What kind of weapon does this?

[format]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-2034065.html

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

What kind of ammunition causes this kind of extreme mutation? Also, how exactly can the US get away with using it?

[chuckskull]

At a guess, thats the aftermath of DU rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...y_applications
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html

Very nasty stuff.

[pollaxe]

Depleted uranium I should think..

edit Chuckskull beat me to it - yes, very nasty stuff indeed. There is a school of thought it could also be responsible for 'Gulf War Syndrome.'

[jim]

As I understand it, it's used solely because it's heavy. Any nuclear stuff is a downside, it's not a component of the weapons.

[format]

I know it's depleted uranium, but AFAIK effects such as these have never been quite so severe?

[peterb]

The effects may not be entirely nuclear in orogin. There is (according to the Wikipedia articles sited earlier) evidence that some of the allows used in DU munitions may have an oncological effect - particularly the tungsten/nickel/cobalt alloys. All three of those materials can cause genetic damage, but it seems \that in combination, the effect is much greater. (again paraphrasing the sources quoted).

(As this is a topic more suited to QT I'm minded to move it there)

[chuckskull]

I think something that's often overlooked is the sheer amount of DU used in these conflicts. 2000 tonnes has been used in the gulf mainly around population centres. Exacerbated by the fact these rounds are designed to vaporise on impact. That's a serious amount of radioactive material near atomised and left completely unchecked, it can be breathed in, seep into the water table and contaminates soil around impact sites for a long time.

There are calls by over 190 NGO's for it to be banned. Internal MoD documents link to increased risk of various cancers. There are leukaemia deaths of NATO soldiers linked to serving with DU ammo. If it can kill very healthy, very fit soldiers, with western healthcare, who only spend at max 3-4years in the warzone, what's it going to do to a malnourished child with 3rd world healthcare who grows up in it and lives their whole life around it?

It's a horrible, horrible weapon, that should be banned. It is only still used because of it's superior killing power(due to incredible density and Pyrophoricity) at a very low price. It's not been banned because it's almost exclusively used security council nations.

Apparently some MP's are calling it's use in Falluhjah a human rights atrocity committed by the US. Which would be great if we didn't still use them too.

More detailed information http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/77.html

[jim]

Problem is that there's no replacement. Anything that dense is going to be appreciably radioactive.

[aidanjt]

DU is weakly radioactive. It's chemically harmful though.

[Fraz]

Problem is that there's no replacement. Anything that dense is going to be appreciably radioactive.

Not true. Tungsten is a valid replacement, and it's more dense. And not radioactive. Probably more expensive though.

[peterb]

Tungsten is more difficult to work with and is also carcinogenic. http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...ml#post1956500

[jim]

Not true. Tungsten is a valid replacement, and it's more dense. And not radioactive. Probably more expensive though.

And virtually all of it's in China, which wouldn't exactly appeal to the US. Point taken though.

[chuckskull]

Almost all heavy metals have negative health effects iirc. There are still a variety of alternatives though.

Not true. Tungsten is a valid replacement, and it's more dense. And not radioactive. Probably more expensive though.

In terms of density yes, though in terms of pure killing power and price, plain Tungsten still falls down.

Tungsten shells flatten on impact. But DU rounds self-sharpen as they deform because material breaks away in a way that preserves the shell's shape, a phenomenon known as adiabatic shear banding. DU rounds are also pyrophoric - the fragments ignite in air, torching the interior of the target vehicle. The Royal Society advocates it as a replacement still, it's long term health effects are still much lower than DU and even lead.

Currently the best alternative is an amorphous tungsten alloy, 'liquid metal'. Which by all accounts is as effective(as dense, pyrophoric and self sharpening) without as many long term consequences, but comes at a higher price point. Which the US were meant be phasing in a few years back, don't know if they did, classified and all that.

The US is set to discontinue the use of medium calibre DU penetrators soon, which is a very positive step as that accounts for a great deal of the rounds used.

[Michael]

Perhaps it has something to do with this?

http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...-how-long.html

[EnderDace]

I think that the reason they got away with these sorts of things is that even they didn't know the extent of the risks they were taking. I'm sure they had some idea of what risk there may have been but don't imagine they would have gone ahead with it if they thought that it would be this bad, because they would have worried that it would come out.

[Million]

Wow Chuckskull, you know an awful lot about this - in the weapons business? It's an interesting topic. Amazing that you can be intending to kill, but you must kill in the right way, and without any collateral, and people actually expect this to be possible. Not only that, but they expect military bodies for it to pay a premium for it to be so.