[ RadSafe ] pyrophoric uranium considered nonessential

[Roy.Herren at med.va.gov]

James,

	Apparently I do work under the chain of command of Jonathan Perlin,
and a slew of other people that I do not know.  However I am a left coaster,
and he is not.  The opinions and questions that I posed were mine, and mine
alone.  I really appreciate the attempt to make my questions into a part of
some great conspiracy; however that just isn't the case.

	By your own admission, the potential ill consequence of the use of
depleted uranium as munitions isn't a consequence of radiation or
radioactive material contamination.  If your real objective here is to
protest the war, and the process by which it is being fought as is evidenced
by your statement, "A "timely" demise would be about six decades later,
after our diplomatic corps had been allowed to do their work resulting in
the enemy combatant being reclassified to allied alien status", then perhaps
you should focus your attentions into a more suitable format than RADSAFE.  

Roy Herren
Physical Science Technician
Radiation Safety Branch of the Radiology Department
Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, CA

Roy Herren
Physical Science Technician
Radiation Safety Branch of the Radiology Department
Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, CA
 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:15 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: Herren, Roy WS.
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] pyrophoric uranium considered nonessential

Roy Herren, who works for John Perlin, wrote:

> At what point in time during collision with a target is a 
> uranium projectile converted from a solid mass to a collection
> of "fine particles"? 

Shortly afterward, because the leading surface liquefies.

> How do the "fine particles" exit the solid target to cause the
> death of  the enemy combatant?

By inertia and/or convection.

> Is it possible, that the vast majority of the solid uranium
> projectile exits the target intact ...[?]

Yes, depending on the ordnance, between 80% and 15% of each round burns.

> and it is in fact possible that the mass of the projectile, its 
> fragments,  and the resultant debris from the target are what
> actually  causes the timely demise of the enemy combatant?

No, that would be, "untimely."  A "timely" demise would be about
six decades later, after our diplomatic corps had been allowed to
do their work resulting in the enemy combatant being reclassified
to allied alien status.

Sincerely,
James Salsman