[Leica] [was] Another Altered Photo / now WAY OT

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

Isn't it embarassing to drool like this in public, Walt?

The whole issue of depleted uranium is that there ISN'T any U235 in it
- it's been extracted to make reactor fuel (mostly) and weapons (a
little). What's left is U238 and a few other nuclides.

Adam

On 8/8/06, Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
> And since I was a kid in  the 50's I been worried about Dr. Strangelove.
> If I'd only know U235 was so harmless I coulda been putting it on my 
> cereal.
>
> Adam Bridge wrote:
>
> > Sigh - not BILLION years. Geesh. Come on guys at least TRY to get some
> > half-life information correct.
> >
> > Here's a Wikipedia article on Deplete Uranium. You can search for more
> > inflammatory or more sanguine articles with Google or your search
> > engine of choice.
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium>
> >
> > As a beta emitter U-238's decay chain isn't too bad since, as long as
> > it's external to the body your skin will block the high-energy
> > electrons emitted. Taken internally, however, it's more problamatical
> > but not nearly as nasty as the alpha-emitters whose high-energy helium
> > nuclii can do serious damage. (The most common source of alpha
> > emission is radon gas which is a naturally occuring decay product
> > found from a variety of natural sources, not to mention the decay
> > chains of fission products. In areas with lots of granite, for
> > instance, having a radon detector in your home would make a lot of
> > sense.)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On 8/8/06, G Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Hang on Don.
> >> This projectile has no magic burning through properties. It's all about
> >> density vs cross section. Add that to high velocity and you have
> >> enormous
> >> kinetic energy in the penetrator. The projectile will shed mass after
> >> penetrating, plus the armour itself will add to the stream. It is also
> >> pyrophoric so you would expect catastrophic heat along with the
> >> shrapnel and
> >> spalled armour. An extremely lethal shower of very hot sharp material.
> >> Regarding the radiation, it may be relatively benign to handle as you
> >> noted,
> >> but the dust particles from a round impact are VERY bad juju should you
> >> inhale them. That would be the least of your problems if you were
> >> sitting
> >> within the target. Visiting it later would not be recommended either.
> >> It may
> >> well be very toxic within the next few billion years or so.
> >> Regarding the chain gun, it is a different but allied design to the
> >> rotary
> >> barrel "gatling" designs. The principle benefits are simplicity and
> >> extreme
> >> reliability.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Hoppy Gunny and M9 Guy
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org
> >> [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On
> >> Behalf Of
> >> Don Dory
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2006 12:59
> >> To: Leica Users Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] [was] Another Altered Photo / now WAY OT
> >>
> >> Jerry,
> >> >From a military perspective, depleted uranium is almost irresistable
> >> as an
> >> anti-amour round.  The uranium literally burns through armour without
> >> the
> >> extreme kinetic energy generally required.  Thus a 30mm chain gun can
> >> become
> >> a heavy tank killer.  The military will not stop using it as it works
> >> too
> >> well.  As I understand the spent rounds are primarily a Beta emitter
> >> so not
> >> that hazardous as radioactive things go.
> >>
> >> Don
> >> don.dory@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/7/06, Haussler, Gerald R - San Mateo, CA
> >> <gerald.r.haussler@usps.gov>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Gents;
> >> > isn't Depleted Uranium (DU) nuclear waste ?
> >> > seems to me the Pentagon found a use for that stuff
> >> > about 15 years ago. i thought they stopped using it,
> >> > but i now understand it continues.
> >> > regards
> >> > jerry
> >> >
> >> > ***************************************************
> >> > used nuclear waste ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Lottermoser George wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Shipping? ; ^ )
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > George Lottermoser
> >> > > george@imagist.com
> >> > > On Aug 7, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Sell it to the Saudis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Leica Users Group.
> >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>