Depleted Uranium Munitions

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

?

33% 33% 
[ 5 ]
7% 7% 
[ 1 ]
60% 60% 
[ 9 ]
 
Total Votes : 15

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Rotaretilbo on Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:37 pm

Ring, the term "by-product" means secondary product, essentially waste. Uranium is not enriched to get depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is just the main thing produced that we don't care about.

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:04 pm

Uranium is not enriched to get depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is just the main thing produced that we don't care about.

What?

The enrichment process produces DU as a byproduct/waste product, while at the same time Uranium is not enriched to get depleted Uranium at the same time? I don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:38 pm

...what's not to get?

We enrich uranium to get enriched uranium to use in power plants. Okay?

That process also generates Depleted Uranium WHETHER WE WANT IT OR NOT.

Thus we WILL HAVE LOTS of depleted Uranium.



And we DO NOT make depleted uranium and then wonder wtf to do with the enriched uranium....
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:56 pm

Which differs from my initial statements how?

LOL





You said this:
As far as I'm aware no uranium is enriched so that we can have DU so the production of DU is more than it is being used.
Which is wrong. How else would you get DU? Something that's used for various things.

How can you say no uranium is enriched so that we can have DU when both the enriched Uranium and DU are used for different things. Does one negate the other?


Last edited by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:04 pm

Ringleader wrote:Which differs from my initial statements how?

LOL





You said this:
As far as I'm aware no uranium is enriched so that we can have DU so the production of DU is more than it is being used.
Which is wrong.
DU is a byproduct. We are not enriching uranium for the sole purpose of obtaining DU. We enriched uranium for the purpose of making nuclear fuel/weapons, and found something to do with the DU.
avatar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 28
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:19 pm

Ring...It's called uranium enrichment for a reason. The goal is to get Enriched Uranium.

It's not called Uranium Depletion.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:21 pm

DU is a byproduct. We are not enriching uranium for the sole purpose of obtaining DU.
I never said it was.

So if a reaction yields two useful products, do you need to pick one to be the goal of the reaction? That's a false dichotomy I never even hinted at.

IE, Uranium is enriched so we can have enriched Uranium, AND DU.








Getting back to my original point, better, cheaper, safer alternatives to DU exist, and have been used before, we should use them now.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:31 pm

we're saying that DU is cheaper because we end up with it no matter what. So the money spent to get it is being spent regardless. Making the cost for this purpose null.

Tungsten Carbide isn't being made regardless, so it does actually cost to produce.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:32 pm

KristallNacht wrote:So how about DU is used for what it is and tungsten is used for everything else
Hey, hey everyone, let's use DU for 'what it is'!
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:37 pm

What it is used for.....like rounds and armor.

Until we run our of DU there is no reason to bother with alternatives unless they're unarguably better
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:08 pm

KristallNacht wrote:we're saying that DU is cheaper because we end up with it no matter what. So the money spent to get it is being spent regardless. Making the cost for this purpose null.

Tungsten Carbide isn't being made regardless, so it does actually cost to produce.
Yet, despite all that, and despite DU being a null variable in the whole enriched Uranium industy... IT STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!! Let me actually say that a few more times for emphasis:

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

...

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

Why you might ask? Well, a number of possible reasons, the industry for WC might be larger than the industry for DU and enriched Uranium. The market might be larger for WC, or it might be easier to extract/refine. Whatever the case may be, the price differential tells me everything I need to know, in reality it's probably a combination of those aforementioned reasons. Pick your argument's poison.

I mean, if it's CHEAPER, then that probably means something, right? Whether or not we know how or why is pretty damn inconsequential to that fact.

The fact being: DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!









DU's costs are not a null factor, anything but. A market based on DU AND enriched Uranium is larger than one just based on enriched Uranium. Let's just say, hypothetically, if nuclear power was rendered obsolete by some new process, fusion or something, there would still be a market for DU... So... IT'S NOT NULL!!! Please stop saying that already...

Oh, ok, so we have all this DU sitting around, what to do with it? Here's an idea, leave it sitting around in stockpiles, and use something else. Uranium is naturally occurring in a form more radioactive than DU, so we would actually be doing everyone and the planet's biosphere a favor by just, I don't know, throwing it in a volcano? Leaving it in a cave?

Something unarguably better? Well in my book, something that doesn't result in the poisoning of noncombatants and severe birth defects in newborn children years after the round itself was fired is unarguably better. I guess we should only change what were using/doing only if there's something vastly superior out there, if your going to improve your stuff, or refine your methods, you gotta do it in giant leaps, not small increments. Just like how everything else is done, right? The 'NT's failing argument' way.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:10 pm

KristallNacht wrote:What it is used for.....like rounds and armor.

Until we run our of DU there is no reason to bother with alternatives unless they're unarguably better
I guess using a safer/cheaper material isn't a reason to bother with alternatives...

Not just a big reason, but A reason. Just one. Just one reason.







/Argument.


Last edited by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:11 pm

it's not particularly safer, and we've already proven how its not cheaper at all
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Angatar on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:30 pm

Am I the only one really confused by what Ring is saying?

_________________
avatar
Angatar
Lord's Personal Minion

Female Number of posts : 3862
Age : 23
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KrAzY on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:44 pm

im confused as to why you would use a safer bullet?

none of the problems they are having couyldnt also be viral, or some other issue due to fucked up water... there are more radioactive things all over the place than depleted uranium
avatar
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3963
Age : 29
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:47 pm

KristallNacht wrote:it's not particularly safer, and we've already proven how its not cheaper at all
Except, it IS cheaper, AND SAFER... Do you have stuffing in your ear knobs?

Price of U:
Mar 12 51.10

Price of WC:
http://www.metalprices.com/FreeSite/Charts/w_carbide_wc_inserts_charts.html?weight=lb

Low
30 Nov 07 8.25
High
30 Nov 07 9.25





Price of the atomic constituents of DU and WC:

Tungsten:

Abundance earth's crust: 1.25 parts per million by weight, 0.1 parts per million by moles
Abundance solar system: 4 parts per billion by weight, 30 part per trillion by moles
Cost, pure: $11 per 100g
Cost, bulk: $2.95 per 100g

Uranium:

Abundance earth's crust: 2.7 parts per million by weight, 0.25 parts per million by moles
Abundance solar system: 1 part per billion by weight, 4 parts per trillion by moles
Cost, pure: $ per 100g
Cost, bulk: $9 per 100g (the price of uranium has increased by a factor of 10 since 2003)

Carbon:

Abundance earth's crust: 200 parts per million by weight, 344 parts per million by moles
Abundance solar system: 3000 parts per million by weight, 300 parts per million by moles
Cost, pure: $2.4 per 100g (probably cheaper in bulk proportional to Tungsten's price differential)
Cost, bulk: $ per 100g







Toxicity of DU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity

Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.[7] DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury.[61] It is weakly radioactive but remains radioactive because of its long half-life. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that: "to be exposed to radiation from uranium, you have to eat, drink, or breathe it, or get it on your skin."[62]

However, the Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel."[9] The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[63]

As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[64] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, 'Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance - if any . . . Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that 'All personnel... should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk... [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[64]

Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5] In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[65][66] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10]

Its use in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment.[67][68][69][70][71][72] Besides its residual radioactivity, U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals.

Metallic uranium is prone to slow corrosion and small pieces are pyrophoric at room temperature in air.[26] When depleted uranium munitions penetrate armor or burn, they create depleted uranium oxides in the form of dust that can be inhaled or contaminate wounds. Additionally, fragments of munitions or armor can become embedded in the body.

The chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is about a million times greater in vitro than its radiological hazard.[73] Health effects of DU are determined by factors such as the extent of exposure and whether it was internal or external. Three main pathways exist by which internalization of uranium may occur: inhalation, ingestion, and embedded fragments or shrapnel contamination. Properties such as phase (e.g. particulate or gaseous), oxidation state (e.g. metallic or ceramic), and the solubility of uranium and its compounds influence their absorption, distribution, translocation, elimination and the resulting toxicity. For example, metallic uranium is less toxic compared to hexavalent uranium(VI) uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide.[74][75]

Uranium is pyrophoric when finely divided.[26] It will corrode under the influence of air and water producing insoluble uranium(IV) and soluble uranium (VI) salts. Soluble uranium salts are toxic. Uranium slowly accumulates in several organs, such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The World Health Organization has established a daily "tolerated intake" of soluble uranium salts for the general public of 0.5 g/kg body weight, or 35 g for a 70 kg adult.
Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic,[76] teratogenic,[77][78] neurotoxic,[79] with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential.[80] A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10]

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air[81] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas,[82] and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine.[83] Burning uranium droplets violently produce a gaseous vapor comprising about half of the uranium in their original mass.[84] Uranyl ion contamination in uranium oxides has been detected in the residue of DU munitions fires.[85][86]

Toxicity of WC:
The primary health risks associated with carbide relate to inhalation of dust, leading to fibrosis.[34]
Oh, fibrosis. Sounds nasty, but, actually pretty damn good after reading DU's health benefits...











Also, if DU's cost was null, then why this?
A tenfold jump in uranium prices has transformed approximately one-third of the U.S. depleted uranium inventory into an asset worth $7.6 billion, assuming DOE re-enriches the tails. This estimate is based on February 2008 market price for uranium and enrichment services, and DOE's access to sufficient uranium enrichment capacity.[/22]
Huh, so people actually spend money on the stuff, and here I thought nuclear power plants just hand it out to get it off their hands... Like paraders throwing candy to children!

Hell, if you won't even concede those two facts, of safety and price, then this argument truly is over and done with.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:54 pm

KrAzY wrote:im confused as to why you would use a safer bullet?

none of the problems they are having couyldnt also be viral, or some other issue due to fucked up water... there are more radioactive things all over the place than depleted uranium
Well, you want to kill the guy your shooting at, not someone else's unborn baby 10 years later. It's not radiation sickness, it's caused by the toxicity of Uranium itself, which as it turns out, is really really toxic in really small doses. Doses like the ones from DU dust, and from when explosive stockpiles are burned.

The use of DU rounds creates an environmental hazard in which both combatants and non combatants are fucked. I wouldn't wish DU sickness on my worst enemies, much less their kids. It's generally not a good practice to use this type of material for what it's being used for now, given that alternatives are cheaper, safer, and more viable.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:29 pm

the prices that you've shown are for raw uranium....not DU....

and, DUs toxicity has already proven to not be even mildly effective outside a meter from the impact due to air dispersal. And Gulf War vets with DU fragments in their bodies have had ZERO health defects due to hit. Except a .01% higher chance of having a daughter over a son.

There is still zero evidence of DU actually causing any problems for anyone that isn't specifically being shot at.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:35 am

KristallNacht wrote:the prices that you've shown are for raw uranium....not DU....

and, DUs toxicity has already proven to not be even mildly effective outside a meter from the impact due to air dispersal. And Gulf War vets with DU fragments in their bodies have had ZERO health defects due to hit. Except a .01% higher chance of having a daughter over a son.

There is still zero evidence of DU actually causing any problems for anyone that isn't specifically being shot at.
Uh sure! If your willing to discount all the information I provided to the contrary. Hell, I guess you could prove anything if you aren't willing to consider evidence. Even if the health risks aren't that bad, would you at least agree that WC is safer, even if you think it's by a small amount?









Erm, I gave you all the information you needed to calculate the price of DU...


1/3 of our DU inventory is worth 7.6 billion dollars.

(7,600,000,000 dollars)/((686,500 tons of DU)/3) = $33,211.00 per ton

($33,211.00)/(1000kg/10) = $3.32 (bulk) per 100 gram sample

OR

($33,211.00)/(2200lbs) = $15.09 per 1 lb sample (compare to the $8-$9 average of WC)



AND... it has to be converted from DUF6 into military grade DU, which probably isn't cheap. There you have it, DU is more expensive.

/case







The US government is actually in the process of converting DUF6 into solid Uranium oxides for disposal. The process of converting all of our DU stockpiles to DUO is estimated to cost 15-450 million, but the point is, they're getting rid of most of it, meaning it's price will only increase as the supply of it decreases dramatically:
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm
5% per year, from 2009 to 2029.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Rotaretilbo on Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:35 am

Ringleader wrote:I never said it was.

So if a reaction yields two useful products, do you need to pick one to be the goal of the reaction? That's a false dichotomy I never even hinted at.

IE, Uranium is enriched so we can have enriched Uranium, AND DU.

What are you even talking about!? You're completely avoiding the point. You're the one saying we shouldn't use the DU! You're comparing DU and Tungsten Carbide from the perspective that we'd have to mine and/or buy DU, when in reality, we have all this DU an don't know what to do with it. Thus, the fact that Tungsten Carbide is somewhat more common is irrelevant, and the cost of buying DU is equally irrelevant. Ultimately, we already have the DU. Using Tungsten Carbide instead means we have all this DU sitting around.

Ringleader wrote:DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

...

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

Again, the cost of DU is irrelevant, because we already have it. We essentially get DU for free

Ringleader wrote:DU's costs are not a null factor, anything but. A market based on DU AND enriched Uranium is larger than one just based on enriched Uranium. Let's just say, hypothetically, if nuclear power was rendered obsolete by some new process, fusion or something, there would still be a market for DU... So... IT'S NOT NULL!!! Please stop saying that already...

No, I won't, because it is irrelevant. If nuclear power was rendered obsolete, then the price of DU would become relevant, because then we wouldn't have shittons of it lying around.

Ringleader wrote:Oh, ok, so we have all this DU sitting around, what to do with it? Here's an idea, leave it sitting around in stockpiles, and use something else. Uranium is naturally occurring in a form more radioactive than DU, so we would actually be doing everyone and the planet's biosphere a favor by just, I don't know, throwing it in a volcano? Leaving it in a cave?

Oh, so you're finally admitting that the cost of DU is irrelevant? Or are you going to continue pretending like we should compare prices when determining to use the shit we already have to buy new shit? And I'd like to point out that you're grossly oversimplifying the act of the safe and environmental disposal of large quantities DU. Dumping it in a volcano just means that you've put a giant mass of mildly radioactive material into a volcano, which vents into the atmosphere. Now the radiation spreads everywhere. Mission accomplished?

Ringleader wrote:Something unarguably better? Well in my book, something that doesn't result in the poisoning of noncombatants and severe birth defects in newborn children years after the round itself was fired is unarguably better. I guess we should only change what were using/doing only if there's something vastly superior out there, if your going to improve your stuff, or refine your methods, you gotta do it in giant leaps, not small increments. Just like how everything else is done, right? The 'NT's failing argument' way.

See, this is the approach you needed to take from the beginning. There is no pragmatic reason to use Tungsten Carbide. There is an ethical reason to use Tungsten Carbide. By trying to cram the pragmatic approach down our throats, you've made yourself look like an idiot, and an asshole.

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:13 pm

but even then, your bit of evidence towards uraniums health effects is possible based off the fact its technically radioactive, and based on direct contact.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/

in essence, DU's harmful effects are anecdotal and have yet to be even mildly supported by science. There are 26 gulf war vets with DU embedded in their bodies. That's 20 years of science done on them and they're still fine.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:32 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Ringleader wrote:I never said it was.

So if a reaction yields two useful products, do you need to pick one to be the goal of the reaction? That's a false dichotomy I never even hinted at.

IE, Uranium is enriched so we can have enriched Uranium, AND DU.

What are you even talking about!? You're completely avoiding the point. You're the one saying we shouldn't use the DU! You're comparing DU and Tungsten Carbide from the perspective that we'd have to mine and/or buy DU, when in reality, we have all this DU an don't know what to do with it. Thus, the fact that Tungsten Carbide is somewhat more common is irrelevant, and the cost of buying DU is equally irrelevant. Ultimately, we already have the DU. Using Tungsten Carbide instead means we have all this DU sitting around.
Right, I'm said we shouldn't use DU... My entire point was that better, cheaper, safer alternatives exist, which they do.

And?

Ringleader wrote:DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

...

DU STILL COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE!!!

Again, the cost of DU is irrelevant, because we already have it. We essentially get DU for free
Who the fuck is 'We'? Is everyone that handles the Uranium from the moment it's mined from the moment it's fired out of a gun in league or something?


Ringleader wrote:DU's costs are not a null factor, anything but. A market based on DU AND enriched Uranium is larger than one just based on enriched Uranium. Let's just say, hypothetically, if nuclear power was rendered obsolete by some new process, fusion or something, there would still be a market for DU... So... IT'S NOT NULL!!! Please stop saying that already...

No, I won't, because it is irrelevant. If nuclear power was rendered obsolete, then the price of DU would become relevant, because then we wouldn't have shittons of it lying around.

Er, you do realize that DU isn't stored as munitions grade DU, right? Like, it actually COSTS MONEY to process it into what the military uses for their weapons. It's not ready to roll out the second a nuclear power plant enriches a batch of Uranium... Usually it's stored in the form of DUf6, and not for much longer as I pointed out in my previous thread, it's being converted by the fuckton into DUO for disposal.

I mean, even if power plants somehow outputted weapons grade DU directly, without having to first store it in the form of DUF6, as the demand for DU isn't such that it would make much sense for them to store it in anything BUT DUF6, why would they just hand it over to the military con gratis?

What's with this vision of complete cohesion between nuclear power plants and the people that make DU munitions? Does the whole process look like a 1950's style cartoon with Uranium studded rocks going into one end of the factory and tank shells coming out? Gimme a break.

The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

Ringleader wrote:Oh, ok, so we have all this DU sitting around, what to do with it? Here's an idea, leave it sitting around in stockpiles, and use something else. Uranium is naturally occurring in a form more radioactive than DU, so we would actually be doing everyone and the planet's biosphere a favor by just, I don't know, throwing it in a volcano? Leaving it in a cave?

Oh, so you're finally admitting that the cost of DU is irrelevant? Or are you going to continue pretending like we should compare prices when determining to use the shit we already have to buy new shit? And I'd like to point out that you're grossly oversimplifying the act of the safe and environmental disposal of large quantities DU. Dumping it in a volcano just means that you've put a giant mass of mildly radioactive material into a volcano, which vents into the atmosphere. Now the radiation spreads everywhere. Mission accomplished?
LOL, Rot just said the radiation would spread everywhere if we threw the DU in a Volcano...

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from the conversation with that brilliant streak of ignorance. I could point out that I also said we could throw it in a cave, but what would be the purpose? Deaf ears, deaf ears.. My last point actually explained that the safe disposal of our DU stockpiles are currently under way, so... It's being done!



When did I admit the cost of DU is irrelevant? Is that your new strategy, start out your point with 'Oh, so you DO agree with my point!'. Sheesh...

Ringleader wrote:Something unarguably better? Well in my book, something that doesn't result in the poisoning of noncombatants and severe birth defects in newborn children years after the round itself was fired is unarguably better. I guess we should only change what were using/doing only if there's something vastly superior out there, if your going to improve your stuff, or refine your methods, you gotta do it in giant leaps, not small increments. Just like how everything else is done, right? The 'NT's failing argument' way.

See, this is the approach you needed to take from the beginning. There is no pragmatic reason to use Tungsten Carbide. There is an ethical reason to use Tungsten Carbide. By trying to cram the pragmatic approach down our throats, you've made yourself look like an idiot, and an asshole.

Well, there's a pragmatic and an ethical reason to use alternatives. I gave examples of both.

But if you do agree there's at least an ethical case to be made in favor of DU alternatives, would you at least concede that maybe we SHOULD use them? It's hard to tell from your rebuttal whether or not you would be in favor of using alternatives... Very hard.
























And, riddle me this, is there anything particularly the matter with a larger Tungsten Carbide market? Not that it would be that much larger than how large it currently is, but still. I really don't see why this is a problem?
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by KristallNacht on Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:53 pm

Ringleader wrote:
Right, I'm said we shouldn't use DU... My entire point was that better, cheaper, safer alternatives exist, which they do.
so we just made this up?
Ringleader wrote:Oh, ok, so we have all this DU sitting around, what to do with it? Here's an idea, leave it sitting around in stockpiles, and use something else.



Er, you do realize that DU isn't stored as munitions grade DU, right? Like, it actually COSTS MONEY to process it into what the military uses for their weapons. It's not ready to roll out the second a nuclear power plant enriches a batch of Uranium... Usually it's stored in the form of DUf6, and not for much longer as I pointed out in my previous thread, it's being converted by the fuckton into DUO for disposal.

I mean, even if power plants somehow outputted weapons grade DU directly, without having to first store it in the form of DUF6, as the demand for DU isn't such that it would make much sense for them to store it in anything BUT DUF6, why would they just hand it over to the military con gratis?

Um....DUf6 is only used for long term permanent storage...weapons grade DU is just the most depleted that the enrichment facilities make. As in, DU can be anywhere from .01% enriched and .711% enriched and the DoD uses the stuff that is .2% enriched or less....which comes just as it needs to...

The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

you seem confused...power plants don't make DU.....Power plants just use enriched uranium and make power and toxic waste....Uranium Enrichment plants make Enriched Uranium and Depleted Uranium. And clearly, if the government is trying to pay to get all the DU gone, it wouldn't be hard to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that costs both parties less.

You keep contradicting yourself, over and over.

Ringleader wrote:
LOL, Rot just said the radiation would spread everywhere if we threw the DU in a Volcano...
He said the uranium would be pread, not the radiation (hint: DU doesn't really have radiation)

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from the conversation with that brilliant streak of ignorance. I could point out that I also said we could throw it in a cave, but what would be the purpose? Deaf ears, deaf ears.. My last point actually explained that the safe disposal of our DU stockpiles are currently under way, so... It's being done!

It's actually not being done. They are still actively trying to dump toxic waste deep in the earth in containers and hippies are stopping that. DU isn't even close to getting 'safely disposed' of, if that even means anything.

But, why pay to dispose of it, when we can just stick them in guns and planes and tanks and stuff?


Ringleader wrote:Something unarguably better? Well in my book, something that doesn't result in the poisoning of noncombatants and severe birth defects in newborn children years after the round itself was fired is unarguably better.

mind showing any proof? cause I've already shown mine.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:35 pm

KristallNacht wrote:
Ringleader wrote:
Right, I'm said we shouldn't use DU... My entire point was that better, cheaper, safer alternatives exist, which they do.
so we just made this up?
Ringleader wrote:Oh, ok, so we have all this DU sitting around, what to do with it? Here's an idea, leave it sitting around in stockpiles, and use something else.
Made what up? WTF are you talking about?

RL's point in a nutshell: Cheaper, safer, better alternatives to DU exist, and should be used instead of DU, and we should bury our DU stockpiles in caves.



Er, you do realize that DU isn't stored as munitions grade DU, right? Like, it actually COSTS MONEY to process it into what the military uses for their weapons. It's not ready to roll out the second a nuclear power plant enriches a batch of Uranium... Usually it's stored in the form of DUf6, and not for much longer as I pointed out in my previous thread, it's being converted by the fuckton into DUO for disposal.

I mean, even if power plants somehow outputted weapons grade DU directly, without having to first store it in the form of DUF6, as the demand for DU isn't such that it would make much sense for them to store it in anything BUT DUF6, why would they just hand it over to the military con gratis?

Um....DUf6 is only used for long term permanent storage...weapons grade DU is just the most depleted that the enrichment facilities make. As in, DU can be anywhere from .01% enriched and .711% enriched and the DoD uses the stuff that is .2% enriched or less....which comes just as it needs to...
Correct, DUF6 is what they use for permanent storage.

Now, from that, what makes you think these nuclear enrichment facilities just hand it over it to the DOD? Evidence please? I'd be more than happy to agree with you on this if you would provide some, rather than just SAYING you provided evidence.

Narrowing the range of DU that's useful to the DOD inadvertently bolsters my point, if it's even less viable DU than I previously anticipated, I can only imagine it would cost even more. Good for me!





The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

you seem confused...power plants don't make DU.....Power plants just use enriched uranium and make power and toxic waste....Uranium Enrichment plants make Enriched Uranium and Depleted Uranium. And clearly, if the government is trying to pay to get all the DU gone, it wouldn't be hard to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that costs both parties less.

You keep contradicting yourself, over and over.
Ah, so it's nuclear enrichment facilities, not nuclear power plants that enrich the uranium.

I can definitely see how that contradicts my point in... what way exactly? Here, let me help you make sense of my logistical jumble: replace 'nuclear power plants' with 'nuclear enrichment facilities' in my previous posts. Better? Whoa Nelly that was a close one, I can only imagine how brain meltingly confusing it must have been.

They certainly COULD work up a mutually beneficial deal, they COULD do anything! Mind if you provide some proof this is actually what they're doing? When I point out the price differential, I only gave possible answers as to why DU is more expensive than WC, because that's the end game of my point. It costs more.

Apparently they couldn't strike up a deal that still would make DU cheaper than WC, as DU is still costlier than WC. That is, until you can provide evidence to the contrary, evidence showing the enrichment facilities simply give it away to the DOD.

Knowing how much they could get from the US government, do you really think these facilities would give it away? It's not like it costs that much to dispose of DU, as I pointed out earlier, the price estimate for the conversion of DUF6 into DUO ranged from a few million to half a billion. What a conundrum...

These facilities aren't by definition government owned either, contractors usually do the dirty work of enrichment.

Ringleader wrote:
LOL, Rot just said the radiation would spread everywhere if we threw the DU in a Volcano...
He said the uranium would be pread, not the radiation (hint: DU doesn't really have radiation)

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from the conversation with that brilliant streak of ignorance. I could point out that I also said we could throw it in a cave, but what would be the purpose? Deaf ears, deaf ears.. My last point actually explained that the safe disposal of our DU stockpiles are currently under way, so... It's being done!

It's actually not being done. They are still actively trying to dump toxic waste deep in the earth in containers and hippies are stopping that. DU isn't even close to getting 'safely disposed' of, if that even means anything.

But, why pay to dispose of it, when we can just stick them in guns and planes and tanks and stuff?
Actually, it is being done. Sure, they might try and get rid of DU by dumping it in the Earth in containers, but DUF6 conversion facilities are nonetheless currently operating. These two things can actually happen at the same time, it's physically possible in our universe.

Why pay to stick it in guns, and planes and tanks and stuff when you can just let those other guys stick it in the ground and go with a cheaper alternative? From the perspective of the military and the DOD, not the enrichment facilities, which you inexplicably switched over to for some reason.

Ringleader wrote:Something unarguably better? Well in my book, something that doesn't result in the poisoning of noncombatants and severe birth defects in newborn children years after the round itself was fired is unarguably better.

mind showing any proof? cause I've already shown mine.
Where?

Leave it to NT to, NOT provide any proof, then say he did exactly that. The Wiki article I posted was sourced, feel free to peruse them at your convinced.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Ringleader on Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:15 pm

You know NT, I'm here asking myself why you would even make a thread like this. I mean, in your mind, you seem the think the cost of DU in DU munitions are null, and the health risks are negligible... So...

In your opinion, are there ANY downsides to using DU? Any at all? Are there any viable alternatives? I just seems like a complete foregone conclusion to you, no debate required.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Depleted Uranium Munitions

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum