Welcome to Gaia! ::

Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
washu_2004
Irish Jesus
In war, the advantages of Depleted Uranium munitions are many. However many people oppose its use.

The United States and its NATO allies maintain that Depleted Uranium dust (a by-product) doesn't cause cancer and birth defects, however, 136 countries are citing other research saying that it does.

Which side do you think is right?


What I think?

I think you copy pasted your entire post, oh and you missed a line...

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1081492-Depleted-Uranium-Ammunition

besides as has been pointed out there, The evidence of DU dust being a carcinogen is pretty conclusive.


moreso than lead? if you check some of the sources here, you'll find evidence the chemical toxicity is actually lower than several other heavy metals, and DU is used to shield people from radioactive exposure, which seems a bizarre use for a dangerously radioactive substance, does it not?
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai


and the more I look into it, the more I find that the jury's still out on whether or not DU Penetrators are inherently worse than any other heavy metals ( basically, lead and the other substances bullets are made of ).

so, we're right back to "how are they worse than everything else?"

Lead does not disintegrate into a fine dust upon impact-


oh, but it does.

Lead may give off fine dust when fired through a barrel, especially a rifled barrel. The impact properties are wholly different; the lead projectile deforms because of its elasticity, while the DU projectile can fully vaporize, affecting a wide area.


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality

Lead does not disintegrate into a fine dust upon impact-


oh, but it does.

Lead may give off fine dust when fired through a barrel, especially a rifled barrel. The impact properties are wholly different; the lead projectile deforms because of its elasticity, while the DU projectile can fully vaporize, affecting a wide area.


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC


your Reuters source
"We know that some one million DU bullets were fired (during the Gulf War) and many still lie in the Gulf desert, causing clearly serious cancers and birth defects. The connection between the two is biologically extremely plausible."

Part of the problem with the debate over the effects of depleted uranium is a lack of hard, scientific data. What little does exist is seized upon by one side to disprove the other.

Some critics say chemical weapons used by Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war with Iran are the real reason for the health problems in southern Iraq.


interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai

Lead may give off fine dust when fired through a barrel, especially a rifled barrel. The impact properties are wholly different; the lead projectile deforms because of its elasticity, while the DU projectile can fully vaporize, affecting a wide area.


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC


your Reuters source
"We know that some one million DU bullets were fired (during the Gulf War) and many still lie in the Gulf desert, causing clearly serious cancers and birth defects. The connection between the two is biologically extremely plausible."

Part of the problem with the debate over the effects of depleted uranium is a lack of hard, scientific data. What little does exist is seized upon by one side to disprove the other.

Some critics say chemical weapons used by Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war with Iran are the real reason for the health problems in southern Iraq.


interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If the powers that be deem what little research they have not managed to quell inconclusive, why don't they follow up on the burden of proof? I mean, injecting the stuff into actual ecosystems and living humans can be considered a sort of field experiment, but I'm not convinced of its underlying ethical principles and if they will stand the test of time.

DU versus Tungsten

Lead is self-explanatory if you've ever seen a spent bullet.
Keltoi Samurai
interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If your point is that DU is no less harmful to human health than lead or tungsten, then that would be because they are ALL harmful to human health, because that's generally what weapons are designed for.

Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay

Quote:
Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense heavy metal used primarily in military applications. Published data from our laboratory have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized human osteoblast cells (HOS) is both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic. DU possesses both a radiological (alpha particle) and a chemical (metal) component. Since DU has a low-specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard. In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay. Experiments were conducted under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by 10^6-fold. The data showed that markers of oxidative DNA base damage, thymine glycol and 8-deoxyguanosine could be induced from DU-catalyzed reactions of hydrogen peroxide and ascorbate similarly to those occurring in the presence of iron catalysts. DU was 6-fold more efficient than iron at catalyzing the oxidation of ascorbate at pH 7. These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induced oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, but also suggest that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions, through interaction with a cellular oxygen species.


By the way, you might want to make sure you have a solid understanding of DNA before you continue discussing this.

I must be really weird, because I always thought the best option here would be

not fighting!
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Keltoi Samurai
interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If your point is that DU is no less harmful to human health than lead or tungsten, then that would be because they are ALL harmful to human health, because that's generally what weapons are designed for.

Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay

Quote:
Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense heavy metal used primarily in military applications. Published data from our laboratory have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized human osteoblast cells (HOS) is both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic. DU possesses both a radiological (alpha particle) and a chemical (metal) component. Since DU has a low-specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard. In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay. Experiments were conducted under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by 10^6-fold. The data showed that markers of oxidative DNA base damage, thymine glycol and 8-deoxyguanosine could be induced from DU-catalyzed reactions of hydrogen peroxide and ascorbate similarly to those occurring in the presence of iron catalysts. DU was 6-fold more efficient than iron at catalyzing the oxidation of ascorbate at pH 7. These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induced oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, but also suggest that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions, through interaction with a cellular oxygen species.


By the way, you might want to make sure you have a solid understanding of DNA before you continue discussing this.

I must be really weird, because I always thought the best option here would be

not fighting!


the best option would be no fighting, but to take a weapon out of my own, personal arsenal, I would first require a sound reason for doing so, since fighting isn't something you can just declare won't happen around you.

if a tool I had filled a particular role, and did so better than the alternatives ( for instance, my Rescue Knife, which can cut a seatbelt better than a regular knife, has a glassbreaker in a convenient-to-use position, and takes up less room on my person than a similar dedicated automotive tool while still maintaining the functionality ), then I'd need a damn-good reason to give it up, rather than some vague and un-peer-reviewed study coupled with words about how much better off we'd be if we didn't need it ( "knives can cause wounds, and can even kill people, and I've heard you can get AIDS from them [ I wish that was hyperbole, but I actually had someone tell me that knives and guns give people AIDS ]. besides, wouldn't it be better if nobody ever got into automobile accidents and didn't need rescued in the first place?" )

would it be better to not go to war no more? sure, until someone decided to attack us after we disarmed. wouldn't it be better to not need anti-tank rounds? of course, but as long as there are tanks, there will be need of a tankbusting round.
Keltoi Samurai
the best option would be no fighting, but to take a weapon out of my own, personal arsenal, I would first require a sound reason for doing so, since fighting isn't something you can just declare won't happen around you.

if a tool I had filled a particular role, and did so better than the alternatives ( for instance, my Rescue Knife, which can cut a seatbelt better than a regular knife, has a glassbreaker in a convenient-to-use position, and takes up less room on my person than a similar dedicated automotive tool while still maintaining the functionality ), then I'd need a damn-good reason to give it up, rather than some vague and un-peer-reviewed study coupled with words about how much better off we'd be if we didn't need it ( "knives can cause wounds, and can even kill people, and I've heard you can get AIDS from them [ I wish that was hyperbole, but I actually had someone tell me that knives and guns give people AIDS ]. besides, wouldn't it be better if nobody ever got into automobile accidents and didn't need rescued in the first place?" )

would it be better to not go to war no more? sure, until someone decided to attack us after we disarmed. wouldn't it be better to not need anti-tank rounds? of course, but as long as there are tanks, there will be need of a tankbusting round.

Well, it's funny that you mention automobile accidents since I can kind of use it as a metaphor for social design and institutional violence. Many auto manufacturers have attempted to develop lots of technologies to prevent automobile accidents, however none of those solutions is to lessen or abandon the use of automobiles in favor of mass transportation, which can much more easily be designed without a human pilot and with a low accident rate.

Likewise, the way you stop war and violence is to abandon the current social design for one that favors equal conditions, because inequality and violence are strongly related. Likewise, an important part of doing this is to take out the human "pilots". War is a completely expected decision when someone is making a trillion dollars on it. War is never about a "good reason", it's always about the money.

DU is probably popular in the US because it has higher profit margins, which wouldn't be surprising considering it starts as waste, literally, and ends up as an advanced anti-tank weapon material. Tungsten and lead, of course, have better uses and so they cost more.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality

Lead may give off fine dust when fired through a barrel, especially a rifled barrel. The impact properties are wholly different; the lead projectile deforms because of its elasticity, while the DU projectile can fully vaporize, affecting a wide area.


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC


your Reuters source
"We know that some one million DU bullets were fired (during the Gulf War) and many still lie in the Gulf desert, causing clearly serious cancers and birth defects. The connection between the two is biologically extremely plausible."

Part of the problem with the debate over the effects of depleted uranium is a lack of hard, scientific data. What little does exist is seized upon by one side to disprove the other.

Some critics say chemical weapons used by Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war with Iran are the real reason for the health problems in southern Iraq.


interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If the powers that be deem what little research they have not managed to quell inconclusive, why don't they follow up on the burden of proof? I mean, injecting the stuff into actual ecosystems and living humans can be considered a sort of field experiment, but I'm not convinced of its underlying ethical principles and if they will stand the test of time.

DU versus Tungsten

Lead is self-explanatory if you've ever seen a spent bullet.


interesting use of language. "powers that be," "what little research they have not managed to quell," can we avoid the conspiracy talk, please? let's be reasonable, here. squashing legitimate research would require a level of control and coordination that I just don't see in any current power group, y'know?

what I find funny about that research is that Tungsten is tumor forming. I did not know that. that liquid tungsten looks promising, though. if the technology pans out, then I see no problem with transitioning to that for tank-busting. as for now, though, it seems that there's nothing else to do the job of DU, so the drawback of using DU would have to be pretty phenomenal to warrant discontinuing it before the replacement is ready.
Keltoi Samurai
interesting use of language. "powers that be," "what little research they have not managed to quell," can we avoid the conspiracy talk, please? let's be reasonable, here. squashing legitimate research would require a level of control and coordination that I just don't see in any current power group, y'know?

what I find funny about that research is that Tungsten is tumor forming. I did not know that. that liquid tungsten looks promising, though. if the technology pans out, then I see no problem with transitioning to that for tank-busting. as for now, though, it seems that there's nothing else to do the job of DU, so the drawback of using DU would have to be pretty phenomenal to warrant discontinuing it before the replacement is ready.

Really? Lots of research is funded by particular institutions which provides an implicit pressure to favor their interests. Then there's research that's unfunded because it is not profitable or favorable to TPTB.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Keltoi Samurai
the best option would be no fighting, but to take a weapon out of my own, personal arsenal, I would first require a sound reason for doing so, since fighting isn't something you can just declare won't happen around you.

if a tool I had filled a particular role, and did so better than the alternatives ( for instance, my Rescue Knife, which can cut a seatbelt better than a regular knife, has a glassbreaker in a convenient-to-use position, and takes up less room on my person than a similar dedicated automotive tool while still maintaining the functionality ), then I'd need a damn-good reason to give it up, rather than some vague and un-peer-reviewed study coupled with words about how much better off we'd be if we didn't need it ( "knives can cause wounds, and can even kill people, and I've heard you can get AIDS from them [ I wish that was hyperbole, but I actually had someone tell me that knives and guns give people AIDS ]. besides, wouldn't it be better if nobody ever got into automobile accidents and didn't need rescued in the first place?" )

would it be better to not go to war no more? sure, until someone decided to attack us after we disarmed. wouldn't it be better to not need anti-tank rounds? of course, but as long as there are tanks, there will be need of a tankbusting round.

Well, it's funny that you mention automobile accidents since I can kind of use it as a metaphor for social design and institutional violence. Many auto manufacturers have attempted to develop lots of technologies to prevent automobile accidents, however none of those solutions is to lessen or abandon the use of automobiles in favor of mass transportation, which can much more easily be designed without a human pilot and with a low accident rate.

Likewise, the way you stop war and violence is to abandon the current social design for one that favors equal conditions, because inequality and violence are strongly related. Likewise, an important part of doing this is to take out the human "pilots". War is a completely expected decision when someone is making a trillion dollars on it. War is never about a "good reason", it's always about the money.

DU is probably popular in the US because it has higher profit margins, which wouldn't be surprising considering it starts as waste, literally, and ends up as an advanced anti-tank weapon material. Tungsten and lead, of course, have better uses and so they cost more.


yes, but as has already been pointed out, lead as a penetrator doesn't work, and tungsten penetrators mushroom ever so slightly, as opposed to DU, which shears and sharpens instead of mushrooming. now, if a technology existed that could do the job of DU, then it might be underutilized due to cost, but as of right now, there's nothing that does the job as well as DU. that it's a waste product ( as of right now, anyways ) is actually secondary to the fact that the more expensive materials don't do the job as well.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality

Lead may give off fine dust when fired through a barrel, especially a rifled barrel. The impact properties are wholly different; the lead projectile deforms because of its elasticity, while the DU projectile can fully vaporize, affecting a wide area.


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC


your Reuters source
"We know that some one million DU bullets were fired (during the Gulf War) and many still lie in the Gulf desert, causing clearly serious cancers and birth defects. The connection between the two is biologically extremely plausible."

Part of the problem with the debate over the effects of depleted uranium is a lack of hard, scientific data. What little does exist is seized upon by one side to disprove the other.

Some critics say chemical weapons used by Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war with Iran are the real reason for the health problems in southern Iraq.


interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If the powers that be deem what little research they have not managed to quell inconclusive, why don't they follow up on the burden of proof? I mean, injecting the stuff into actual ecosystems and living humans can be considered a sort of field experiment, but I'm not convinced of its underlying ethical principles and if they will stand the test of time.

DU versus Tungsten

Lead is self-explanatory if you've ever seen a spent bullet.


I've seen plenty of spent lead-and-similar rounds, none of which exceed .50, and one time witnessed a .50BMG jacketed round disintegrate upon hitting water. I'd like to see what 30mm of lead at similar velocity does when it hits the side of a tank, seeing as I've seen what a 30mm DU Penetrator does when fired from a GAU-8
Keltoi Samurai
I've seen plenty of spent lead-and-similar rounds, none of which exceed .50, and one time witnessed a .50BMG jacketed round disintegrate upon hitting water. I'd like to see what 30mm of lead at similar velocity does when it hits the side of a tank, seeing as I've seen what a 30mm DU Penetrator does when fired from a GAU-8

DU does have an inherently wider dispersion of its material, though. Due to the desirable adiabatic shear banding effect, the round travels significantly farther through a material, disintegrating as it travels.
America is such horrible people. For God's sake, someone please destroy this place.
Oh, and on the subject of suppressing research again, for a great example see Linus Pauling. Here's a nice blog entry I just found on the subject.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai
Inconsistent With Reality
Keltoi Samurai


so, we move away from shrapnel, and into dispersal patterns. cite some sources, then, that the DU Penetrators disperse DU dust at wider ranges than a comparable lead slug, or a tungsten penetrator?

Are you kidding? The pyrophoric vaporization is listed as one of its core benefits. But all right, I can give you some reading if you insist.

Reuters Guardian BBC


your Reuters source
"We know that some one million DU bullets were fired (during the Gulf War) and many still lie in the Gulf desert, causing clearly serious cancers and birth defects. The connection between the two is biologically extremely plausible."

Part of the problem with the debate over the effects of depleted uranium is a lack of hard, scientific data. What little does exist is seized upon by one side to disprove the other.

Some critics say chemical weapons used by Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war with Iran are the real reason for the health problems in southern Iraq.


interesting.

Guardian talks about studies on soldiers in that same gulf war mentioned in Reuters, as well as other studies that have been called "neither well thought out nor scientifically sound." that intrigues me as to how and why.

meanwhile, the BBC article seems to revel in it's hyperbole and use of emotionally charged words and phrases, while citing primarily the same Gulf War where the jury is still out on whether it's the DU rounds at fault, or chemical weapons. the thing that bothers me about that the most is I thought the BBC was known for it's lack of hyperbole and/or leaving out half the story, while only leaving a footnote at the end saying the studies in question are not peer-reviewed to maintain an illusion of impartiality.

still waiting on a comparison to lead, tungsten and other munitions.

If the powers that be deem what little research they have not managed to quell inconclusive, why don't they follow up on the burden of proof? I mean, injecting the stuff into actual ecosystems and living humans can be considered a sort of field experiment, but I'm not convinced of its underlying ethical principles and if they will stand the test of time.

DU versus Tungsten

Lead is self-explanatory if you've ever seen a spent bullet.


interesting use of language. "powers that be," "what little research they have not managed to quell," can we avoid the conspiracy talk, please? let's be reasonable, here. squashing legitimate research would require a level of control and coordination that I just don't see in any current power group, y'know?

what I find funny about that research is that Tungsten is tumor forming. I did not know that. that liquid tungsten looks promising, though. if the technology pans out, then I see no problem with transitioning to that for tank-busting. as for now, though, it seems that there's nothing else to do the job of DU, so the drawback of using DU would have to be pretty phenomenal to warrant discontinuing it before the replacement is ready.

That is not a conspiracy theory. That is what every sensible power must do. The allied powers have gone out of their way to defend the use of depleted uranium, because it's that much better, and cheaper than any healthy alternative; the cost-benefit analysis. They are conducting their own studies, the DoD had to go out and say there is no risk whatsoever according to their internal study which shows no ill effects and it's basically fluff directly from the belly of bunnies. And people ran off with it, the WHO ran to town and then you have the hordes of armchair commanders who think they are Rambo but couldn't make it to the Army, spewing their nonsense as if they're watching, as if the government or the gods themselves liked or even knew them. As if they rely on the WHO when they decide whether they should eat their vegetables.

The article I provided was not meant as advertising for Tungsten projectiles. I remain skeptical that they will find a non-toxic alloy with those properties.

What I propose is a UN mandate that says every bullet, bomb, and missile used in war must be made of gold. Non-toxic, non-irritating, non-corrosive and recycled quickly by the natives. That would end war pretty fast.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games