Talk:Depleted uranium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] How high is the density?
The article doesn't say what the density of depleted uranium is, other than stating that it's "very high". I'm sure that some details on this would improve the article. - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The density of uranium is 19.1 g/mL. Depleted uranium is essentially the same (in principle, depleted uranium should be a tiny bit more dense, but I wouldn't expect the difference to be larger than about one part in ten thousand). --Itub (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "photografic evidence"
I removed this sentence:
Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that was obtained as a consequence of that use. There is no reliable source for that. The given source says:
Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that may have been obtained as a consequence of that use.
It doesn´t give any further sources, and also no photos. It seems not to be possible to find evidence for he use of DU "by photos". The source isn´t serious.77.2.121.72 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biased graph
[moving this here for better visibility, referring to the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basrah_birth_defects.gif ] It is interesting that the only source directly and freely accessible on the internet is one that shows data stopping at 1998, while the last two years are said to come from Uranium in the Wind, 2004 edition. Until 1998, the incidence reached a maximum 7.76‰ congenital births. In the unaccessible information, the incidence seems to raise to about 9‰ in 1999 and to a significantly higher 17‰ in 2000.
There are two other biases on the graph that leave me unsatisfied. First, no historical serie for the congenital births in Basrah is shown before 1990. A reasonable study would show the data or at least estimate it for the Eighties. Secondly, and most importantly, we are now in 2008. Other data must be available to cover the pre-2003-war period and the successive intervention.
All in all, at least three things would make this graph credible:
1) an accessible source to the last two years covered in the graph;
2) a reasonable serie;
3) new data to support this congenital births anomaly with stronger evidence of a stable increase in the area (as depleted uranium would not lose its effect over this short period of time).
My suggestion is to remove the graph, because it gives a direct-impact visual information that is still generally unsustained from empirical findings. Billy Pilgrim (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is "Uranium in the Wind" inaccessable? Listing Port (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DOT-E 9649
Should there be a section relevant to the shipment of depleted uranium? Kgrr (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] bullet image
The bullet pictured is obviously not a 30mm round. As you can see, the diameter is clearly under an inch, and an inch is 12.7mm. It looks like some sort of a .50 caliber round to me, or maybe a 20mm round.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.78 (talk • contribs) 15:24, April 19, 2008
- An A-10 30mm bullet contains "a sub-calibre high density penetrator" so the penetrator is smaller than the actual bore diameter and incased in a sabot for CIWS or aluminum for aircraft.[1]
-
- I was wondering why it was a different shape than a regular bullet. If that's the case, though, it should probably be captioned as a "a sub-calibre high density penetrator" and not a bullet.4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Think of the bore erosion if the DU was actually touching the barrels.
-
- I was also wondering about that, too. I just figured that national governments had all the money they needed to keep rebarreling the guns and so that's what they did. I Guess I was wrong.
-
- Incidentally, do you know if these rounds are available on the US civilian market? I know armor piercing handgun rounds are verboten here, but AFAIK, there is no such restriction on rifle bullets. 4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, that's right. 12.7mm is half an inch, not an inch. I'm in the market for a .50 BMG right now, and was just looking at a bunch of them, so I've got 50 caliber on the brain. 4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Health situations critique and attempt at re-write
I have listed the problems with the Health considerations at User:Normal_Standard/sandbox. My improvements were mostly removing POV or unsourced material and trying to improve the references. However, I was having problems with the AFRBI URLs.
Would someone please see if the AFRBI URLs are still in the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org/ ? Normal Standard (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see they are now at, e.g., http://web.archive.org/web/20070205224625/www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/miller_NATO_2005.pdf . Normal Standard (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong link
The heavy metal link is to the heavy metal genre of music, not the "heavy metal" elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin3577 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 60% radiation reduction
"The external radiation dose from DU is about 60 percent of that from the same mass of natural uranium." This statement may be true - but the fact that it is repeated three times in the article begs for someone to add a source for it. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
The exposition in the section regarding DU usage in the Arab-Israeli war and Israel invading Lebanon seems a bit like someone has an axe to grind? Should it be chopped down? 77.69.208.83 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DUStory-owner deleting sources
DUStory-owner, why did you remove mention of the Canadian and German scientific bodies, the Hindin paper, both of the anti-DU organizations, the Army training video, and the documentary references?
Do you have a source for the relative cost of tungsten in the 1970s? 75.61.103.120 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Counteraction: you need sources
Counteraction added this:
[edit] 1948: US army develops plans to radioactively contaminate populated areas
- In 1948 the American military approved plans to explore the possibility of using radioactive material to assasinate people. This plan was a well-hidden part of a broader pursuit by the US army of a "new concept of warfare" using radioactive materials from atomic bombmaking to contaminate swaths of enemy land or to target military bases, factories or troop formations. In 2007 this information was made available to the public through declassified but heavily censored documents. The American army's main research was focused on finding ways of effectively contaminating enemy territory with radioactive material, the developement of ways to use radioactive material as a way to kill individuals was less important.
- The top priorities listed were:
- 1 Weapons to contaminate "populated or otherwise critical areas for long periods of time."
- 2 Munitions combining high explosives with radioactive material "to accomplish physical damage and radioactive contamination simultaneously."
- 3 Air and-or surface weapons that would spread contamination across an area to be evacuated, thereby rendering it unusable by enemy forces.
Counteraction, you need to ask on WP:RSN if that is an opinion piece or a reliable source, please. Thank you. 76.225.157.40 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The reference refers to either direct assassination by highly radioactive material or to general destruction of large areas of land by using remnants of nuclear bombs or reactor material. In either case DU cannot be used for those purposes and is not related in any way. I'm removing the material. Starkrm (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article talks about contaminating large area's of land with radioactive material to make it inhospitable for civilians. With cancer increasing 7 fold in Sarajevo in just 5 years, the incidence of birth deformities in area's of Iraq increasing 10fold in a decade, certain area's of Baghdad having 1000 times the normal background radiation, and birth deformities having doubled in under 2 years now in Afghanistan it's no longer an issue to debate whether DU can be used for those purposes or not.Counteraction (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted under WP:OR. The article cited makes no mention of any radioactive substance other than polonium, both for an actual incident that happened and as speculation from an expert about which material might have been feasible. Unless you have a source you can cite that the PURPOSE of the DU is to cause wide scale contamination, it is not RELEVENT here. It MAY be relevent in a different article, but your cited source also said it was abandonded in 1954.Beachgrinch (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article talks about contaminating large area's of land with radioactive material to make it inhospitable for civilians. With cancer increasing 7 fold in Sarajevo in just 5 years, the incidence of birth deformities in area's of Iraq increasing 10fold in a decade, certain area's of Baghdad having 1000 times the normal background radiation, and birth deformities having doubled in under 2 years now in Afghanistan it's no longer an issue to debate whether DU can be used for those purposes or not.Counteraction (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The reference refers to either direct assassination by highly radioactive material or to general destruction of large areas of land by using remnants of nuclear bombs or reactor material. In either case DU cannot be used for those purposes and is not related in any way. I'm removing the material. Starkrm (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protected?
This article seems to have a semiprotect. Why? 219.79.235.14 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
