Originally Posted by ShutdownCorner
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ShutdownCorner
I knew an Iraqi who told me about this. It was available for inhalation in volume for quite long stretches.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-us-made-use-radioactive-bombs-routine-443732
"within one or two years, grotesque birth defects spiraled—such as babies with two heads. Or missing eyes, hands and legs. Or stomachs and brains inside out."
Also: I made a thread about football strategy, and when I click it, it won't let me see it. Something about not having permission. What gives? All sorts of random threads about keto diet and biotech jobs there. Is gaming strategy not allowed?
Unfortunately, that's war. Lead is just as bad, DU is used because, as noted in the article, its high density makes it ideal to penetrate armour plating and fortified structures. It isn't that it is dangerously radioactive; DU is readily handleable, and not listed as a radiological hazard, but, like numerous other heavy metals, it is toxic, and thus if taken internally, can cause numerous issues including things like birth defects.
A good (balanced) read on it can be found here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/du_factsheet_4aug98.htm
A quote from the last paragraph is quite telling:
Quote
Each weapon system that uses DU has undergone extensive developmental testing and evaluation. As part of that process, DOD evaluates possible alternative metal alloys considering operational requirements and medical/environmental impacts. As improvements have been made in the "hardness" of armored vehicles, tests have demonstrated that DU offers superior performance to all other alloys.
DOD must also evaluate the environmental and medical consequences of exposure to any new alloy. Uranium has an advantage in this arena over several candidate materials because of the extensive database on uranium. While some candidate replacement alloys may not be radioactive, they are not necessarily less toxic to humans.
Essentially, alternatives, that won't perform as well as DU has proven to perform, may not be less toxic, and in fact could be moreso, despite not being radioactive.
Getting back to the topic of nuclear power, DU isn't a problematic byproduct of enrichment, and has uses beyond the military ones being discussed, including as part of a MOX, which combines DU with plutonium, to create a viable reactor fuel:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...fuel-recycling/mixed-oxide-fuel-mox.aspx
As I said quite early on, used fuel is an asset and has a ton of generating potential, the US has CHOSEN a programme which doesn't include these options, but that's not at the feet of the technology.
So how safe is it to have a tiny amount to power a car
You'll have to further expand on that question. How are you proposing the car be powered in this context?