|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 9, 2007 18:46:01 GMT -4
DU is also used as shielding on some radiography cameras. The DU shield is less bulky than a lead shield. Ranb Don't let HBers hear that! I wonder if in some future, DU could be used as shielding on the outer hull of some spacecraft. I guess that could mean the USS Enterprise really does have a glowing personality, if this could be done. ;D
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 9, 2007 19:41:24 GMT -4
I wonder if in some future, DU could be used as shielding on the outer hull of some spacecraft. I guess that could mean the USS Enterprise really does have a glowing personality, if this could be done. ;D Highly unlikely, particle radiation is the only kind which is a significant problem in space (well unless you happen to be hanging out near pulsar or something similarly exotic and energetic) for which the best shielding to use is light elements to avoid creating nasty secondary radiation.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 9, 2007 22:54:31 GMT -4
Yeah, I knew that, so I figured that it could work like reactor shielding; dense stuff for EM radiation, and the plastic stuff (poly) for particle radiation.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 10, 2007 9:06:11 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 10, 2007 9:10:54 GMT -4
Rocky, check your Private Messages. I sent you something, it's kind of important.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 10, 2007 16:06:47 GMT -4
Too late for Rocky.
And what do you know, he finds solace in the one person that agrees with him. Typical.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 10, 2007 16:08:05 GMT -4
How is it it is always _videos_ that are "really informative?" Videos are nice for giving one a "look and feel" of an artist at work or in concert, a travel destination or landmark, living creatures in natural habitat. They are inefficient at delivering data. How on earth does a video beat out a paragraph for relative penetration of alpha and beta particles?
More to the point, why do some people here only refer to videos. Are they only capable of passive viewing? Are they only swayed by emotional arguments? Why not open a textbook? Surely there are libraries where they live?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 10, 2007 16:13:42 GMT -4
Indeed, Nomuse.
Rocky seems to have adapted to a diet of information from videos, forgetting that books are a source of information too. Ironically, he did mention he's an English teacher. Don't they read books too?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 11, 2007 6:10:45 GMT -4
You go on about reading text books as being superior to watching video's when it's painfully obvious you can't read text off of a monitor. The penetration of low level radiation from DU is not disputed, it's the fact that the DU particles remain penetrated inside living body's through ingestion and inhalation. Is that so hard to comprehend? The effects of low level radiation exposure like that are not understood, the heavy metal toxicity of DU is. I haven't looked at this thread for while but it looks like it's become the radiation rednecks reunion .
What do you say to back the front logic like that?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 11, 2007 6:51:35 GMT -4
The Australian Defence Force phased out DU munitions back in the mid 80's and DU munitions have never been approved for use inside Australia. So when Uncle Sam comes to play soldiers he has to leave his poison darts at home.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 11, 2007 7:18:57 GMT -4
What does this mean "...you can't read text off a monitor?" You are reading text off a monitor at this very moment! Or was this comment directed specifically at me, with the implication being that I, personally, could not understand what I had read regardless of the source? (Or, perhaps, you meant to say "You can read text off a monitor" and ignored the inconvenient fact that very few of these endless videos linked to emphasize text.
I don't believe my understanding is important. What would seem more at issue is the understanding of those who demonize any and all compounds and devices capable of emitting ionizing radiation, and the more tempered understanding of those who consider this a generally quantifiable risk.
Let me play a little towards the Devil's Advocate here, though, and mention that biological systems are complex, and our understanding must remain incomplete. For that reason, and for sound reasons of individual variation, environmental effects, dispersion patterns, and so forth, radiological threats must be understood statistically. As are most health threats! Can I, can anyone, state with absolute certainty that there will be no health effects from exposure to a particular radiological threat? No. But neither can I nor anyone state with absolute certainty that I will survive a front-end collision in a 2006 automobile with full working safety equipment. Real life is not so kind as to deal in absolutes.
As much as we hate to accept it, choices in life are tempered by compromise. I drive to work, accepting the risks that entails. My state government has accepted a freeway speed of 60 MPH, accepting trade-offs in not just public safety but increased energy costs and roadway wear and tear. Often these choices are driven by political or popular pressures as well as economic ones, and they are not always logical or even sane. But it is sane to accept that in everything there are trade-offs.
If shards of DU were a side effect of commuter rail, or microwave pizza, there would be good reason for concern. But DU is used in a military environment, where toxins and hazards, loss of liberty and life are already, sadly, commonplace. If DU was used because it needed to be gotten rid of, or because it was shiny and looked cool, there would be reason to question the sanity of using it. But it is used because it combines essential properties that make that weapon system possible. Very, very few materials have the combination of density and mechanical strength to make a decent discarding-sabot, and discarding-sabot is one of the few decent ways we have at present to make hypervelocity rounds, and hypervelocity rounds are one of the current best approaches to attacking light armor.
I was in the military, I am a bit too familiar with the dangerous and toxic environment we operate in; from the frightening and ghastly white phosphorous to the homely but ugly spilled diesel and field latrines. We do grow up, and do start to call some things (phosgene, chlorine, cluster munitions) as a little too ugly for us to use. Perhaps one day we'll decide DU is a little too much of a health risk to have around. But it's going to have to stand in line behind a long list of much more dangerous things.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 11, 2007 7:22:44 GMT -4
I don't think anyone is disputing Risk,
It is just that a lot of the risks are presented in an inverse order. The use of DU as a Hi Velocity round is due to its density, and Yes it is so Tanks and Armour can be penetrated more effectively,
The question could also be asked on the fact that if you know a country was using such a round, why would you try and assault with insufficient Armour plating. would you attack armed troops in conflict armed with a tin of peaches or a banana when he has kevlar body armour and a nice SA-80 with Bayonet. You might, but you might want to rethink your tactics.
Proof of the toxicity has been brought forward and it has been acted upon, similarly in previous wars the use of WP, Landmines, Cluster bombs, Napalm, Nerve Gas, Mustard Gas, Phosgene, Anthrax infested bedsheets, Bloated cattle or corpses dropped in the Wells, have been used, (sometimes they are still utilised) expedience and effectiveness in the field can be a more important fact in allowing use of a weapon than morality.
I suppose if the armies decided not to utilise DU, or to use effective weapons or weapons designed for specific tasks, maybe lessened all the armour on the AFVs, just to make it fair.
Would the deaths of many civilian soldiers and a longer costlier* conflict be more palatable to you, or would the choice of the best tools for the job still hold? (costlier both in terms of Men and Materiel for both sides)
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 11, 2007 7:38:32 GMT -4
What do you say to back the front logic like that? You said that "There is no defense against DU munitions". Yet, you did not specify what you meant. When fired, and the round is coming at you, then you are probably screwed. However, it it's just lying on the ground, you can put on anti-contamination clothing so you don't breath in any possible dust, or somehow injest anything. In the latter case, you DO, in fact, have a defense. Which situation, then, do you refer to their being no defense against DU munitions? If you did mean the latter, then it does show that you're not familar with the role of anti-contamination clothing. Otherwise, you'd know the statement to be false. So, which situation do you refer to?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 11, 2007 8:31:21 GMT -4
The Australian Defence Force phased out DU munitions back in the mid 80's and DU munitions have never been approved for use inside Australia. So when Uncle Sam comes to play soldiers he has to leave his poison darts at home. Well you can trust the Australian government then. They wouldn't lie to you. Really.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 11, 2007 8:51:22 GMT -4
The penetration of low level radiation from DU is not disputed, it's the fact that the DU particles remain penetrated inside living body's through ingestion and inhalation. Is that so hard to comprehend? The effects of low level radiation exposure like that are not understood, the heavy metal toxicity of DU is. I haven't looked at this thread for while but it looks like it's become the radiation rednecks reunion . The risks from Ingested radiation particles and fluids are quite well known, and researched, otherwise the old barium meal or other radio tracer elements wouldn't be used neither could Radio therapy. The main difference n risk assessment between Radio Isotopes inside the body and outside the body, is still the penetration power just that now our first line of defense against most of the Environment(skin) isn't a factor, the other main risk calculation from internal radioactivity is Dependant on concentration, this is why the strontium 90 decay product is dangerous or Active Iodine, as they tend to accumulate within specific body structures presenting a greater risk, than say radioactive Carbon, Nitrogen, Iron Potassium, for example which is not specifically concentrated into an area.
|
|