Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The solution to our nuke waste problem - Page 2

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
> before coming up with the result?

Well, no, radioactive elements decay by emitting (surprise) bursts of
radiation. So you use something to measure the decay events, like a
geiger counter or something with phosphorous and an optical detector.
You measure decay events for a period of time, and then you can figure
out the rate at which decay events are happening. Then it's just
some simple math to determine the half-life.

And no, you'll never be sure that you get exactly the right answer.
But then, one of the interesting things about radioactive decay is
that there IS no right answer. As far as science can tell (if I
understand this correctly), any individual atom is just sitting
there and during one second of time, it has some small probability
of "deciding" to decay. If, during that first interval, it doesn't
decay, then during the next one-second interval, it has exactly the
same probability as it did in the previous interval. So you could
in theory have a chunk of something radioactive sitting there, and
you could have no decay occur during the first second, and then
you'd be *exactly* where you started a second ago. This is very
unlike doing math with a car traveling down the road at a constant
70mph. With the car, you can say that one second later, it will
about 103 ft further down the road. Radioactive decay would be
more like a car where you never actually take your foot off the
brake, and the wheels never roll, but about every second or so,
it teleports itself to a position 103 ft further down the road[1].

So anyway, after all that the point is that the half-life can only
be measured approximately, so they don't know that it's exactly
4.5 billion years, although they can be quite confident that it's
awefully likely to be very close to 4.5 billion years.

But, the half-life isn't all that important. All it tells you
is how quickly something is spitting out radiation. It is
somewhat informative because things with long half-lives are
not going to spit out radiation very fast; otherwise, they'd
spit it all out long before 4.5 billion years' time. The
important thing is really what kind of radiation is coming
out and how much. And *that* can be measured pretty directly.

Well, also, the more important thing is the damaging *chemical*
effects of heavy metals like uranium. Uranium is dangerous
for the same sorts of reasons that you can get lead poisoning.

- Logan

[1] Actually, it would be more like a greyhound bus full of
little ants, and each ant has a little button he can press
that will teleport the bus 103 ft down the road, but each
ant can only press his button one time, and you can't really
predict when he will do it, and the ants don't act in a
coordinated fashion at all.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Actually you're getting into probability, which suggests that one can't
predict WHICH atom will decide to decay. The fact is that at least ONE atom
will decay at a predicted time. In an entirely unstable isotope, the
probability becomes a universe where ALL the atoms can decide to decay at
the exact same time, which means boom.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:G8Pjd.38766$tL5.17545@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
> > before coming up with the result?
>
> Well, no, radioactive elements decay by emitting (surprise) bursts of
> radiation. So you use something to measure the decay events, like a
> geiger counter or something with phosphorous and an optical detector.
> You measure decay events for a period of time, and then you can figure
> out the rate at which decay events are happening. Then it's just
> some simple math to determine the half-life.
>
> And no, you'll never be sure that you get exactly the right answer.
> But then, one of the interesting things about radioactive decay is
> that there IS no right answer. As far as science can tell (if I
> understand this correctly), any individual atom is just sitting
> there and during one second of time, it has some small probability
> of "deciding" to decay. If, during that first interval, it doesn't
> decay, then during the next one-second interval, it has exactly the
> same probability as it did in the previous interval. So you could
> in theory have a chunk of something radioactive sitting there, and
> you could have no decay occur during the first second, and then
> you'd be *exactly* where you started a second ago. This is very
> unlike doing math with a car traveling down the road at a constant
> 70mph. With the car, you can say that one second later, it will
> about 103 ft further down the road. Radioactive decay would be
> more like a car where you never actually take your foot off the
> brake, and the wheels never roll, but about every second or so,
> it teleports itself to a position 103 ft further down the road[1].
>
> So anyway, after all that the point is that the half-life can only
> be measured approximately, so they don't know that it's exactly
> 4.5 billion years, although they can be quite confident that it's
> awefully likely to be very close to 4.5 billion years.
>
> But, the half-life isn't all that important. All it tells you
> is how quickly something is spitting out radiation. It is
> somewhat informative because things with long half-lives are
> not going to spit out radiation very fast; otherwise, they'd
> spit it all out long before 4.5 billion years' time. The
> important thing is really what kind of radiation is coming
> out and how much. And *that* can be measured pretty directly.
>
> Well, also, the more important thing is the damaging *chemical*
> effects of heavy metals like uranium. Uranium is dangerous
> for the same sorts of reasons that you can get lead poisoning.
>
> - Logan
>
> [1] Actually, it would be more like a greyhound bus full of
> little ants, and each ant has a little button he can press
> that will teleport the bus 103 ft down the road, but each
> ant can only press his button one time, and you can't really
> predict when he will do it, and the ants don't act in a
> coordinated fashion at all.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:51:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
630
> thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
we're
> still talking about a lot of tons of material.
>
Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
the first Gulf War.

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.sh...

An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.

Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms dust
when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.

And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year half-life
is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill you.

Glenn D.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And how many 100s of days did the first Gulf war take compared to the 20
months of war we have now?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:YePjd.2525$yU6.2291@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> > Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
> 630
> > thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
> we're
> > still talking about a lot of tons of material.
> >
> Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
> the first Gulf War.
>
> http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.sh...
>
> An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.
>
> Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
> the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms
dust
> when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
> With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
> figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
> should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.
>
> And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year
half-life
> is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill
you.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.

And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions that
could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
territory. If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond the
ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability to
enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most certainly
becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if we
take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into consideration,
then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the goals.
Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that comprise
the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is that
what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys by
introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
nothing but problems.

It's already too late to assume that the historical records won't suggest
the above alone, much less with the additional problems of the types of
armament.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:YePjd.2525$yU6.2291@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> > Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
> 630
> > thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
> we're
> > still talking about a lot of tons of material.
> >
> Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
> the first Gulf War.
>
> http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.sh...
>
> An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.
>
> Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
> the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms
dust
> when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
> With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
> figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
> should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.
>
> And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year
half-life
> is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill
you.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:51:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:D ImdnX1vge7kXhLcRVn-rg@rcn.net...
> I said "get's hit" which precludes missing, my man! <g>
>
> And M16 fires a .223 caliber bullet, but one would be hard put to have any
> weapons person dismiss a .22 as a .223 and sell the wrong ammo!
>
> And of course, there's always the amount of powder that imparts the
initial
> velocity. Lot's of variables, but let's stick to a real .22 caliber (and
> I'll give you a long rifle) bullet compared to a .45 caliber, and if I
> absolutely HAVE to go into the woods where I might run into a bear, then
I'd
> prefer the .45 whether it's a talon or a hollowpoint.
>
I'd go even chances going up against a bear with a loaded .22 or
pistolwhipping with an M1911A1.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 10:02:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:fcudnRV4xcVoXBLcRVn-oA@comcast.com...

>
> Common US military ammo is 5.56 mm, which is just a scosh over 0.25 -
close
> enough to .22, right?
>
Nit: it's closer to .22 than .25. 5.56mm divided 25.4mm is 0.218898.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 10:38:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:jIadnXmy7u--VRLcRVn-iQ@rcn.net...
> And how many 100s of days did the first Gulf war take compared to the 20
> months of war we have now?
>
How many tank battles between the two wars? Infantry fighting in the cities
doesn't expend DU rounds. Compare the number of tank division fighting on
both sides in each conflict to estimate expenditure of DU.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 10:43:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:7M6dnRmRkdP-VxLcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
> heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.
>
I'll agree that I would be more concerned with the dust than with the
radioactivity.

> And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions
that
> could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
> territory.

Like dud rounds? I bet they're a greater risk of harm to the populace. Or
the actual fighting, too.

> If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
> circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond the
> ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability to
> enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most certainly
> becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if we
> take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into consideration,

I'll bet you could poll 1000 tankers, and a vast majority they'd rather take
whatever risk exists of DU poisoning over the risk of not killing the enemy
with a first shot.

> then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the
goals.

There's tungsten, but it's a lot more expensive and less effective.

> Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
> thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that
comprise
> the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is
that
> what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
> results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
> have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys by
> introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
> nothing but problems.
>
I think DU poisoning will be so far down the list of troubles. How many
deaths have been projected for that compared to how many were caused by
sanctions, the current conflict or Saddam's own actions?

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 10:43:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I can't dispute anything happening on the ground because I've beat feet on
the ground in war. What I'm disputing is military and US policy that places
US military in harms way, dispenses questionably toxic material in it's
wake, and has minimal concern for the people it professes to want to
liberate, not to mention the possible toll it takes on our own military and
their families. Apparently policy doesn't care if there are less people to
liberate, as long as someone gets liberated. The assumption, however, is
that one person left standing because of our "help" is perfectly acceptable.

My preference would be that MOST of the people we profess to try to liberate
get liberated, and hence I wouldn't want to leave their homeland scattered
with munitions of any sort or toxic materials that will effect their lives
for decades to come.

And I damned sure don't want my brothers in arms coming home to find another
14 years before any recognition of any "syndrome" that may occur for
whatever reason it occurrs, and I don't want them to be screwed out of
proper facilities to have their wounds and syndromes treated somewhere close
to the family support that helps speed recovery and acceptance of such
tragedies as losing arms and legs and having to have an unprepared family
suddenly take up the burden. Nor do I want them to return home with such
disabilities and then run into the problem of finding that their jobs are no
longer available due to their long forced stint in the service or because
they can no longer perform the duties they had prior to their taking up arms
for the protection of American citizens.

You suggest that any additional deaths based on some of these speculations
is far less than the deaths already tabulated, but what you're not
considering is that, in truth, we'd be talking about ADDING these deaths to
those that have already come.

Time to stop suggesting that more death is for the good of the people. It's
not. It's only good for the policies.



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:b%Pjd.2538$R%6.467@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:7M6dnRmRkdP-VxLcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> > It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
> > heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.
> >
> I'll agree that I would be more concerned with the dust than with the
> radioactivity.
>
> > And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions
> that
> > could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
> > territory.
>
> Like dud rounds? I bet they're a greater risk of harm to the populace. Or
> the actual fighting, too.
>
> > If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
> > circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond
the
> > ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability
to
> > enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most
certainly
> > becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if
we
> > take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into
consideration,
>
> I'll bet you could poll 1000 tankers, and a vast majority they'd rather
take
> whatever risk exists of DU poisoning over the risk of not killing the
enemy
> with a first shot.
>
> > then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the
> goals.
>
> There's tungsten, but it's a lot more expensive and less effective.
>
> > Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
> > thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that
> comprise
> > the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is
> that
> > what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
> > results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
> > have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys
by
> > introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
> > nothing but problems.
> >
> I think DU poisoning will be so far down the list of troubles. How many
> deaths have been projected for that compared to how many were caused by
> sanctions, the current conflict or Saddam's own actions?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 10:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

> I'd go even chances going up against a bear with a loaded .22 or
> pistolwhipping with an M1911A1.

I'll hold the wagers.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:27:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Actually you're getting into probability, which suggests that one can't
> predict WHICH atom will decide to decay. The fact is that at least ONE atom
> will decay at a predicted time.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but as I understand it, it is the exact
opposite of that. The probability that any atom will decay during a
particular time interval is independent of the probabilities of all
the other atoms decaying. In fact, if my understanding is correct,
the theory is that the probability of decay is independent of everything,
i.e. it's truly random.

To me, it's pretty clear that if the above assumptions are true
(independent probability for each atom), then the time at which
all atoms will have decayed is totally unpredictable. To see
this, pick any time interval you want. You might typically see
lots of decay events during this time interval. But it's clear
that as you decrease the time interval, the chances of having no
events during that time interval increase. (Imagine you pick
1 nanosecond as your interval for a tiny chunk of some substance
with a long half-life.) So there has to be, for any chunk of
some substance, a finite time interval for which it's very likely
that no decay events occur. Since decay events are random (i.e.
follow an exponential probability distribution), they have no
"memory", which means that after that time interval, you have
not moved any closer to a decay event than you were. So, if
there's a finite chance that a time interval can elapse and you
can have no progress toward the end state, then the time it takes
for the process to complete can never be predicted.

> In an entirely unstable isotope, the
> probability becomes a universe where ALL the atoms can decide to decay at
> the exact same time, which means boom.

Well, if by "entirely unstable isotope", you mean a substance where
the probability that an atom will decay instantaneously is 100%, then
yeah. But in practice, as far as I know the probability of decay
over a finite time interval is always finite. Even when they make
a tiny sample of Element 106 in the lab and it only exists for 0.1
milliseconds or whatever before it decays, it still doesn't decay
*instantly*.

On the other hand, what is the probability that in the one-second
interval after I hit th "send" button on this post, that all the
atoms in some object (like my mechanical pencil) would decay?
Well, based on the theory I've heard, I'd have to conclude that
the probability isn't zero. However, because decay is pretty
unlikely for each atom, and since the probability is pretty much
independent, you basically just multiply all the probabilities
together. Even if you had 100 atoms that each had a 50% chance
of decaying in the next 1 second, you'd still only have a
1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 chance of them all
decaying in one second. So, scaling that up to a mechanical pencil
reduces the probability even further, and the probability that all
of the atoms in the entire universe would all go at once is just so
vanishingly small (although still theoretically non-zero), that this
particular form of universe destruction is not a big worry. :-)

Now, what did all this have to do with audio? Oh yeah, all that
pesky background radiation creates noise. Darn that stuff!

- Logan
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:27:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:


> On the other hand, what is the probability that in the one-second
> interval after I hit th "send" button on this post, that all the
> atoms in some object (like my mechanical pencil) would decay?
> Well, based on the theory I've heard, I'd have to conclude that
> the probability isn't zero.

Which says that it will occur in some universe in which
that's the only difference from those in which it doesn't
happen. Actually it will occur in an infinite number of
universes but the measure of such universes is
infinitessimally smaller than the measure of those in which
it doesn't. You'll be the one holding that pencil in all of
them, though, so it can be said with absolute accuracy that
you can count to ten and expect it to happen. Accurate for
some of you, that is.

Oh, that's the implication of the Many Worlds Interpretation
of quantum mechanics. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:04:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-08, Romeo Rondeau <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote:

> OK, let me get this straight... We're trying to kill the guy behind the
> plated armour... but in case he survives, we don't want him getting cancer
> from the dust?

We don't support the cause enough to justify killing people generations
into the future. However, I don't consider a small amount of Uranium to
be as big a problem as large amounts of other, less toxic, heavy metals.

And nothing compares to unexploded land mines in farmland areas.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:05:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-08, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> That's a lot, but what sort of tonnage of lead?
>
> I'm not saying uranium isn't bad for you, I'm just saying that lead is also
> bad for you. And leftover land mines are really, really bad for you.

Scott, you just about word for word expressed my sentiments.

This is my last political post on this non-political group. My views
are already held by others, and I thank you.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:07:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:_5-dnddOLooNRBLcRVn-sA@rcn.net...
> I can't dispute anything happening on the ground because I've beat feet on
> the ground in war. What I'm disputing is military and US policy that
places
> US military in harms way,

Like going to war?

> dispenses questionably toxic material in it's
> wake,

'questionably toxic' dust; serious toxic (fatal, at least) kinetic and
pyrophoric effects. That's the job of the military: kill people and break
things.

> and has minimal concern for the people it professes to want to
> liberate, not to mention the possible toll it takes on our own military
and
> their families.

So you'd sacrifice troops today to protect others in future from a possible
ill effect?

> Apparently policy doesn't care if there are less people to
> liberate, as long as someone gets liberated. The assumption, however, is
> that one person left standing because of our "help" is perfectly
acceptable.
>
I don't know where this comes from.

> My preference would be that MOST of the people we profess to try to
liberate
> get liberated, and hence I wouldn't want to leave their homeland scattered
> with munitions of any sort or toxic materials that will effect their lives
> for decades to come.

So lead for bullets is out, then?
>
> And I damned sure don't want my brothers in arms coming home to find
another
> 14 years before any recognition of any "syndrome" that may occur for
> whatever reason it occurrs,

I agree. But taking away weapons like DU penetrators increases the number
that won't be coming home. Given a choice between first kill hits on enemy
armor and the remote chance that someone will contract something down the
line, I'll keep DU. And so will the tankers, and the grunts protected by the
tankers. You've been in service; how many of your compatriots smoked? When I
was in fifteen years ago, it was nearly 80%. What's riskier, smoking or the
chance of long term illnesses caused by the chance of DU exposure, which may
or may not cause damage in any particular person?



> You suggest that any additional deaths based on some of these speculations
> is far less than the deaths already tabulated, but what you're not
> considering is that, in truth, we'd be talking about ADDING these deaths
to
> those that have already come.

Agreed. But given the opposing forces that our troops would have to face in
future conflicts, I don't want to take away from their efficiency and
survivability to avoid issues like DU.
>
> Time to stop suggesting that more death is for the good of the people.
It's
> not.

Sacrificing more of our troops should not be a goal, either.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nmm" <voxman@arvotek.net> wrote in message
news:D 1a1b33a.0411081304.27132dc9@posting.google.com...
> "Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
news:<10ou5f9lhmtk2d3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > It's OK until you fire it down a gun barrel at high velocity and then
> > > bang it into armor plating. Some of it tends to get finely pulverized
> > > and oxidized. If you inhale the dust, that's bad. Worse than lead, in
> > > that respect, because it's more toxic.
> > >
> > > So you don't want to be on a battlefield where it's being used. Come
> > > to think of it, you probably don't want to be on a battlefield,
> > > period. As a turntable weight, it's probably as safe as lead.
> >
> > OK, let me get this straight... We're trying to kill the guy behind the
> > plated armour... but in case he survives, we don't want him getting
cancer
> > from the dust?
>
>
> No you don't want your guys getting cancer/ gulf war syndrome,

We don't want our guys getting blown-up-in-the-tank syndrome either. That's
why increased protection and first-shot kills are important.

> and
> everyone in a 1000 mile radius getting cancer/ gulf war syndrome.

My, what a boogyman you've turned this into. Just how much uranium oxide
dust is lying around, and how much does it take to cause problems?
>
> Right now the Iraqi counterinsurgents are not behind any plated
> armour anyway.

And we're not shooting DU rounds at soft targets, either. HE or API, or even
solid shot, is the weapon of preference for those targets.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:13:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message news:<DjRjd.2552$cf7.1000@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> "Nmm" <voxman@arvotek.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1a1b33a.0411081304.27132dc9@posting.google.com...
> > "Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
> news:<10ou5f9lhmtk2d3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > It's OK until you fire it down a gun barrel at high velocity and then
> > > > bang it into armor plating. Some of it tends to get finely pulverized
> > > > and oxidized. If you inhale the dust, that's bad. Worse than lead, in
> > > > that respect, because it's more toxic.
> > > >
> > > > So you don't want to be on a battlefield where it's being used. Come
> > > > to think of it, you probably don't want to be on a battlefield,
> > > > period. As a turntable weight, it's probably as safe as lead.
> > >
> > > OK, let me get this straight... We're trying to kill the guy behind the
> > > plated armour... but in case he survives, we don't want him getting
> cancer
> > > from the dust?
> >
> >
> > No you don't want your guys getting cancer/ gulf war syndrome,
>
> We don't want our guys getting blown-up-in-the-tank syndrome either. That's
> why increased protection and first-shot kills are important.
>

And for all the Tank to Tank battles that were fought in Iraq?

Did the Iraqis even use tanks? Teriq Aziz told us before the war
started that they weren't going to fight this on conventional means.


> > and
> > everyone in a 1000 mile radius getting cancer/ gulf war syndrome.
>
> My, what a boogyman you've turned this into. Just how much uranium oxide
> dust is lying around, and how much does it take to cause problems?
> >

http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/du_effects.htm

The long-term effects from over a decade of DU exposures are emerging
in Southern  Iraq. They are devastating. The increased  quantities of
radio-active material ( including non-depleted uranium), used in
Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq 199.  In Iraq 2003
they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991 and will travel
through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and
unborn.  Countries within a 1000 mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are
being affected by radiation poisoning , that includes the Capital,
New
Delhi, where the ruling elite lives. 

Somewhere in that article they also mention Iraq's 600% increase in
child Leukimia,

> > Right now the Iraqi counterinsurgents are not behind any plated
> > armour anyway.
>
> And we're not shooting DU rounds at soft targets, either. HE or API, or even
> solid shot, is the weapon of preference for those targets.
>
> Glenn D.


Well they were straffing Al Fallujah all day today from F-18s. That's
an M-61 Cannon that fires DU shells as far as i know.

They are also using field artillery. DU is the preffered shell in
Howitzers.

A-10 Warhogs?
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 3:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

> Actually you're getting into probability, which suggests that one can't
> predict WHICH atom will decide to decay. The fact is that at least ONE atom
> will decay at a predicted time.

Absolutely NOT so !

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

Graham
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 1:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nmm wrote:

> Did the Iraqis even use tanks?

Not for long ! As in, I doubt they even got a shell fired.

The 'digital battlefield' wipes them out pretty fast.


Graham
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 4:53:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< A better solution, although far more
expensive, is explosive shielding, which immediately reacts to an attempt at
penetration and explodes to counteract the kinetic energy of the offensive
weapon. >>




I did the post for a General Dynamics project about how to install GD Reactive
Tiles onto Bradley assault vehicles. Talk about fighting fire with fire!


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 12:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>See?...Do not argue with a rocket scientist. Scott really is a rocket
>scientist, and people would be wise not to try to argue on knowledge
>with him.

Funny thing is he was responding to a post by George...so we know no real
arguement will result.
So Scott..how do we aquire some of this depleted Uranium?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 1:14:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Blind Joni wrote:
>>See?...Do not argue with a rocket scientist. Scott really is a rocket
>>scientist, and people would be wise not to try to argue on knowledge
>>with him.
>
>
> Funny thing is he was responding to a post by George...so we know no real
> arguement will result.
> So Scott..how do we aquire some of this depleted Uranium?
>
>
That is correct John,

I rarely bother to argue
I point out facts and let others take it from there
george
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 1:13:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nmm wrote:
> "Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.dowdy@commiecast.net> wrote in message news:<NL6dnTxexKU4vhDcRVn-vg@comcast.com>...
>
>> Fix the Sudan problem. You have all the answers.
>
>
> I really wish i knoew the solution or even the cause of the problems
> in Sudan.


Try this word:

Oil
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 3:34:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Nmm wrote:
>
>> "Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.dowdy@commiecast.net> wrote in message
>> news:<NL6dnTxexKU4vhDcRVn-vg@comcast.com>...
>>
>>> Fix the Sudan problem. You have all the answers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I really wish i knoew the solution or even the cause of the problems
>> in Sudan.
>
>
>
>
Beer is the cause of and solution to all lifes problems
Homer
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!