not to anything evidentiary. Similarly, the IAEA makes a statement rather than a study (and in some eyes may be considered less than entirely neutral). | |||
| To summarise, I suggest that either better sources are found or that appropriate caveats are added to this section of the article. The title does not reflect the current usefulness of the content, but I am sure that subject matter experts will be able to find some more reliable sources. Perhaps those used in the final sentence of the article's introduction might be a useful start - especially as they contradict the tone of this section. A brief survey also finds , though I am sure experts will have much more useful information to add. I realise that care must be taken in this area, as there are clearly many extremely interesting opinions 'out there'. | |||
| In relation to other parts of this article, experts may wish to refer to , advertising/advocating for uses of DUF<sub>6</sub>. | |||
| == Yacht keels == | |||
| Finally, in writing this comment I stumbled upon something about depleted uranium having been used in the past in dentistry. touches on its use, while provides some additional information on its history and advises against its use. Could someone who has some expertise in this area possibly add some dentistry to the history? (It is briefly mentioned in section 3.2 of the article, but if it has been discontinued then perhaps this should be moved - and I suggest expanded.) | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :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? == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| 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) | |||
| I have just modified 2 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: | |||
| :That doesn't make it a radiological weapon, which are nuclear weapons or ] used for area denial, . ] (]) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721043007/http://www.energysolutions.com/depleted-uranium/history/ to http://www.energysolutions.com/depleted-uranium/history/ | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190211/http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html to http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=298&ArticleID=3926&l=en | |||
| == incorporated DU will directly harm body cell DNA == | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| == Density of depleted uranium == | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:07, 2 December 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 2 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://web.archive.org/web/20160303190914/http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081.html to http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307051256/http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081e.html to http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081e.html | |||
| :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> 23:46, 11 January 2018 (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