6 ms·

> Same line of thinking that results in depleted uranium tank shells. Yeah, since neither was particularly toxic, and both offered significant performance gain

> Same line of thinking that results in depleted uranium tank shells. Yeah, since neither was particularly toxic, and both offered significant performance gains over the alternatives. (Uranium is extremely dense, self-sharpens on impact instead of mushrooming, and catches fire after penetration giving you an incendiary payload for free. Supposedly, nothing else comes close for tank rounds)

regularfry 7y ago
Uranium is... not nice stuff. I wouldn't classify it as "not particularly toxic". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/
- sokoloff 7y ago
  This is in the context of a substance we’re trying to use to destroy enemy tanks and kill/injure combatants, not make s’mores out of.
  - jhonkola 7y ago
    Though it remains in the environment even after the operation and civilians will be exposed to it. This has been the case in e.g. Balkans (https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/world/radiation-from-balkan-bombing-alarms-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/world/radiation-from-balk...) and also in Iraq (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-ur...)
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Perhaps I should have said "not outrageously toxic" or something of that sort, because that does not sound worse than the stuff we make normal bullets out of - lead.
  - regularfry 7y ago
    Lead doesn't shatter the way uranium does, so it's less inclined to form a breathable dust on impact.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      That's true! Lead does tend to stay more clumped up than uranium dust. But isn't it also easier for lead to become bioavailable and/or enter the water supply?
- astine 7y ago
  True, but the alternative is tungsten, which is not much better in terms of toxicity: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp186.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp186.pdf The problem here is that armor piercing rounds need to be made of heavy metals in order to work and heavy metals are generally toxic. Even lead, which old fashioned bullets and shells are made of is toxic.
  - regularfry 7y ago
    Uranium is more likely to distribute that toxicity in a convenient dust cloud, though. Tungsten and lead for the most part stay in one piece on impact.
jabl 7y ago
Several western countries use tungsten instead of DU. Apparently largely due to the political issues anything uranium brings.
- jacobush 7y ago
  If you call “toxic” and non biodegradable “political”, I agree with you. I think you will find that countries that expect the fighting to be largely in their backyard selected Tungsten and the countries that fight “overseas” selected Uranium.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And yet all of them also selected lead for their infantry weapons, which is similarly toxic.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Ah, yes, because all lead bullets turn into a thousand degree cloud of dust, which you can later accidentally inhale or adsorb through your skin decades afterwards.

regularfry 7y ago

Uranium is... not nice stuff. I wouldn't classify it as "not particularly toxic". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/

sokoloff 7y ago
This is in the context of a substance we’re trying to use to destroy enemy tanks and kill/injure combatants, not make s’mores out of.
- jhonkola 7y ago
  Though it remains in the environment even after the operation and civilians will be exposed to it. This has been the case in e.g. Balkans (https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/world/radiation-from-balkan-bombing-alarms-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/world/radiation-from-balk...) and also in Iraq (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-ur...)
DuskStar 7y ago
Perhaps I should have said "not outrageously toxic" or something of that sort, because that does not sound worse than the stuff we make normal bullets out of - lead.
- regularfry 7y ago
  Lead doesn't shatter the way uranium does, so it's less inclined to form a breathable dust on impact.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    That's true! Lead does tend to stay more clumped up than uranium dust. But isn't it also easier for lead to become bioavailable and/or enter the water supply?
astine 7y ago
True, but the alternative is tungsten, which is not much better in terms of toxicity: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp186.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp186.pdf The problem here is that armor piercing rounds need to be made of heavy metals in order to work and heavy metals are generally toxic. Even lead, which old fashioned bullets and shells are made of is toxic.
- regularfry 7y ago
  Uranium is more likely to distribute that toxicity in a convenient dust cloud, though. Tungsten and lead for the most part stay in one piece on impact.

jabl 7y ago

Several western countries use tungsten instead of DU. Apparently largely due to the political issues anything uranium brings.

jacobush 7y ago
If you call “toxic” and non biodegradable “political”, I agree with you. I think you will find that countries that expect the fighting to be largely in their backyard selected Tungsten and the countries that fight “overseas” selected Uranium.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  And yet all of them also selected lead for their infantry weapons, which is similarly toxic.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Ah, yes, because all lead bullets turn into a thousand degree cloud of dust, which you can later accidentally inhale or adsorb through your skin decades afterwards.