Science Forums 2

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

We discussed DU munitions at some length in the thread Depleted Uranium Munitions.

In summary, depleted uranium is used for projectiles primarily because it’s dense and cheap, not for its radioactivity. It’s not very radioactive, having by definition a U-235 concentration of less than 0.2%. By comparison, the minimum U-235 concentration of fuel-grade enriched uranium is around 5%, while the highest grade enriched uranium is as high as 90%. An argument can be made that, uranium being less bioavailable than lead, DU projectiles are actually a less dangerous pollutant than lead ones. Neither pose much risk due to direct human contact, but can be dangerous if allowed to leach into drinking water.

Even assuming a worst case situation of DU and lead projectiles contaminating water supplies, every analysis of which I’m aware shows that the risk of non-exploding projectiles and mines (AFAIK, DU has since the mid 1990s been used only in non-exploding projectiles) is a much greater threat, and that weapon use and cleanup reform efforts would be much better focused on these than on DU.

That said, I’m at a loss to understand what DU munitions have to do with Schauberger or WWII German aircraft. Because large-scale uranium enrichment didn’t begin until after WWII, DU was not common or cheap, so DU munitions didn’t exist in substantial quantities until the 1970s. Given that he died in 1958, it’s unlikely that Schauberger ever heard of it, or that any WWII weapon every used it.

Don't be confused - totally separate point, not directly related to Schauberger and I'm sorry you didn't get it.

As for DU - are you saying that the cases of deformed babies reported after the actual attack stage of the war, were not to do with the shells but some other cause? I've seen photos that reminded me of the after affects of the Japanese bombs but are you saying it's more likely to be something like inbreeding, rather than the uranium and if so is there any evidence of this?
(And yes we are getting away from the main subject, so lets get a quick answer to this and a return to Schauberger).