here is an excerpt from an article containing downwind airflow maps on movement of depleted uranium, this is the link to the entire article...

rense.com/general87/down.htm

you don't have to look very hard to find other articles claiming the use of depleted uranium weapons at australian military ranges such as shoalwater bay..







AUSTRALIA MAP: This is the airflow map for Austalia today Sept. 6, 2009 at low, med., and high altitudes. This is REALLY interesting - the yellow stars are the bombing ranges where DU is being used, and the red arrows are the low altitude air flow currents, with heavy contamination of Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sidney getting the highest brunt of the DU exposure. Conclusion: depopulation. The air currents carry the DU on to the NW (Indian Ocean and SE Asia region) and east from southern Australia, as well as down to the New Zealand, Tasmania region. This DU contamination will be added on top of the uranium dust contamination from mining and milling in Australia, causing extermination of 50% of the Tasmanian Devil population in Tasmania since 1993 - when Australian uranium mining and milling DOUBLED in one year.





PHOTO Of DU(?) BOMBING at Raymond Island/SHOALWATER BAY - on the east coast of Australia midway down, where the Great Barrier Reef lies just offshore. PETER EYRE WANTS CONFIRMATION THAT THIS IS A DU BOMB. THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION OF DU BOMBING IN AUSTRALIA AND CAME FROM AN ACTIVIST'S SITE THERE WITH NO INDICATION OF WHAT THE BOMB IS - SO WE NEED DOUG TO CONFIRM.

AFAIK depleted uranium hasn't been used at Lancelin, dunno about the other locations. Your article excerpt and comments are spurious at best.

v e r y..... s t r a n g e [}:)]

I have been carefully watching the across Australia wind patterns in preparation for my crossing west to east in 2010. Have been in touch with BOM on the tellyfuncan a couple of times, to glean some help re best wind times of year and directions. And played with their funny little wind roses on their wind page.
If one were to believe their information, then it is obvious that I will be attempting the crossing from the wrong direction, and should start in the east.
The Doctors wind map is not representative of what BOM say is fact, in fact it is the opposite, one would have to be a to disbelieve the government weather forecasters and broadcasters. After all on this site arn't they the main point for this web site? Are they completely wrong?
Weighing up all the evidence.... I am still going West to East....

DL said...

Legion said...

AFAIK depleted uranium hasn't been used at Lancelin, dunno about the other locations. Your article excerpt and comments are spurious at best.

Best if everyone keeps away from Lancelin, just in case.

And that place in Two Rocks the name escapse me atm.............. its a uxb site as well....[}:)]

evlPanda said...

There's so much of it already floating around the atmosphere and ocean from nuclear tests, accidents that a couple of warheads here and there are going to have a negligible effect, at worst.

But keep digging Mulder.

... and what Shark said about DU being used for its density. It doesn't explode. There's a hint in its name.

DEPLETED?? Meaning not 100%, a percentage of its former strength. Mark and Evil are correct as usual!! God I feel depleted atm TGIF

it would still be radio active even if its depleted, yes/no?? I recon yes, but at what levels? Would it be dangerous just sitting there?

DU projectiles are exactly the same as normal lead bullets but the core is DU instead of lead.
Upon impact very little pieces may be sheared off and left in the environment but they are too big to be carried by the wind.

What is suggested by the original post here is like saying if the wheel balance weight falls off a car on the road, the little fragments that are abraded from it will be carried by the wind all the way across Australia. Absolutely ridiculous.


I stand by my statement that terms like "DU bombing" makes the activist / researcher look silly...... what the military may have done, for example, is shot a few hundred 20mm DU projectiles into a sandhill. What is suggested though by emotive terms like "DU bombing" is mental pictures of 500kgs of DU raining down over a 1km radius. Deliberate language to make it sound bad , or poor undertstanding of what they are opposing who cares, still makes them look dopey IMO

Dunno what you are talking about, I have only ever heard of DU penetrator cores. Because it is dense it penetrates well, and a side benefit is higher sectional density and therefore higher ballistic co-efficient, leading to a better trajectory and higher retained energy at range.

I'd like to see what projies are coated with DU?

Dude nice website but doesn't answer my question above.

Google DU (or depleted uranium) coating (or coated) and the only results you get are from activist / anti war etc type sites. However google DU core or DU projectile cutaway and it is a different story. I have never heard of a DU coated projectile.

Yes DU is obviously dangerous if you shoot it at stuff and soliders walk thru it afterwards (or it blows around). 1000tonnes of the sh!t in one country can't be good. However fact remains that your post referred to if they shot soem on a range in Qld or Lancelin that it can blow all over the country from one side to the other. That is a pretty average hypothesis, but what is even worse is the stated "fact" that uranium mining is killing Tasmanian Devils... I'd love to see the science behind that one. As usual, broad sweeping statements by greenies with no scientific basis or proper statistical analysis at all.

mkseven said...

Every day people walk out into the sun without sunscreen, they operate mobile phones, they get x-rays, they breath in asbestos from 80 years of automotive & building use, they are exposed to harmful petrol emissons, they eat food drenched in pesticides, they play with solvents and other lovely chemicals. Yet you complain about the military firing off a small amount of DU ordenance?

God forbid if an armoured vehicle ever rolls through your home or family i'm sure you will not be complaining then.

So true! Who gives a fack! Woof

The stuff is dense. Dense stuff penetrates or breaks less dense stuff more betterer.

You can derive this, even if you know nothing about it, from its use - "Armour piercing Projectiles". Stuff that needs to go through other stuff must be is more effective if more dense than the other stuff it needs to go through. You'd expect the people who do this for a living to use the densest stuff they have.

They aren't coated, they use a solid block of the stuff.

It can be incendiary.

Now they just need to use depleted uranium as armour, but I expect this would have massive weight disadvantages. You could probably achieve a similar effect by raking the armour even more.

* edit: "Armor plate - Because of its high density, depleted uranium can also be used in tank armor..."

This:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Personally I wouldn't be sprinkling the stuff on my Weeties, but as most of us agree there is already so much dangerous radiation floating around a few of these shells scattered around Australia are negligible, at worst.

I'd be far, far, far more worried about the state of the reefs where the (bastard) French conducted their nuclear tests. Will they leak?



^ Punch a hole in the armour first, then go boom! Aren't the humans lovely?

I spent 6 years working for an international enviro group on nuclear/disarmament issues. I looked hard at DU use in Australia, and never found any evidence of it being used on land.

The hard left grabbed the issue and ran with it after gulf war one. They used every photo of a deformed baby they could find and used them as "evidence."

Then a few years ago an australian film maker made a movie about it that contained lots of misinformation. He did a real disservice to the environment movement.

DU being used in Australia? a beat up.

Being carried by wind accross Australia? no evidence.

jimmyc said...

I spent 6 years working for an international enviro group on nuclear/disarmament issues. I looked hard at DU use in Australia, and never found any evidence of it being used on land.

The hard left grabbed the issue and ran with it after gulf war one. They used every photo of a deformed baby they could find and used them as "evidence."

Then a few years ago an australian film maker made a movie about it that contained lots of misinformation. He did a real disservice to the environment movement.

DU being used in Australia? a beat up.

Being carried by wind accross Australia? no evidence.

No, but, evidence aside it was on rense.com! That's where they also tell us about how the twin towers came down and other important stuff. If it's spelt in capitals or highlighted it's even truer!

One of the guys I used to work with used to send me links to this site as 'evidence'. The "science" they used in some of these articles had some pretty big holes in it...

I am the author of the article and your comments are not entirely true. DU is used in many forms in today's high tech weaponry and not only for anti tank. It is used to penetrate deep within its target that can be an underground bunker or a basement in a multi story building. It was also intended to be used as a lethal weapon in the form of nanoparticles to create a fine dust aerosol.....this was first talked about back in the 1940's. They are now talking about using ground DU to use in the next generation of Thermobaric weapons so your understand and scope of DU us somewhat limited. In relation to the description of the explosion in the photgraph...its is obvious that rock and weapon fragments will splash into the sea as per the photograph....the description is in regard to the nature of the actual explosion that shows a brilliant white or light yellow interion....this is not normal in a conventiional bomb or missile...sometime we also see a type of firework sparkle effect...all of these signs normally point to a weapon that contains uranium. Also the Oz F111 carry bunker busters and your military fire missiles some of which are or have been know to have uranium within their warhead. The US Navy as a matter of interest can no long fire live ammo onto anywhere in mainland US but our Government say its ok! Our Government gave the US permissiion to import DU weapons but not to use them! do you really believe that story. The US have contaminated and destroyed whole communities in Puorto Rico, Japan, Hawaii and the Phillipines is our country going to be next....dare we accept what they say and not ask questions?....its your choice! And is DU safe?....ask our troops when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan!

nebbian said...

I'd just like to point out that the M1 tank must be very dangerous to be in:

www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams-m1a2-sepv3-main-battle-tank/

if its armour is mainly made out of depleted uranium...

The DU is sandwidged between layers of steel and other metals. The steel should stop most of the radiation from reaching the occupants of the tank. That being said.

Hypothetical one here: If having DU saved you from an anti-tank missle, but gave you cancer 40 years later, would you say having it was dangerous?

I also notice Mr Eyre has not bothered to answer concerns re: how the hell he deduces that because there are air curents across Australia, any DU used on one side of the country would be blown to the other side.
Nor has he answered where his data came from re: increase in uranium mining killing off the Tassie Devils