Talk:Depleted uranium: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:21, 10 January 2005 editFT2 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits →According to the UN ← 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}}
	== Use ==
			{{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 ==
	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)

			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)
	I cannot find any reference to France exporting depleted uranium weapons and rather references to France not being too hot on these. I'll remove this paragraph until somebody finds a reference.

			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)
	France also export depleted uranium munitions, including some made to be used in the 100mm guns used on older Soviet T54 and T55 and Chinese Type 1959 and Type 1969 ]s, old Soviet SU100 ] destroyers, and old Soviet 100mm antitank guns (these old tanks and antitank guns are very common around the world, due mainly to Soviet military aid during the Cold War).] 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
			: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)

	== ~~Toxicity~~ ==		== 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.----] (]) 00:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
	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)
			: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 ==
	== Estimating harm of small amounts of radiation ==

			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)
	''Recent studies of scientific bodies outside the USA and the UK''

			== Density of depleted uranium ==
	Which studies? Where can one find them?

			The article currently says:
	''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.''
			: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.
	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).

			This section should be modified to make that clear. ] (]) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	I suggest this be removed, and the source for any other claims be verified. -- ] May 27 10:14 UTC 2003

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

	::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

			==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: ''] ]''<small> 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
	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.


	--]


	http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14636/1.html German article about possible harm about DU ammunition,
	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

	I think the bullet point stating ''Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body than bigger doses may be'' should be '''removed.''' This assertion is extremely speculative, and it does seem like nonsense on the face of it. I skimmed the studies, none of which made any firm conclusions, and nowhere did I see this assertion made. The studies themselves dealt with the repair of individual chromosomes and did not make any claims on the effects of lower vs. higher doses of radiation on "the body" of a real creature, or even on an individual cell! The bullet point consists of speculation atop speculation, and damages the credibility of the rest of the article. ] 23:23, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


	----

	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 ;) --]

	*''Nonsense, what kind of study said that?'' You may want to look into ]. ] 17:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

	::Which studied a single effect in a single cell in isolation. In a total-system view, the linear dose/response curve holds true. ] 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

	== NPOV ? ==

	=== IAEA papers ===

	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)

	:: Link 3 above no longer works; the IAEA site apparently has been reorganized. --] 19:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

	=== Other reasons for critizism, use of Uranium in history, non-fissibility, etc. ===

	Moved this here because it's style is non-NPOV. Besides interesting information it contains blatant lies.

	''“Some of us believe that this issue is a red herring, and US military use of depleted uranium is condemned for exactly the same reasons as napalm, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel flechette munitions were decades ago: a not-inconsiderable number of European intellectuals hate America and will seize upon anything whatsoever that they can imagine a way to criticize in order to create a controversy where none existed before.”''

	:This is highly speculative. Also, wikipedia should not express "our" opinion.

	''“Note that uranium has long been known to be less toxic than lead; uranium compounds were used commonly in glazes for pottery in Europe for more than one hundred years (if you collect antique earthenware or pottery, you may have some in your collection--look for pottery with a deep red, orange, or burnt umber glaze, dating from before 1940), because it was known to be less toxic than lead. Uranium salts were also once added to decorative glassware to give the glass an iridescent gold or green appearance; this glassware is called Annagruen or Annagelb glass in Germany, or "vaseline glass" in the US.”''

	:Information about the toxiciy is welcome, though i think the historic use of uranium salts in glasses should fits better on the page about.

	''“To the extent that uranium demonstrates toxicity, it acts as a heavy metal toxin similar to lead or mercury, differing principally in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys first and begin causing damage there rather than in the central nervous system (and it is quite capable of killing you, just as mercury or lead is). Depleted uranium is not especially radioactive (it is what's left after the fissile isotopes are removed for use in nuclear power or nuclear weapons) and does not seem to present any significant radiological hazard. As a heavy metal toxin, tungsten is considerably more poisonous than uranium.”''

	:DU has about 40% the radioactivity natural Uranium. Nobody every claimed that there was a danger of nuclear fissions with DU.

	Misplaced Pages should not try to make one side look silly by showing false or silly arguments for that side. — ] 09:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

	== amount of U235 still present ==

	The artical states there is about 0.2% U235 left in the "depleted uranium". I have other sources that state 0.3% so how sure are we of this number.

	Natural uranium is about 0.71% U235 so this leaves us with 0.2/0.71 = 28% approximately. 0.3% U235 yeilds 42%

	The artical states 60% of the natural radioactivity is still present. Is this in fact the case?

	From http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/index.cfm, "Most of the Department of Energy's (DOE) depleted uranium inventory contains between 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent uranium-235". I don't have a source handy, but I recall that DU has about half the radioactivity of natural uranium. Most of the reduced radioactivity is from the removal of U-234. Even pure U-238 is radioactive, but my understanding is that the chemical toxicity is more important than its radioactivity. ] 05:20, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


	----------------

	Mods to section on ISOTOPES. This needs review!

	----------------

	Broken link to "Uranium Proliferation Nice Joke"

	== Clarification of the term "depleted" ==

	Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

	There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

	I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

	I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

	The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

	Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

	By half life we should get something like this:

	Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238:

	Isotope half life half life relative
	percentage radioactivity

	Pu239 24,300 0.00054 183,868
	Pu242 373,000 0.00835 11,979
	Pu244 80,800,000 1.80842 55
	U232 68.9 0.0000015 64,847,605
	U233 159,200 0.00356 28,065
	U234 245,500 0.00549 18,200
	U235 703,800,000 15.75201 6
	U236 23,420,000 0.52405 191
	U238 4,468,000,000 1.00000 1

	From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

	If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

	Eg
	pure 100.0% U238 = 1.000
	Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035 3.5% more
	Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015 1.5% more


	So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

	== Clarification of the term "depleted" ==

	Note: THis is a repeat of the former post which si all screwed up thanks to reflowing the text.

	Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

	There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

	I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

	I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

	The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

	Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

	By half life we should get something like this:

	Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238:
	<table>
	<tr><th> Isotope </th><th> half life </th><th> half life </th><th> relative </th></tr>
	<tr><th> </th><th> </th><th> percentage </th><th> radioactivity </th></tr>
	<tr><td> Pu239 </td><td> 24,300 </td><td> 0.00054 </td><td> 183,868 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> Pu242 </td><td> 373,000 </td><td> 0.00835 </td><td> 11,979 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> Pu244 </td><td> 80,800,000 </td><td> 1.80842 </td><td> 55 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U232 </td><td> 68.9 </td><td> 0.0000015 </td><td> 64,847,605 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U233 </td><td> 159,200 </td><td> 0.00356 </td><td> 28,065 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U234 </td><td> 245,500 </td><td> 0.00549 </td><td> 18,200 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U235 </td><td> 703,800,000 </td><td> 15.75201 </td><td> 6 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U236 </td><td> 23,420,000 </td><td> 0.52405 </td><td> 191 </td></tr>
	<tr><td> U238 </td><td> 4,468,000,000 </td><td> 1.00000 </td><td> 1 </td></tr>
	</table>
	From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

	If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

	Eg
	<p>
	pure 100.0% U238 = 1.000
	</p><p>
	Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035 3.5% more
	</p><p>
	Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015 1.5% more
	</p>

	So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

	I believe it depends on the refinement process used, although I have never heard of a separation process (in the West at any rate) that has contamination of 20%-60%. ] 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

	In this context, depleted means that all the U-235 which can be economically separated from the uranium has been, and thus the depleted uranium left is waste. The term was never intended to imply that there is no radioactivity left. Typically depleted uranium is about half as radioactive as natural uranium, because it is also depleted in U-234. ] 02:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

	==Major Re write Needed==

	After casually observing this article for a few weeks, I think I can safely say that it needs some serious revision work. All major peer reviewed studies performed on the health impacts of DU and their use in combat have all come back and said the same thing, there is no noticeable risk. This includes studies from lab settings, Kosovo, and Kuwait. After reading this article one would most certainly not get that impression.

	I will rewrite sometime within the next week, and put it up for comment.

	] 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

	: It seems that traces of U236 have been found in depleted uranium used by US forces in Yugoslavia (we'd need to find the source). U236 is formed by neutron capture by a U235 atom, which can only happen in nuclear reactors. It would thus seem that, at least for some time, the USA have used nuclear waste to build these ammunitions. Nuclear waste can also contain traces of Plutonium, which is extremelly toxic (chemically, that is). This alone qualifies depleted Uranium ammunition as a dangerous and harmful thing. ] 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	: I don't have the reference handy, but I recall that nuclear fuel used to be reprocessed in the US, and the extracted uranium re-enriched, leaving DU with traces of U236 and Plutonium. These traces do not add significantly to the radioactivity of DU. ] 21:02, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

	:: They probably do not, but traces of plutonium can be enough to chemically comtaminate rivers, for instance. The chemical nuisance of plutonium is such that it makes its radioactivity a joke danger in comparison... ] 21:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	==NPOV tag?==

	I have just removed the NPOV tag. It was put there a few days ago by
	an anonymous user without it being clear why on this page. Perhaps it was related to the section on Health concerns. Did the user feel it is too biased towards supporting the adverse health concerns camp or too biased against the opposite camp. Perhaps it is for some completely different reason. Who knows.

	I have therefore assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was just ]. Apologies in advance if it was genuinely meant, but if you put it back then <b>please</b> make the reason clear here. Then at least we will know what to discuss to address it. --] 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	== Deleted link ==
	I deleted the link
	* " courtesy of
	because it is blatant propaganda. Can anyone substantiate these pictures? ] 05:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

	: It was quite off topic anyway. What do you mean by "substantiate these pictures" ? ] 06:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	: The video implies that DU caused these babies to be grotesquely deformed, which I doubt. ] 08:06, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

	:: Scientifically, I would not rule this out, since Plutonium, besides being fissile and radio-active, is highly chemicaly toxic; quasi-undetectable traces could lead to this kind of effects, if they contaminate tap water and such (I will try to better document the issue of Plutonium traces in depleted Uranium originating from nuclear waste).
	:: However, as far as this very link is concerned, I think the deletion what quite adequate; this site harldy qualifies for scientifically serious, its layout is poor and real information is hidden in a sea of rants; shocking and sensational picture do no good to a rigourous appreciation of reality, and to finish, I must say I am not quite keen to lining to films. A serious text from the ICRC or the UN Nuclear Agency, for instance, would be better by orders of magnitude. ] 09:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
	----
	Perhaps it would be interesting to address most questions which can be asked. As far as I've observerd, most uninformed people (legitimately) associate Uranium with fission and radioactivity. They should be told that the most current isotope of Uranium is stable. Levels of radioactivity are indeed very low, certainly lower than what people would recieve form the natural background in the Swiss Alps or in Britany. The idea that the military make shells with these leads to the impression that there is a nuclear explostion of some kind (there is a pyrophroic explosion but it is purely chemical, of course).

	However, Uranium still is a heavy metal, and as such, while not being a chemically violent poison, still is not healthy (now, is going to war a healthy thing to so ? ...). And depleted Uranium is not 100% pure; if it comes from nuclear waste, it will contain traces of Plutonium, which ''is'' a chemical poison (though not the most deadly which one can find). Usually, press releases from the military adress the issue in terms which minimise the risks of the "heavy metal" nature (quite legitimately), but also make no mention whatsoever of the potentially toxic impureties in depleted Uranium (see for instance).

	However, it can be proved that some of the Uranium used for military ammunition comes from nuclear waste (notably the presence of U236 isotope makes it quite clear), and traces of Plutonium have indeed been found :
	*
	*

	To conclude I would say that:
	* Plutonium is probably not as toxic as often populary believed
	* When evaluating toxicity of Pu, cases of death or cancer are studied, but long-term genetical impacts are (obviously) not. These are often quite subtil and could lead to surprises. The highest effects seem to manifest themselves at the third generation.
	* The UN itself, will not frentic, still does sugest caution; quote (from one of the reports above) :
	::Regarding contamination points, if a child were to ingest small amounts of soil, the corresponding radiological risk would be insignificant, but from a biochemical point of view, the possible intake might be somewhat higher than the applicable health standard. "There are still considerable scientific uncertainties, especially related to the safety of groundwater", said Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of UNEP's Depleted Uranium Assessment Team. "Additional work has to be done to reduce these uncertainties and to monitor the quality of water."
	* Eventually, nature has a priority on theory. If we should find an unnaturally elevated rate of genetical problems in populations subject to contact with depleted Uranium ammunition, we'd have to reconsider the theory. (this sounds obvious, but reciting the basis can do no harm).

	Sorry for the lengthy rant and thanks for your patience ! ] 10:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)



	==According to the UN==

	FTD2, please provide the source from the UN, (I assume you mean the IAEA) that supports your latest addition. ] 20:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

	:Will do, out of town today, will do when I get back. If I forget nudge me on my talk page.

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: