lead bullets fired at high velocities into an armored vehicle will vaporize/fragment significantly more than DU, therefore you'd have at least as much heavy metal in the air if you used lead.
no one carpet bombs with DU rounds. they are fired in bullet form. because of their extreme density, they cut right through armor and kill their target.
it takes less shots to get the same job done using DU than if you were using lead bullets.
therefore, along those lines they are safer than lead bullets
edit: i should also mention that there is a serious problem with inhaling lead when firing lead bullets. that is why ventilation is so important in indoor firing ranges, and why there are a variety of shell casing for bullets designed to reduce the amount of lead you breate in while firing at a shooting range.
Reminds of that scene in Aliens where the sarge has to collect the ammunitions of the unit, and one guy says, "What are we supposed to use now- harsh language?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
With regard to the heavy metal toxicity effect between DU in a solid bullet and lead constituents in lead paint, for example, I think there is still a bit difference. The solid bullet is, well, solid with the exception of a bit of powder that may form if the bullet gets deformed or collapsed. The lead in a paint is inherently in a soluble state, so as to facilitate being mixed with the paint. As such, that greatly increases the opportunities for leaching, transmission by physical contact, and dispersion as airborne particulates.
As for DU bullets embedded into the ground leaching into the water table- I'm not sure. Does uranium rust or is it pretty much stable like aluminum? My guess would be the latter, as it is a heavier sort of element (prone to the nonreactive regime?), and it is in a highly bulk form. Also considering the rainfall in Iraq, and that probably gives even less support for corrosion and leaching effects.
I think it's fair to say that regardless of the post use effects, their true use is so effective there will be a high tolerance from the Military for the after effects and byproducts of the DU bullets. I'm not denying their effectiveness for their intended purpose. I'm concerned by their long term effects.
As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.
If ultimately it's only as dangerous as lead, all things considered, then (new link showing that the Military is ending the use of lead by 2005 notwithstanding) I'm not going to be too concerned with its usage. I get the impression that when it's powdered post use it's far more dangerous (perhaps it's even only because of the high concentrations at an attack site rather than singular lead bullets.)
<strong>As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the danger is from heavy metal poisoning, why would it suddenly become more harmful than lead before vs. after? They are only harmful by virtue of the same exposure mechanisms. Various info has been presented to make radioactivity danger unlikely. So this must be a third mode of toxicity you are referring to? What pray tell could it be this time?
If the danger is from heavy metal poisoning, why would it suddenly become more harmful than lead before vs. after? [/i]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's in a more soluble form. Powdered. Dust. Inhale-able. And it might be more harmful than lead to begin with.
You want proof-positive that shows DU is dangerous but that's nearly impossible since most of the research is done by groups that have something to hide. There is indirect evidence that points to the fact that DU is not healthy.
Good enough for me.
A lot of people just don't care what happens to the civilians during or after a war simply because "they're the bad guys and they deserve to die." You'll vote to keep using DU as long as the research is limited, even if what is available shows it's a danger.
<strong>Because it's in a more soluble form. Powdered. Dust. Inhale-able.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, so DU dust and lead dust are both dangerous. What's the point of comparing the bulk form of one to the dust form of another? How much dust is also an important factor. It's not like DU bullets are used to "dust" the enemy to death. Maybe there is relatively very little dust involved and a whole lot of shrapnel. It is not wise to assume that since something creates some dust, then that dust is automatically enough to constitute toxic levels.
<strong> [quote]And it might be more harmful than lead to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's complete conjecture, but I guess it has more "scare factor" to simply blurt it out unsubstantiated, anyway.
You want proof-positive that shows DU is dangerous but that's nearly impossible since most of the research is done by groups that have something to hide. There is indirect evidence that points to the fact that DU is not healthy.
You'll vote to keep using DU as long as the research is limited, even if what is available shows it's a danger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have read any of the links that have been provided, there have been actual studies on the toxicity of DU. They do not try to minimize the hazard of DU. They cite studies of personnel who have worked around DU, who have been injured by DU ammunition, and who have DU in their bodies. The study showing the effects on rats was done my the military. (In other words, the direct evidence you say is hidden is readily available.)
There is not a conspiracy to hide this information. All you have to do is take the time to read it, select the ones that support your particular point of view, and present it.
I believe that one of the purposes of this thread is to help people understand exactly what the risks of DU are so that you can debate the subject, and avoid inaccurate and emotional appeals which cloud the validity of whatever point you are trying to make.
The pictures we saw on the News depicted small guerilla units, living in hills and caves using small arms, heavier machine guns and individual SAM launchers.
I didn't think they had tank battallions, Apache helicopters, aircraft carriers etc..... do they have special body armour impenetrable to usual armour piercing rounds that made the use of DU necessary?
How much dust is also an important factor. It's not like DU bullets are used to "dust" the enemy to death. Maybe there is relatively very little dust involved and a whole lot of shrapnel. It is not wise to assume that since something creates some dust, then that dust is automatically enough to constitute toxic levels. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Holy crap.
The Military deems it safe. If there's a question its use should be shelved. That's the whole point. Err on the side of caution, that's what the military is supposed to do with regards to civilians. That's why the burden of proof is on those that want to continue to use DU.
[quote]Did the Taliban have lots of heavy armour?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about "lots", but they did have heavy armor. At the very least I remember the tanks they were rolling around in front of cameras as we geared up to go in.
[quote]The Military deems it safe.<hr></blockquote>
The military tells its soldiers to be cautious with it.
[quote]If there's a question its use should be shelved.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not.
This isn't Tickle Me Elmo dolls we're talking about. The A-10 and the DU-tipped anti-armor round is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it.
What the hell do you suggest we use to kill tanks, rubber bullets? Tear gas? Really loud music? The A-10 is (correct me if I'm wrong) the military's only plane that can (1) fly low enough and slow enough to engage ground targets with its machine gun and (2) kill armor.
You keep civilian impact low, but you sure as shit don't cut yourself off at the knees to do so.
The Military deems it safe. If there's a question its use should be shelved. That's the whole point. Err on the side of caution, that's what the military is supposed to do with regards to civilians. That's why the burden of proof is on those that want to continue to use DU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
holy crap. :eek:
how much longer can you keep beating this dead horse? the wheels on the bus go round and round...
<strong>The A-10 and the DU-tipped anti-armor round is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How long do you keep beating a dead horse? As long as people (no offense intended to you groverat, sorry for singling you out but I believe it represents the views of a lot of people here and elsewhere) are ignorant enough to have thoughts like this one I've quoted. It's this attitude that's skewed.
This is essentially the same principle as the "If someone breaks into my house I can kill them" thread we had a while back. It's just not true. If you know it's a hazardous material, you don't use it (that still remains a question though.)
Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians. Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."
Would anyone here argue in favor of having nuked Afghanistan? Probably.
<strong>I think it's fair to say that regardless of the post use effects, their true use is so effective there will be a high tolerance from the Military for the after effects and byproducts of the DU bullets. I'm not denying their effectiveness for their intended purpose. I'm concerned by their long term effects.
As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Don't forget what is left behind in a tank was also already there to begin with, like the radium dials and the munitions and such. Even if you hit a tank with a rocket that took it out you would have toxic stuff in the air.
[quote]<strong>If ultimately it's only as dangerous as lead, all things considered, then (new link showing that the Military is ending the use of lead by 2005 notwithstanding) I'm not going to be too concerned with its usage. I get the impression that when it's powdered post use it's far more dangerous (perhaps it's even only because of the high concentrations at an attack site rather than singular lead bullets.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speculation is all you are spouting. Emotional speculation that does your argument no good at all. I can see you believe that DU is bad, and you are looking for any and all evidence that supports your stand. I can also see that you are reading what is written and are backing down from at least the radioactive part of it. Now all you have is that it is at least as bad as lead. And even that is speculation for the most part as I have not seen a link that describes the toxicity of both and compares them. Has anyone posted it and I missed?
<strong>Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians. Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."
Would anyone here argue in favor of having nuked Afghanistan? Probably.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not even the point. DU is so far less toxic than nukes they are not even in the same ballpark. Radiation fallout, blast radius, dust, all of it is about (just a number) 10,000 times worse with a nuke. DU effects appear to me to be as bad as a big bullet.
<strong> If you know it's a hazardous material, you don't use it (that still remains a question though.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
In war, yes you do. You don't make Tickle Me Elmo dolls out of asbestos because it's a toy. When it comes to the effectiveness of rounds you're talking life and death, you're talking war.
There is no better alternative, so they should remain in use until there is a better alternative.
[quote]<strong>Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we should not put our troops in greater danger so we can sate those with unfounded and baseless fears. This is war we're talking about. War. This is our best method of killing tanks, so we keep it.
We can't make weapons out of marshmallows and rainbows. And we can't get rid of weapons.
[quote]<strong>Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the logical end, that's just fucking stupidity. I shouldn't even have to contend that, I certainly hope you haven't drifted so far into defensive mode that you can't see how amazingly moronic what you just said is.
Is it really this difficult for you to admit you're completely off-base that you have to resort to such horrifyingly dumb tactics?
[quote]If ultimately it's only as dangerous as lead, all things considered, then (new link showing that the Military is ending the use of lead by 2005 notwithstanding) I'm not going to be too concerned with its usage. I get the impression that when it's powdered post use it's far more dangerous (perhaps it's even only because of the high concentrations at an attack site rather than singular lead bullets.)<hr></blockquote>
bunge the bad part about all this is that you're agreeing with us and you just don't realize it.
the whole reason that DU rounds are used over lead rounds is that they are denser. that means that they're able to penetrate better, and are less likely to fragment, or powder upon impact. (although i don't think any of the rounds "powder" on impact)
if, as you've stipulated (and most everyone agrees) the threat from DU rounds is due to the toxicity of heavy metal,
and as i believe you've agreed (along with everyone else) that DU rounds are just as toxic as lead,
then DU rounds will be less toxic than lead rounds, because they are less likely to fragment, and you need to fire less of them for the same effect.
for example, 1 10lb. DU round can and will kill a tank. However, it might take anywhere from 3-10 lead rounds (same weight) to kill the same tank.
since lead is as toxic as DU, using lead would lead to 300-1000% more toxic metal per tank on the battlefield.
i know a guy who worked with a tank assault force in the military that i'd normally ask to verify this, but of course he's stationed overseas at the moment and out of touch.
i believe the above numbers are correct, if not underestimates for the # of conventional lead rounds needed to kill a tank. i know U.S. tanks were hit from 400 yards away by lead round with zero damage.
Comments
Careful with those rocks there, silica dust can cause a nasty lung disease like asbestos (called silicosis).
No.
So, the analogy doesn't really hold together.
If we sprinkled mercury over a battle field I'd consider that a decent analogy.
no one carpet bombs with DU rounds. they are fired in bullet form. because of their extreme density, they cut right through armor and kill their target.
it takes less shots to get the same job done using DU than if you were using lead bullets.
therefore, along those lines they are safer than lead bullets
edit: i should also mention that there is a serious problem with inhaling lead when firing lead bullets. that is why ventilation is so important in indoor firing ranges, and why there are a variety of shell casing for bullets designed to reduce the amount of lead you breate in while firing at a shooting range.
well i'll be damned, turns out the Army is worried about lead as well, <a href="http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:FFpnvaxPimIC:inic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__312/bullet.pdf+bullet+casing+lead+toxic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"; target="_blank">they're replacing them in 2005</a>.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
With regard to the heavy metal toxicity effect between DU in a solid bullet and lead constituents in lead paint, for example, I think there is still a bit difference. The solid bullet is, well, solid with the exception of a bit of powder that may form if the bullet gets deformed or collapsed. The lead in a paint is inherently in a soluble state, so as to facilitate being mixed with the paint.
As for DU bullets embedded into the ground leaching into the water table- I'm not sure. Does uranium rust or is it pretty much stable like aluminum? My guess would be the latter, as it is a heavier sort of element (prone to the nonreactive regime?), and it is in a highly bulk form. Also considering the rainfall in Iraq, and that probably gives even less support for corrosion and leaching effects.
As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.
If ultimately it's only as dangerous as lead, all things considered, then (new link showing that the Military is ending the use of lead by 2005 notwithstanding) I'm not going to be too concerned with its usage. I get the impression that when it's powdered post use it's far more dangerous (perhaps it's even only because of the high concentrations at an attack site rather than singular lead bullets.)
<strong>As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the danger is from heavy metal poisoning, why would it suddenly become more harmful than lead before vs. after? They are only harmful by virtue of the same exposure mechanisms. Various info has been presented to make radioactivity danger unlikely. So this must be a third mode of toxicity you are referring to? What pray tell could it be this time?
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>
If the danger is from heavy metal poisoning, why would it suddenly become more harmful than lead before vs. after? [/i]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's in a more soluble form. Powdered. Dust. Inhale-able. And it might be more harmful than lead to begin with.
You want proof-positive that shows DU is dangerous but that's nearly impossible since most of the research is done by groups that have something to hide. There is indirect evidence that points to the fact that DU is not healthy.
Good enough for me.
A lot of people just don't care what happens to the civilians during or after a war simply because "they're the bad guys and they deserve to die." You'll vote to keep using DU as long as the research is limited, even if what is available shows it's a danger.
<strong>Because it's in a more soluble form. Powdered. Dust. Inhale-able.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, so DU dust and lead dust are both dangerous. What's the point of comparing the bulk form of one to the dust form of another? How much dust is also an important factor. It's not like DU bullets are used to "dust" the enemy to death. Maybe there is relatively very little dust involved and a whole lot of shrapnel. It is not wise to assume that since something creates some dust, then that dust is automatically enough to constitute toxic levels.
<strong> [quote]And it might be more harmful than lead to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's complete conjecture, but I guess it has more "scare factor" to simply blurt it out unsubstantiated, anyway.
<strong>
You want proof-positive that shows DU is dangerous but that's nearly impossible since most of the research is done by groups that have something to hide. There is indirect evidence that points to the fact that DU is not healthy.
You'll vote to keep using DU as long as the research is limited, even if what is available shows it's a danger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have read any of the links that have been provided, there have been actual studies on the toxicity of DU. They do not try to minimize the hazard of DU. They cite studies of personnel who have worked around DU, who have been injured by DU ammunition, and who have DU in their bodies. The study showing the effects on rats was done my the military. (In other words, the direct evidence you say is hidden is readily available.)
There is not a conspiracy to hide this information. All you have to do is take the time to read it, select the ones that support your particular point of view, and present it.
I believe that one of the purposes of this thread is to help people understand exactly what the risks of DU are so that you can debate the subject, and avoid inaccurate and emotional appeals which cloud the validity of whatever point you are trying to make.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
The pictures we saw on the News depicted small guerilla units, living in hills and caves using small arms, heavier machine guns and individual SAM launchers.
I didn't think they had tank battallions, Apache helicopters, aircraft carriers etc..... do they have special body armour impenetrable to usual armour piercing rounds that made the use of DU necessary?
<strong>
How much dust is also an important factor. It's not like DU bullets are used to "dust" the enemy to death. Maybe there is relatively very little dust involved and a whole lot of shrapnel. It is not wise to assume that since something creates some dust, then that dust is automatically enough to constitute toxic levels. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Holy crap.
The Military deems it safe. If there's a question its use should be shelved. That's the whole point. Err on the side of caution, that's what the military is supposed to do with regards to civilians. That's why the burden of proof is on those that want to continue to use DU.
[quote]Did the Taliban have lots of heavy armour?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about "lots", but they did have heavy armor. At the very least I remember the tanks they were rolling around in front of cameras as we geared up to go in.
T-62 and T-55 tanks and BMP1 and BMP2 armored fighting vehicles according to <a href="http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/military/1106ragtag.html"; target="_blank">this source</a>.
Can't kill those with regular rounds.
Bunge:
[quote]The Military deems it safe.<hr></blockquote>
The military tells its soldiers to be cautious with it.
[quote]If there's a question its use should be shelved.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not.
This isn't Tickle Me Elmo dolls we're talking about. The A-10 and the DU-tipped anti-armor round is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it.
What the hell do you suggest we use to kill tanks, rubber bullets? Tear gas? Really loud music? The A-10 is (correct me if I'm wrong) the military's only plane that can (1) fly low enough and slow enough to engage ground targets with its machine gun and (2) kill armor.
You keep civilian impact low, but you sure as shit don't cut yourself off at the knees to do so.
Just silly.
<strong>
Holy crap.
The Military deems it safe. If there's a question its use should be shelved. That's the whole point. Err on the side of caution, that's what the military is supposed to do with regards to civilians. That's why the burden of proof is on those that want to continue to use DU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
holy crap. :eek:
how much longer can you keep beating this dead horse? the wheels on the bus go round and round...
<strong>The A-10 and the DU-tipped anti-armor round is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How long do you keep beating a dead horse? As long as people (no offense intended to you groverat, sorry for singling you out but I believe it represents the views of a lot of people here and elsewhere) are ignorant enough to have thoughts like this one I've quoted. It's this attitude that's skewed.
This is essentially the same principle as the "If someone breaks into my house I can kill them" thread we had a while back. It's just not true. If you know it's a hazardous material, you don't use it (that still remains a question though.)
Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians. Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."
Would anyone here argue in favor of having nuked Afghanistan? Probably.
<strong>I think it's fair to say that regardless of the post use effects, their true use is so effective there will be a high tolerance from the Military for the after effects and byproducts of the DU bullets. I'm not denying their effectiveness for their intended purpose. I'm concerned by their long term effects.
As a solitary substance DU may even be less harmful than lead, but what's left behind in and around a tank might be far more harmful. That's what I'm seeing.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Don't forget what is left behind in a tank was also already there to begin with, like the radium dials and the munitions and such. Even if you hit a tank with a rocket that took it out you would have toxic stuff in the air.
[quote]<strong>If ultimately it's only as dangerous as lead, all things considered, then (new link showing that the Military is ending the use of lead by 2005 notwithstanding) I'm not going to be too concerned with its usage. I get the impression that when it's powdered post use it's far more dangerous (perhaps it's even only because of the high concentrations at an attack site rather than singular lead bullets.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speculation is all you are spouting. Emotional speculation that does your argument no good at all. I can see you believe that DU is bad, and you are looking for any and all evidence that supports your stand. I can also see that you are reading what is written and are backing down from at least the radioactive part of it. Now all you have is that it is at least as bad as lead. And even that is speculation for the most part as I have not seen a link that describes the toxicity of both and compares them. Has anyone posted it and I missed?
<strong>Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians. Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."
Would anyone here argue in favor of having nuked Afghanistan? Probably.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not even the point. DU is so far less toxic than nukes they are not even in the same ballpark. Radiation fallout, blast radius, dust, all of it is about (just a number) 10,000 times worse with a nuke. DU effects appear to me to be as bad as a big bullet.
<strong> If you know it's a hazardous material, you don't use it (that still remains a question though.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
In war, yes you do. You don't make Tickle Me Elmo dolls out of asbestos because it's a toy. When it comes to the effectiveness of rounds you're talking life and death, you're talking war.
There is no better alternative, so they should remain in use until there is a better alternative.
[quote]<strong>Our society should uphold a minimum standard, even if it puts our troops in greater danger. That's the cost of a war, not more civilians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we should not put our troops in greater danger so we can sate those with unfounded and baseless fears. This is war we're talking about. War. This is our best method of killing tanks, so we keep it.
We can't make weapons out of marshmallows and rainbows. And we can't get rid of weapons.
[quote]<strong>Follow the quote above to its logical conclusion and you'll be saying "The [nuclear bomb] is our best attack weapon against armored vehicles. It's not healthy, but we should keep using it."</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the logical end, that's just fucking stupidity. I shouldn't even have to contend that, I certainly hope you haven't drifted so far into defensive mode that you can't see how amazingly moronic what you just said is.
Is it really this difficult for you to admit you're completely off-base that you have to resort to such horrifyingly dumb tactics?
bunge the bad part about all this is that you're agreeing with us and you just don't realize it.
the whole reason that DU rounds are used over lead rounds is that they are denser. that means that they're able to penetrate better, and are less likely to fragment, or powder upon impact. (although i don't think any of the rounds "powder" on impact)
the atomic weight of lead is 207.2, Uranium is 238, as seen from the <a href="http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm"; target="_blank">periodic table</a>.
if, as you've stipulated (and most everyone agrees) the threat from DU rounds is due to the toxicity of heavy metal,
and as i believe you've agreed (along with everyone else) that DU rounds are just as toxic as lead,
then DU rounds will be less toxic than lead rounds, because they are less likely to fragment, and you need to fire less of them for the same effect.
for example, 1 10lb. DU round can and will kill a tank. However, it might take anywhere from 3-10 lead rounds (same weight) to kill the same tank.
since lead is as toxic as DU, using lead would lead to 300-1000% more toxic metal per tank on the battlefield.
i know a guy who worked with a tank assault force in the military that i'd normally ask to verify this, but of course he's stationed overseas at the moment and out of touch.
i believe the above numbers are correct, if not underestimates for the # of conventional lead rounds needed to kill a tank. i know U.S. tanks were hit from 400 yards away by lead round with zero damage.