| Revision as of 20:55, 29 July 2022 editAndrewa (talk | contribs)Administrators61,964 edits →Yacht keels: France 3?Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← 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 | ||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{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 15: | 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}} | ||
| Line 31: | Line 30: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} | {{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
| == Depleted Uranium Hand Grenades == | |||
| }} | |||
| This line: | |||
| "DU was used during the mid-1990s in the U.S. to make hand grenades, and land mines, but those applications have been discontinued, according to Alliant Techsystems." | |||
| Has no citation, and I can find little evidence for it online. The only references that I can find are a wikileaks reference: | |||
| https://wardiaries.wikileaks.org/id/F5D58A9C-6290-4F77-A390-763EFB496391/ | |||
| and another reference here: | |||
| https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_a_grenade_cont | |||
| Should these references by cited in the article, or should that line be removed? | |||
| ] (]) 00:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Both sources go back to Wikileaks, which is a single sentence without context let alone editorial review. I'd say remove it. ] (]) 06:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Intercept story and journal article == | |||
| "Some of the negative health effects of the American war in Iraq can be put down to U.S. forces’ frequent use of munitions containing depleted uranium." {{cite news |last1=Hussain |first1=Murtaza |title=Iraqi Children Born Near U.S. Military Base Show Elevated Rates of “Serious Congenital Deformities,” Study Finds |url=https://theintercept.com/2019/11/25/iraq-children-birth-defects-military/ |work=The Intercept |date=25 November 2019}} That cites {{cite journal |last1=Savabieasfahani |first1=M. |last2=Basher Ahamadani |first2=F. |last3=Mahdavi Damghani |first3=A. |title=Living near an active U.S. military base in Iraq is associated with significantly higher hair thorium and increased likelihood of congenital anomalies in infants and children |journal=Environmental Pollution |date=29 August 2019 |pages=113070 |doi=10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113070 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026974911834243X?via%3Dihub |issn=0269-7491}} "Our study has established the presence of uranium and of thorium, a direct depleted-uranium decay-product, in Nasiriyah children. We also report on an association between residential proximity to a US army base,Tallil Air Base, and the risk of congenital anomaly. We show that such proximity is associated with higher levels of uranium and thorium in the biological samples of the study participants. At the same time, we found an increased risk of congenital anomalies associated with higher hair levels of these metals." ] (]) 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Yacht keels == | == Yacht keels == | ||
| Line 60: | Line 40: | ||
| 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) | 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'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) | :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? == | == Radiological weapon? == | ||
| Line 65: | Line 46: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| :That doesn't make it a radiological weapon, which are nuclear weapons or ] used for area denial, . ] (]) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (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 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Technically, depleted uranium is marginally denser than natural uranium, since U-238 has a higher atomic mass than U-235. ;-) But the difference is less than 0.1%, so I would also support a rewording for clarity. One could also mention that DU is not the densest material - gold and most other precious metals are denser, osmium by almost 20%. ] (]) 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| ::I made this change. ] (]) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-28T07:37:13.786282 | Kosovo uranium NATO bombing1999.png --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 07:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Spallation target == | |||
| ==Calorimeters== | |||
| I have read somewhere that depleted uranium (just like natural uranium) would in principle work as a spallation target (i.e. You hit it with fast protons or other stripped ions and get neutrons out) but it is more rarely employed than e.g. Lead. Given that spallation creates more radioactivity than is found in depleted uranium, the radioactivity can't be the reason why it isn't done more often. So can we have more information on that? ] (]) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (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