Re: [Way off topic] depleted uranium
agreed, the intended effect of DU rounds versus dirty bombs are quite
different. but while it certainly may be easier to clean up than other
more common contaminants, i think the people who live in the areas where
we're firing this stuff are pretty content to let it sit there and have
their kids munch on it. that being said, i must amend my first assertion
(that the results are similar) simply because the people who live in the
areas contaminated by this stuff do not in fact leave the area, as would
most people who lived in an area hit by a dirty bomb.
csmonitor had a good series on DU, located at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium/
Bill
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 01:06:45PM -0500, dorn hetzel wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:48:56AM -0800, bandito wrote:
> > i think they'd be used more as an environmental contaminant than
> > something intended to actually cause death... setting off a big one in a
> > city wouldnt kill THAT many people, but it'd keep them out of the
> > contaminated area until the radioactive material was cleaned up (or a
> > few millions years passes, whichever comes first).
> > in that respect, i think the result is a bit similar
> >
> DU as a contaminant isn't really much more or less problematic than
> say lead or mercury. Well, in some respects it's easier to clean up
> because it's very easy to separate from the environment because of
> it's radically heavier weight.
>
> DU's unique property that gets it used in so many weapons systems
> is its rather amazing density, pretty much the best transmitter of
> energy in the kinetic form that there ever was. Not saying that
> justifies it's use, just that it explains it...
>
> -Dorn
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: