Re: Mad Scientist stuff

[Mike McKinnon <mmckinno.ndep-lv@ndep.carson-city.nv.us>]

======== Original Message ========
Can we have some more information?  The question is "Which is more deadly,
a depleted uranium bullet or the radiation it emits?"  If the bullet is
still moving from being fired, then it is about one trillion (1E12) times
more dangerous than the radiation it emits.  Concerning its radiation, you
could probably put it in your pocket for 50 years, and never develop any
ill effects from it.  If it were laying on the ground, you would have
difficulty detecting it with most common radiation detectors from more than
6 ft.  If it were under a foot of soil, you what have trouble detecting it
with very sophisticated detectors, unless you were told where to look.  All
of this is another way to say that the radiation emissions from Depleted
Uranium are very weak.  The reason that there is still radioactive uranium
on the earth after 4.5 billion years, is that the half life is very long.
Long half life means low radioactive activity.

My own opinion.

Mike Dempsey RRPT 

mdempsey@lanl.gov




At 03:36 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Radsafers,
>
>My thanks to whomever pointed out this service to us.  I've gotten my first
>question that I can answer.  (The first was about civil engineering, which
>I am thoroughly unqualified to answer).  It is as follows:
>
>Which is more deadly, a depleted uranium bullet or the radiation it emits?
>
>Unfortunately, a grade level (k-12) was not included so I'm writing kind of
>blind with respect to my audience, but I'll definitely have fun writing
>this response.  Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread a few weeks
>back, I'll certainly be using that info in my answer!
>
>In case you want to join the fray as well, here's the web site info again. 
>The MAD Scientist Network
>http://www.madsci.org/
>
>If this question is an indication of things to come, we stand to do a lot
>of good by helping answer questions like this and supporting this
>organization.  
>
>Fighting to save the world, one poor foolish person at a time...
>
>Scott Kniffin
>
>RSO Unisys Federal Systems, Lanham, MD
>CHO Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA
>mailto:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov
>
>The opinions expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily represent
>the views of Unisys or NASA.  This material has not been reviewed by my
>manager or NASA.  
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
======== Fwd by: Mike McKinnon ========
Although you are correct in that DU penetrators pose little external
radiological threat in themselves, DU readily oxidizes and this green oxide
is readily transferred onto hands, etc and can even be resuspended and made
available for respiration.  

Mike McKinnon, PE, CHP
State of Nevada
mmckinno.ndep-lv@ndep.carson-city.nv.us
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html