[oclug] Re: [OT] Depleted uranium bullets
woogie at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 18:54:31 EDT 2006
I don't think the issue is with DU bullets. The DU rounds that are in
question are typically tank or artillery shells. The issue that gets
brought up is that the rounds will fragment and powder on impact,
contaminating the battlefield. Then, just like cluster munitions or
minefields, some civilian gets the short end of the stick weeks,
months, or years after combat is finished by breathing some heavy
metal into his/her lungs. Radioactive or not, the human body doesn't
take kindly to elements of that nature being inhaled or ingested.
Sorry I don't have any references handy.
On 8/23/06, Croombe F. Pensom <croombefp at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I have a distinct problem here. Surely bullets are designed to, and
> generally do, go through the body? Even if they get lodged, they are
> usually surgically removed unless a vital organ has been struck and
> death results.
> The addition of uranium presumably hardens the bullet unlike the lead
> bullet which actually spreads out and does humungous amounts of damage
> to the body (and, incidentally, has been banned internationally for
> decades, a ban which, apparently, just everyone adheres to). Personally,
> I doubt whether the small amount of radiation remaining in the depleted
> uranium is enough to cause harm especially, as someone has pointed out,
> it is alpha radiation.
> Of course, the basic question then remains : why don't we ban the use of
> bullets outright? If they're going to be used to kill (and I presume
> that that is their primary purpose) what the heck does it matter what
> they're made of! Except lead of course. If it could be afforded, then
> presumably titanium would be pretty good for bullets, or even aluminum.
> I don't know.
> OCLUG general discussion list
> OCLUG at lists.oclug.on.ca
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb
More information about the OCLUG