| Revision as of 06:40, 3 June 2007 editNrcprm2026 (talk | contribs)7,109 edits →Health considerations section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:19, 5 December 2024 edit undoTypoBoy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,291 edits →Density of depleted uranium: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (935 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{WPMILHIST | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| |class=B | |||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| |Weaponry-task-force= yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{Chemistry}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Military history|class=B | |||
| {{calm talk}} | |||
| <!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
| {{controversial3}} | |||
| <!-- 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 == | |||
| {{User article ban arb|Nrcprm2026|i|Depleted uranium|Thatcher131}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|]<br>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"| | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] (18:05, 15 May 2006)<br> | |||
| ] (09:29, 15 June 2006)<br> | |||
| ] through September 2006<br> | |||
| ] through April 3 | |||
| |} | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Legal status in weapons== | |||
| :''There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles.'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| Has anyone proposed one? ] 16:48, 5 January 2007 (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? == | |||
| :Almost certainly bans have been proposed. But since the main users of DU are France, US, and UK, all three of which are veto powers, they can obstruct any treaty from getting off the drawing board. Unless you can find a court which can rule against this new weapon under an earlier treaty (there are many candidates), the legal status will continue to be permissive. Clearly, because of the their direct influence on the lack of a treaty, any appeal by the US or UK as to the legality of these weapons is utterly specious.] 19:20, 22 March 2007 (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) | |||
| How typical of a liberal not to mention Russia. | |||
| :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 == | |||
| ICBUW has drawn up a Draft Treaty for a ban on uranium weapons (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/13.html) - it is similar in form to the ICBL landmine treaty and will no doubt resemble the end result of the current Oslo process on cluster munitions. We are a few years behind the CMC but lobbying hard around the world. We've recently had our first domestic ban in Belgium - they are always the first with indiscriminate weapons: | |||
| 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) | |||
| On March the 7th, 2007, the Belgian Chamber Commission on National Defence voted unanimously in favour of banning the use of depleted uranium "inert ammunitions and armour plates on Belgian territory." Although Belgium isn’t a user of DU, it is the home of NATO and regularly has US DU shipments travelling through its port of Antwerp. (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/118.html) | |||
| == Density of depleted uranium == | |||
| Please can you update the page accordingly - I'm not a regular contributor.] 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)ICBUW | |||
| The article currently says: | |||
| == Most health physicists == | |||
| :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. | |||
| "Most experts in health physics consider it unlikely that depleted uranium has any connection with the Gulf War Syndrome if such an illness exists at all.[citation needed" | |||
| 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) | |||
| How about this citation, from the Health Physics Society DU Fact Sheet: "A group of Gulf War veterans who have small DU fragments still in their bodies continue to be followed by government scientists to determine whether there will be long-term health effects. As of early 2005, only subtle but clinically insignificant changes in measures of kidney function | |||
| ::I made this change. ] (]) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| have been observed. One common observation is a persistent elevation in the amount of | |||
| uranium measured in the urine more than 10 years after exposure. This reflects the continued | |||
| presence of DU in wound sites and its ongoing low-level mobilization and absorption to blood. | |||
| In summary, some minor health problems have been observed following exposure to DU, but | |||
| ONLY with high levels of exposure. Exposures to airborne DU or to contaminated soil following | |||
| military use are not known to cause any observable health or reproductive effects." Obviously the last sentence is the most direct and relevant, but I included more for completeness' sake. The entire document can be found here: . | |||
| ==Calorimeters== | |||
| I'd say the sentence should be put back in the article, especially since my quote agrees with every conversation I've ever had on the topic with any member of the Health Physics Society except one.--] 18:52, 28 March 2007 (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 /> | |||
| :Firstly, Health Physics Society publications are not the same as "most experts in health physics." Secondly, exposures of metallic U(0) from shrapnel, which oxidizes almost entirely ''in vitro'' to U(IV) is not toxicologicaly the same as inhalation of U(VI) compounds. I wonder if anyone in the HPS understands that, required as they are to have training in radiation protection but not biochemistry or toxicology. Thirdly, nobody knows what the amount of absorption from combustion product inhalation exposure even is, because nobody has yet measured the amount of particulates smaller than a tenth of a micron, including the amount of uranium oxide gases, produced by combustion, since Carter and Stewart reported that the gases comprised half of the combustion product in 1970. The fact that only one member of the HPS has ever even called for such studies speaks volumes about how much they want to know the answer to the question. Finally, the reproductive toxicity of uranium exposure has been known at least since 1953, is well-documented in more than a dozen peer-reviewed medical journal articles, and there are no peer-reviewed medical or scientific publications which deny or cast any doubt on that fact. Could the reason that all HPS publications deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium exposure be that some of the past and present officials of the HPS are the same people who have certified to the U.S. D.o.D. and other agencies that uranium combustion product exposure is safe? | |||
| :I will recommend that any non-peer-reviewed publication denying the reproductive toxicity of uranium be removed because of the large number of peer-reviewed publications which claim the opposite, and the fact that there are no peer-reviewed publications which agree. '']'' 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Didn't want to leave this standing unchallenged. The society in question seems to be *the* professional association for this branch of science and the DU sheet referenced above also briefly discusses DU inhalation which is pretty much as bad as breathing in regular uranium. ] 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the contrary, several members of the HPS have specifically told me that their expertise if confined to radiation protection and not toxicology, which is the domain of ]. None of the major IH organizations have any standards for uranium inhalation because it is so uncommon. '']'' 04:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Used in improvised explosives? == | |||
| Do Iraqi insurgents use abandoned DU slugs in their improvised explosives? '']'' 12:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No doubt some have been DU rounds used in IEDs just as a matter of statistics. After all, they've accidentally used Iraqi chemical weapons rounds so why not DU? ] 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Health considerations section == | |||
| I think that the "Health considerations" section needs some rewriting. This section is 1/3 of the article and the reader is left with the feeling that DU doesn't pose any significant threat to health. If this is so, who claims that (as stated in the introduction) possibly "depleted uranium is dangerous to human beings at the low quantities in which it could possibly be ingested from environmental contamination." and why?? I believe that either this section needs to be shortened or (better) to state the evidence which makes some experts believe that DU might be hazardous. ] 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :DU is hazardous -- nobody disputes that the bullets are designed to be, and that inhaling the fumes is unhealthy. The question is how much, and whether the downside is worth the upside. I think tungsten is more cost-effective. We will eventually reach a point where people know how dangerous it is. The fact that they haven't tried to figure out how dangerous it is is a shame. I think in twenty years, people are going to look back and wonder who would even suggest that DU munitions are reasonable weapons. Conventional military power is not as important as it once was. '']'' 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
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