English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

what is the effect of expending these munitions in Iraq, and is it beneficial or harmful to our troops and civilians?

2006-09-24 14:17:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

when good intentions go bad

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabi.htm

yeah, bullets not safe no matter who catches it

the link is a great read on a previous incident, nothing like 3 years war in Iraq though

2006-09-24 14:29:52 · update #1

15 answers

DU munitions seem to cause a variety of illnesses, particularly to unborn babies (note irony!).
There are plenty of references on the Gulf War Veterans Network found at gulfweb.org

2006-09-24 14:38:43 · answer #1 · answered by Bart S 7 · 1 1

Depleted uranium armor is good for your troops, it is denser than pretty much anything you throw at it. It is bad for your enemies because if you shoot at a US tank and you don't kill it, you are dead. Tanks don't travel alone so either it will turn around and kill you or his wingman will.

As for the weapons, same answer. They are good for our troops. There is nothing that can stop a rod of depleted uranium from a sabot round. There *was* an active armor that could defeat our previous models, but our new version is not defeated by it.

ALL weapons are bad for your enemy, they are designed to kill. ALL armor is bad for your enemy, it is designed to keep THEM from killing YOU. So by definition all of our weapons, not just our depleted uranium ones, are bad for our enemies. Same goes for the armor.

As for civilians, whose fault is it if a US tank blows an enemy tank with a sabot round and a few weeks later some kids get poisoned because they are playing in the burned out hulk of the dead tank? Don't these kids have parents?

It is obvious that it is harmful to civilians when you blow up a tank right in front of a house, but now we are being accused of depleted uranium poisoning due to the FIRST gulf war.

I would rather have our troops use depleted uranium and come back alive than use regular steel armor and come back in a flag draped box.

2006-09-24 16:41:01 · answer #2 · answered by veraperezp 4 · 0 0

Deleted uranium is excellent in armor until it finally gets penetrated. The people who have to clean out the tank will probably ingest uranium particles in the dust and dirt they have to clean to repair the tank. The same problem for targets that were destroyed by a depleted uranium round the dust in the tank is a danger to anyone curious enough to go in the tank such as kids who are drawn to tanks like manure draws flies. Before you know it lung cancer spreads through everybody who breathed in the dust. Unfortunately until something that dense can be found it will become standard in militaries that can get there hands on it.

2006-09-25 04:06:14 · answer #3 · answered by brian L 6 · 0 0

First off some responses to other answerers...

m3gal0man: there is no confirmed link to DU and the cases you claim. there are many reasons for birth defects in poor countries with little or no medical facilities.

andyheretic: DU (Depleted Uranium) is NOT Spent Fuel froma reactor. Thats a popular misconception.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the Department of Health and Human Services estimates there are an average of 4 tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every square mile of land. A heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium occurs in soils in typical concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt).

Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium.

So the DU ammunition is 30% LESS radioactive than normal uranium that is found everywhere in soils around the world

Its NOT Spent Fuel. It's what is left over after taking out what they need FOR the fuel.

The major health concerns about DU relate to its chemical properties as a heavy metal rather than to its radioactivity, which is very low. As with all chemicals, the hazard depends mainly upon the amount taken into the body. Medical science recognizes that uranium at high doses can cause kidney damage. However, those levels are far above levels soldiers would have encountered in the Gulf or the Balkans.

The Hazard from DU is like the Hazard from Lead, or from Mercury. they are metals that can poison you. but they are not radioactive. DU is a Heavy Metal.

In late 2000 and early 2001, various news reports, mostly European, reported allegations of an increase in leukemia cases related to exposure to DU while serving in the Balkans. Subsequent independent investigations by the World Health Organization, European Commission, European Parliament, United Nations Environment Programme, United Kingdom Royal Society, and the Health Council of the Netherlands have all have discounted any association between depleted uranium and leukemia or other medical problems among Balkans veterans

as to why the military uses DU rounds...
In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications.

Hope this helps answer your question.

And to Craig: I've heard of DU used as Ammo for 20mm and 30mm shells. (also 15mm subcaliber penatrators for CIWS) and for Armor on Tanks and such. But I have NEVER heard of it being used as a counterweight on an aileron before. Which plane is this?

2006-09-24 14:53:47 · answer #4 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 2 0

whether DU reasons some wellness problems after long-term exposure, if i'm in a tank and somebody is taking photos at me, i think of i might want to apply the DU rounds so i will kill despite is taking photos at me NOW. remember that that is depleted... did you be attentive to the commom smoke detector additionally makes use of radioactive factors? that is not any vast deal... do purely no longer carry them up on your eyes or testicles for hours.

2016-10-17 22:08:05 · answer #5 · answered by lindgren 4 · 0 0

Don't listen to all these so called know it alls. Ask the people that actually use it. Depleated uranium is used by all branches of the military and we don't suffer from its ill effects. Ask the next A-10 pilot you know...he sits on hundreds of rounds of it or ask a tank driver that is surrounded by it. Don't ask someone that has never handled it or sits infront of the stupid box and believes everything that comes out of it.

2006-09-24 14:29:50 · answer #6 · answered by Craig 3 · 1 1

The biggest hazard is the chemical toxicity, it is a heavy metal like lead. Not good to breathe it or ingest much of it, but small quantities are not likely to cause any harm.
Most of the dust produced when a round hits a tank falls harmlessly to the ground.

2006-09-24 14:25:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Not at all. The US has dumped over 100 tons of DU shells on Iraq and Afghansitan, and the birth defect rates have skyrocketed, and stillbirths have never been higher. It is one of the greatest war crimes ever committed by one nation against another.

2006-09-24 14:20:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The effect would seem to be worse to those exposed to it in areas where ordnance has fallen. At first, I was thinking you were asking the question with the troops in mind, those who ride in armor which is protected by DU.

According to a WHO bulletin:

"When an individual is suspected of being exposed to DU at a level significantly above the normal background level, an assessment of DU exposure may be required. This is best achieved by analysis of daily urine excretion. Urine analysis can provide useful information for the prognosis of kidney pathology from uranium or DU. The proportion of DU in the urine is determined from the 235U/238U ratio, obtained using sensitive mass spectrometric techniques."


Effects of DU expended in Iraq or anywhere else include:

"In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.

In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).

No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported. "

Craig, with all due respect, yes: you flew those flights and were surrounded by the stuff. But the question relates not just to the proximity of it, but also to breathing particles of it, having it on your skin, ingesting it. I was in Iraq, as were hundreds of thousands of us. We may yet see what effects this had on us as we age. Don't you think?

Look at how we're still learning how Agent Orange affected Viet Nam vets. True, it is important to take our views, as vets, into consideration. But I don't think you need to blow off the concerns and thoughts of non-combatants. Some of them may have an idea worth testing.

2006-09-24 14:33:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Not very safe if I get hit with one. To heck with the radioactivity if I have a hole in my gut. I vote for sponge balls. They're safe.

2006-09-24 14:25:00 · answer #10 · answered by waplambadoobatawhopbamboo 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers