[ RadSafe ] uranium combustion product inhalation

[Maury Siskel]

The Federation of American Scientists web site at:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp   is one of many excellent reference 
sources for data about munitions, weapon systems, and so on. I may be 
mistaken, but the previous assertion that the US neither makes nor uses 
any bullets made of or containing DU is correct without qualification -- 
No DU bullets .....

Projectiles, as in warheads on rockets, missiles, and cannon projectiles 
(e.g., 20 mm cannon rounds) employ DU in order to penetrate and destroy 
armor, tanks, and perhaps some structures. No bullets. So-called small 
arms bullets used in pistols, revolvers, rifles, and automatic weapons 
even up to and including heavy .50 caliber machine guns use zero DU. 
Most readers on this List recognize this, but there appears reason from 
time to time to again kill this dead horse. There are no "DU bullets 
made to kill people" -- that is done with lead and lead bullets jacketed 
with a harder alloy to protect the bore of the weapons using bullets. 
Grenades ( hand, rifle, and 40 mm) likewise contain no DU -- it would be 
a logistics waste.

If I've overlooked something here, please correct my oversight.
Cheers,
Maury&Dog
==========================

Franz Schönhofer wrote:

> Steven,
>
> The DU "bullets" and projectiles are made to effectively kill people. 
> Is there nobody on RADSAFE who understands this very basic fact?
>
> The second basic fact, which obviously nobody out there and not even 
> the creme de la creme of radiaton protection which one would expect at 
> RADSAFE
> seems to understand: Uranium is much more chemotoxic than radiotoxic. 
> DU is even less radiotoxic than natural uranium, whilst its 
> chemotoxicity is the
> same. We could take this very simple conclusion from scientific facts, 
> that somebody poisoned by uranium would rather suffer or die from 
> chemotoxicity of uranium before the radiotoxicity would be able to 
> affect the persons health.
>
> ANYBODY AT RADSAFE STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FACT??????? In 
> spite of this clear statement I am reasonable enough to be aware that 
> we will have tomorrow the same discussions about the "radioactive DU".
>
> So what is all this discussion about? We have to live with these 
> people who have very good contacts to mass media stars and contribute 
> their nonsense - not only in the USA but to some extent in Europe as 
> well. But judging from our US collegues at this international forum 
> they do not dare to simply say, "This is nonsense, because 
> chemotoxicity of uranium as a heavy metal would be much more 
> detrimental than due to its radioactivity". The idea of developing 
> tungsten projectiles is an even worse perversion of the weapons
> industry - in order to kill people "politically correctly" without the 
> drawback of perceived risk to own fighters millions of $ are spent.
>
> I better stop here.....
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franz
>
> 2007/2/10, Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>:
>
>>
>> Feb. 10
>>
>>         No one is making "bullets" out of DU.  Bullets and DU 
>> projectiles are entirely different objects.  Tell me this, though, 
>> James.  If "we" could use DU weapons without contaminating friendlies 
>> or civilians with uranyl would you be willing to accept their use?  
>> What if "we" didn't contaminate the friendlies and civilians with 
>> uranyl, but contaminated them
>> with some other substance?  Is it uranyl contamination that you find 
>> objectionable, or do you object to all types of contamination that 
>> come from DU projectiles?
>>
>>         The manner in which you ask about restitution constitutes 
>> begging the question.  First we need to establish whether or not 
>> anyone *should* make restitution.  That is a --- pardon the "M" word 
>> --- moral question and there will probably never be a generally 
>> accepted answer.
>>
>> Steven Dapra
>> sjd at swcp.com
>>
>>
>> At 11:08 PM 2/9/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote:
>>
>> [edit]
>>
>> When we make mistakes, we apologize and try to do better in the future.
>>
>> Making bullets out of depleted uranium is a monumental mistake in any 
>> >situation where friendlies or civilians can become contaminated with
>> uranyl. We need to apologize.
>>  
>> How much of the restitution should come from those responsible for 
>> the poor decision making?
>