This will be my last post on this thread as it is not on topic but there seems to be some misconceptions about the radioactivity of DU here. Maybe this will help clear it up.
*********
Does it glow or doesn't it?
Ever since depleted uranium (DU) shells and
armor plating made their live combat debut during the Gulf War in 1991,they seem to have baffled journalists. Now that DU has been implicated as a possible suspect in the debate over Gulf War Syndrome, its properties and characteristics have generated even more attention -- and confusion.
When U-235 (the highly fissionable isotope used to make bombs) is extracted from uranium ore, the remaining byproduct is U-238, uranium that has been "depleted" of its powerfully radioactive component. Because uranium is extremely dense (significantly more so than lead) it is useful in military roles, both as armor, and as a munition to penetrate armor.
Here's where the misunderstanding starts. News accounts of "uranium-tipped" shells "burning through" tank armor give the impression that radioactivity gives the DU shells their punch. Not so. Because of its density, DU packs more mass into the same amount of space, thus minimizing air resistance and delivering more kinetic energy, for the same reason a bullet made of lead has greater impact than, for instance, one made of tin. It's not a different kind of ammunition (as an atomic bomb differs in kind from a conventional one), it's just a more effective one.
The Defense Department has gone to great lengths to emphasize that these weapons involve traditional kinetic energy, as opposed to any sort of nuclear or radiological energy. This is the interpretation that Peter Jennings seems to have accepted, although it is not entirely accurate. In fact, DU is still radioactive. U-238 is itself radioactive and, even in its
depleted state, contains minute traces of the highly fissionable U-235 isotope.
Thousands of military personnel were "exposed to" radioactive DU during the
Gulf War, while handling shells, riding in tanks, etc. Fortunately, the radioactivity is so faint that mere exposure to it poses little discernible health risk to humans. The material is still radioactive but, when
manufactured into armor and anti-tank shells, not dangerously so.
Unfortunately, war is not neat, and this leads to an additional issue that remains still scientifically unsettled. When DU shells explode into enemy armor, and also when they penetrate DU armor in "friendly fire" incidents (which happened on at least one disastrous occasion during the Gulf War), a quantity of the DU burns and oxidizes into minute particles. These particles create an airborne dust that can be inhaled or ingested. In addition to the danger posed by the slight residual radioactivity (i.e., particles lodging in the lungs could eventually lead to cancer), uranium as a heavy metal is quite toxic, and can lead to kidney failure and other health problems. Of course, lead, tungsten and other metals used in armor and armaments are also rather unhealthy to ingest, and they are a major source of wartime health effects.
In sum, coverage of the health effects of depleted uranium must distinguish among three sets of health risks. Yes, DU is radioactive, but it is not a "nuclear" or "radiological" weapon. No, it is not particularly dangerous in its standard military form; merely being in proximity to DU-armored tanks is unlikely to harm anyone. But exposure to the airborne dust resulting from its use in combat can be harmful.
Though not, one suspects, as harmful as being on the receiving end of a DU barrage.
