Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: djm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium
Message-ID: <15572@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 90 04:11:00 GMT
References: <15438@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemistry
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: D Murphy <djm@castle.ed.ac.uk>

In article <15438@cbnews.ATT.COM> MT666_VINARC@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>So while DP shells are radioactive, I wouldn't think it is something a thin
>lead coating wouldn't stop....maybe they are lead-coated, since that shouldn't
>degrade performance appreciably, and it would increase the safety effect.
>

Erm, not a good idea, I'm afraid. OK, coating a DU shell in lead film would
stop alpha emissions from the metal, but any beta emissions would cause
the lead to emit X-rays on the outside of the shell. These in addition to
the gamma radiation that will normally be present anyway (and which thin
lead won't do anything about) might present a a significant hazard, especially
to crew who won't be able to keep themselves distant from the radiation source
(the best method of hazard avoidance).

The lead emits X-rays when bombarded by beta radiation, since the particles
are fast free electrons. This is pretty much the principle on which clinical
and scientific X-ray sources work, by electron bambardment of a heavy metal
target.

>Michael J. Vinarcik


Murff...