What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is depleted uranium safe (long term)?

So the long term answer to safety of having DU ammo in the ground is that it is NOT safe, correct?
1fbc83cec7b40382d352325b662cc9b3

FILE - A member of a radiation team holds a 30mm armor-piercing shell containing depleted uranium, used by NATO during air strikes on Bosnia in 1995, which was found in a former military factory in the suburb of Vogosca, near Sarajevo, Jan. 15, 2001. (AP Photo/Hidajet Delic, File)ASSOCIATED PRESS[FONT=&amp]
661ccd89275774a93a70ea97ca607351

[/FONT]FILE - Ukrainian soldiers on captured Russian tanks T-72 hold military training close to the Ukraine-Belarus border near Chernihiv, Ukraine, Friday, Oct. 28, 2022. (AP Photo/Aleksandr Shulman, File)ASSOCIATED PRESS[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
I don't think you will ever be safe in a Russian tank.

Totally discredited now. A busted flush.....
 
Snufkin, great link above!!!
So, DU is not harmless and is not safe left in the ground to corrode and to seep into the water supply and garden vegetables. So usage of it in the battlefield will create a permanent unlivable buffer zone, at a horrendous long term cost.
 
its probably safe ish if you cover it with a layer of lead. Oh hold on lead is highly toxic and no doubt killing us even now.
 
DU is a problematic stuff but the main problem may be what stands behind the delivery of DU shells: there are no longer enough anti-tank missiles available in the western armies stores, even the former generation ones that were in stock after withdraw from service.
The age of Tank vs Tank battles is over and has been over for at least 2 decades. Anti tank missiles offer the chance to motorized infantry to deal successfully with tanks without exposing themselves too much but use of cannon ammunition even DU against armored formations means short range high-risk exposure of soft-skin/light armor to direct fire from the opposite side, not speaking of their supporting artillery. This may be acceptable in urban warfare but totally unadapted to open field warfare (although the Russian tacticians have not shown themselves till now as understanding what are "movement warfare tactics" and seem to be more comfortable in "Stalingrad" or "ww1" type of scenario).
 
sksvlad said:
Snufkin, great link above!!!
So, DU is not harmless and is not safe left in the ground to corrode and to seep into the water supply and garden vegetables. So usage of it in the battlefield will create a permanent unlivable buffer zone, at a horrendous long term cost.
Click to expand...

No, DU is not harmless, if possible it should be identified and cleared. The remainder of your statement, however, is overly dramatic and I would consider misleading. DU is a military tool, effective on the battlefield in its designed purpose. Like nearly any military tool, it presents specific hazards after the conflict which should be dealt with in an appropriate manner. The quantities and dispersal of DU are minute in comparison with other toxic ordnance used in much larger source doses and in much greater numbers, i.e. Blue Cross projectiles from WWI. The general UXO hazard from any conflict will present a much greater threat with a more significant impact to the local populations.
 
Jeff,
You may be right about "overly dramatic", about the future cost. I DID learn from IIWW that cost spreads a very very long way. My parents, in their 90's now, are receiving presently the 3rd German Government installment of IIWW reparations for being forced into evacuating from Moscow in 1941. Here is a significant long term cost Hitler has not predicted, but somebody has to pay!!!

Are "Blue Cross projectiles" referring to gas containing artillery ammo? I never heard of Blue Cross ammo.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the BC projectiles was that the fill material was very high in Arsenic content. So, high number of projectiles in one area, high concentrations of toxic material. The agent was diphenylcloroarsine, a sternatory (sneezing/vomiting) agent. Germany initially believed that the fine particles of this agent would penetrate the filter of the gas masks of the day, forcing personnel to remove their masks. Fire these rounds, follow up with lethal gases. In fact the rounds were largely ineffective, but Germany made and fired tens of millions of them. When I first visited Poelkappelle in Belgium (EOD destruction site) they were falling behind on destruction - recovering more than they could destroy. At that time they had over 24,000 awaiting destruction. The rounds are not uncommon in both Belgium and France, and at the shows (Arlon, etc) I used to be able to purchase the classic green agent bottles (see images above) from one man for 10 euros each. Finally at one show he told me that he wasn't emptying any more. "All my cats died" was his explanation. Want to talk about some real soil contamination? Four examples of the green bottles on the right of the photo, to the left of the milk bottle (Ice Mine).

DSCN7131.jpg
 
sksvlad said:
So the long term answer to safety of having DU ammo in the ground is that it is NOT safe, correct?
1fbc83cec7b40382d352325b662cc9b3

FILE - A member of a radiation team holds a 30mm armor-piercing shell containing depleted uranium, used by NATO during air strikes on Bosnia in 1995, which was found in a former military factory in the suburb of Vogosca, near Sarajevo, Jan. 15, 2001. (AP Photo/Hidajet Delic, File)ASSOCIATED PRESS[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Looks like its a Target Practice projectile not AP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top