| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The solution to our nuke waste problem
It's good stuff, actually.
Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music) |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark Steven Brooks wrote:
It's good stuff, actually. Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? Just like lead, it's a heavy metal and it's bad for kids to play with unsupervised. You should wash your hands after handling it, just like working with solder. I have a couple bags in the garage but if you want to send over some more, I am sure it will come in handy for my new turntable plinth. I have sold my old Fairchild table on Ebay and need to figure out a solid mount for a 16" Sony broadcast platter. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mark Steven Brooks wrote: It's good stuff, actually. Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? Just like lead, it's a heavy metal and it's bad for kids to play with unsupervised. You should wash your hands after handling it, just like working with solder. I have a couple bags in the garage but if you want to send over some more, I am sure it will come in handy for my new turntable plinth. I have sold my old Fairchild table on Ebay and need to figure out a solid mount for a 16" Sony broadcast platter. See?...Do not argue with a rocket scientist. Scott really is a rocket scientist, and people would be wise not to try to argue on knowledge with him. Stick with the "Dorsey is a pig" tactic, because you can't argue with pure stupidity. Rob R. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mark Steven Brooks wrote: It's good stuff, actually. Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? Just like lead, it's a heavy metal and it's bad for kids to play with unsupervised. You should wash your hands after handling it, just like working with solder. I have a couple bags in the garage but if you want to send over some more, I am sure it will come in handy for my new turntable plinth. I have sold my old Fairchild table on Ebay and need to figure out a solid mount for a 16" Sony broadcast platter. Ummm, Scott... where do you get depleted uranium? Surely not at the corner hardware store, right? -jw |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Gleason" wrote in message
I know very little about the material Seems like a good reason to not write a lot about it. only relating what was presented by the history channel program They "implied" it was spent fuel from reactors http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...ear_threat.htm "Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product caused by extracting fissionable isotopes (uranium 234 and 235) from natural uranium (238) for use in nuclear weapons and reactors. " http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm "Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats." |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: "George Gleason" wrote in message I know very little about the material Seems like a good reason to not write a lot about it. only relating what was presented by the history channel program They "implied" it was spent fuel from reactors http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...ear_threat.htm "Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product caused by extracting fissionable isotopes (uranium 234 and 235) from natural uranium (238) for use in nuclear weapons and reactors. " There's also some complete crap on that link btw. Such as inferring that Gulf War Syndrome is caused by *radioactive* DU poisoning. They go on to state that DU has a half life of 4.5 *billion* years, in which case it's hardly particularly radioactive ! Rather stable in fact. Graham |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Washburn wrote:
Ummm, Scott... where do you get depleted uranium? Surely not at the corner hardware store, right? I bet ESPI Metals will sell it to you, but most of the stuff I see is government surplus scrap from firing ranges. Not available at the corner hardware store, but then neither is hardware any more. They're too full of flashy consumer electronics crap to bother stocking 4-40 stainless machine screws and I am ****ed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nmm" wrote in message om... (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ... Mark Steven Brooks wrote: It's good stuff, actually. Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? Just like lead, it's a heavy metal and it's bad for kids to play with unsupervised. You should wash your hands after handling it, just like working with solder. I have a couple bags in the garage but if you want to send over some more, I am sure it will come in handy for my new turntable plinth. I have sold my old Fairchild table on Ebay and need to figure out a solid mount for a 16" Sony broadcast platter. --scott How about if we vapourize it near your kid's school? How will you do that? It takes on quite a differant charchter when vapourized; like when it used with explosiceves and explodes. The international courts have it banned as a "weapon of Mass Destruction" . Cite? And how can it be a WMD? What's your delivery method for affecting hundreds and thousands of people? A flat file? They are the same ones that said lead preservatives in vaccines are "Good For You". Cite? Lead causes brain damage, depleted uranium causes cancer. So don't eat it. And to anyone who says differant I will pay you $5. Euros for every 10g you eat of powderd depleted Uranium. Go Ahead, feed it to your kids. Is sulfur a WMD? I sure wouldn't eat 10g of it, either. I wouldn't eat 10g of dog feces for five Euros, but it's hardly a danger. Would you eat that much lead? Glenn D. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nmm wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ... Mark Steven Brooks wrote: It's good stuff, actually. Then you won't mind if we ship some over to your house for your kids to play with? Just like lead, it's a heavy metal and it's bad for kids to play with unsupervised. You should wash your hands after handling it, just like working with solder. I have a couple bags in the garage but if you want to send over some more, I am sure it will come in handy for my new turntable plinth. I have sold my old Fairchild table on Ebay and need to figure out a solid mount for a 16" Sony broadcast platter. --scott How about if we vapourize it near your kid's school? It takes on quite a differant charchter when vapourized; like when it used with explosiceves and explodes. The international courts have it banned as a "weapon of Mass Destruction" . That's part of the reason Bush won't let the US be a signatory to the international convention on war crimes. The UK uses DU shells but has no problem on that account. I have some problem believing " The international courts have it banned as a "weapon of Mass Destruction". What's your source ? Reliable ? He almost slipped up in one of the debates saying that "We don't want a Court bringing our soldiers to ----Justice". He replaced the word "justice" with some sort of nonsensicle phrase. And the Depleted Uranium talk has happened in RAP a few times, and someone will point that that league of republican scientists that don't believe in Global warming, evolution or other such northern liberal wine wipping concepts. They are the same ones that said lead preservatives in vaccines are "Good For You". Lead causes brain damage, depleted uranium causes cancer. And to anyone who says differant I will pay you $5. Euros for every 10g you eat of powderd depleted Uranium. Go Ahead, feed it to your kids. I'll remind you of the dangers of beryllium. Hasn't stopped it being used in power semiconductors or esoteric tweeters. Graham |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Washburn wrote:
where do you get depleted uranium? From Viagra recyclers. -- ha |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message I know very little about the material Seems like a good reason to not write a lot about it. That is why I wrote very little and claimed no expertize or desire to become the authoritive voice on depleted Uraninium G |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:
Not available at the corner hardware store, but then neither is hardware any more. They're too full of flashy consumer electronics crap to bother stocking 4-40 stainless machine screws and I am ****ed. If one does manage to find "machine screws" at the big box "hardware" stores, they aren't worth a damn. Locally there is a place called Tacoma Screw Products that still manages to sell nuts, bolts, screws etc. that can be called hardware. DBC - don't buy crap. bobs Bob Smith BS Studios we organize chaos http://www.bsstudios.com |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Gleason wrote:
That is why I wrote very little and claimed no expertize or desire to become the authoritive voice on depleted Uraninium And you posted it into a group about audio instead of a group about uranium because...??? -- ha |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
George Gleason wrote: That is why I wrote very little and claimed no expertize or desire to become the authoritive voice on depleted Uraninium And you posted it into a group about audio instead of a group about uranium because...??? -- ha beacuse I talk to the people I know. G |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nmm wrote:
How about if we vapourize it near your kid's school? How will you do that? Does it matter how? You realy don't want your kids breathing it do you. It's a metal... it does not vaporize easily. I spend half my day working with molten lead with no fume hood, but the lead exposure from skin contact is higher than what I get breathing. And I assure you that I am _very_ paranoid about heavy metal contamination. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote: Is its melting point low like lead? It's not quite as low as lead and it's not quite as soft, but it's close. It's very ductile, not brittle. And yes, it will kill you. That's the whole point of bullets. Strictly an academic question, but would it have any advantage, outside of the military, for use as bullets? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Is its melting point low like lead? It's not quite as low as lead and it's not quite as soft, but it's close. It's very ductile, not brittle. And yes, it will kill you. That's the whole point of bullets. Strictly an academic question, but would it have any advantage, outside of the military, for use as bullets? I don't have a good feel for the these things, but I could see that it might be worthwhile to have a .22 deer rifle. It would have a bit of a kick to it by .22 standards, though. Chakaal probably knows this stuff better than I do, but it would be like effectively having a slightly larger bullet because it would be a little heavier. Guys hunting elephant probably need all the stopping power they can get, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Gleason wrote: wrote: Well, they started it.... Who?, When?, G That's what both of my housemates believe too. Both voted for Bush. The regime's propeganda has been terrifyingly effective with the undereducated. That's all and everything that this election showed. Dr. Goebles is grinning ear to ear despite the heat. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've never understood why nuclear waste could not be converted to a
form heavier than water and dumped into the deepest trench in the ocean. Perhaps one of you who knows something about this can set me straight. Norm Strong |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote: I've never understood why nuclear waste could not be converted to a form heavier than water and dumped into the deepest trench in the ocean. Perhaps one of you who knows something about this can set me straight. Leaching out into the ocean is the issue. Nuclear waste from the UK reprocessing site at Windscale / Sellafield is poured out into the Irish Sea. It's *meant* to be pretty benign now but was once highly contaminated. So much so that certain beaches nearby were closed off at one time. Plutonium was washing ashore in solution, drying out and being carried away by the wind IIRC. Graham |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's OK until you fire it down a gun barrel at high velocity and then
bang it into armor plating. Some of it tends to get finely pulverized and oxidized. If you inhale the dust, that's bad. Worse than lead, in that respect, because it's more toxic. So you don't want to be on a battlefield where it's being used. Come to think of it, you probably don't want to be on a battlefield, period. As a turntable weight, it's probably as safe as lead. OK, let me get this straight... We're trying to kill the guy behind the plated armour... but in case he survives, we don't want him getting cancer from the dust? |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's extremely dense, hence, can fend off munitions that don't match up to
either the velocity necessary to penetrate it, or a greater density necessary to penetrate it. In terms of shoulder based weapons, velocity isn't possible or it would simply bowl over the person firing the weapon and generally mean a missed target. In terms of density, then a DU bullet can penetrate lesser dense defensive armor, and either fragment killing or wounding those inside, or simply richochet around inside the vehicle until it's velocity is spent. In armor on fighting vehicles, like the Bradley, DU is pretty darned good at dispensing explosive rounds like RPGs, etc., but the cost is that some amount is dispersed into the air. I guess one could consider this a toxic equivalent to a scorched earth policy, since one is leaving plenty of material that has no ability to deplete further and will forevermore be in the foodchain if that land is ever used for agricultural purposes. DU is dense enough to help shield our troops, but it's also leaving a track of particles that never leave. A better solution, although far more expensive, is explosive shielding, which immediately reacts to an attempt at penetration and explodes to counteract the kinetic energy of the offensive weapon. The problem is replacement costs, which is what lead the US military to lean towards superior density. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Bob Cain" wrote in message ... Scott Dorsey wrote: Is its melting point low like lead? It's not quite as low as lead and it's not quite as soft, but it's close. It's very ductile, not brittle. And yes, it will kill you. That's the whole point of bullets. Strictly an academic question, but would it have any advantage, outside of the military, for use as bullets? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
****, I get the idea that Mrs. Dorsey could kill a deer with her pocket
knife! g But in weaponry, size still matters. If a police officer takes 5 to 10 shots to take down a perpetrator, then why aren't we giving them .45s? Well, the real answer is they can't shoot, but it's obvious that it takes more 9mm hits to take down a man than it does to take down a man with a .45. If a person get's hit with a .45, they are going down. They may not die, but they won't be a problem any longer. And then we wouldn't have all these claims of excessive brutality because an officer had to shoot a person so many times to kill them. Whilst .22s can kill a man, perhaps most likely in a mafia style execution, I'd never go into the woods to kill a deer with a .22, DU or not, because not only do deer live in the woods, but so do ****ing bears, and 1200 lbs of angry bear is NOT what I want to be the last thing I see! g -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Bob Cain wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Is its melting point low like lead? It's not quite as low as lead and it's not quite as soft, but it's close. It's very ductile, not brittle. And yes, it will kill you. That's the whole point of bullets. Strictly an academic question, but would it have any advantage, outside of the military, for use as bullets? I don't have a good feel for the these things, but I could see that it might be worthwhile to have a .22 deer rifle. It would have a bit of a kick to it by .22 standards, though. Chakaal probably knows this stuff better than I do, but it would be like effectively having a slightly larger bullet because it would be a little heavier. Guys hunting elephant probably need all the stopping power they can get, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
before coming up with the result? -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "George Gleason" wrote in message I know very little about the material Seems like a good reason to not write a lot about it. only relating what was presented by the history channel program They "implied" it was spent fuel from reactors http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...ear_threat.htm "Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product caused by extracting fissionable isotopes (uranium 234 and 235) from natural uranium (238) for use in nuclear weapons and reactors. " There's also some complete crap on that link btw. Such as inferring that Gulf War Syndrome is caused by *radioactive* DU poisoning. They go on to state that DU has a half life of 4.5 *billion* years, in which case it's hardly particularly radioactive ! Rather stable in fact. Graham |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because deplete uranium is such a dense material that, when carved up into 3
micron thick sections, and then used as the element in a capsule, has a response curve of 4.5 billion years to 1.2 pico-seconds, meaning that it can capture all of history, or the last little bit of humanity. Hell of a mic, if you ask me! g -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "hank alrich" wrote in message ... George Gleason wrote: That is why I wrote very little and claimed no expertize or desire to become the authoritive voice on depleted Uraninium And you posted it into a group about audio instead of a group about uranium because...??? -- ha |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside? Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU? Glenn D. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years before coming up with the result? Um, no. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...r/halfli2.html Glenn D. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Glenn Dowdy wrote:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside? Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU? Glenn D. History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far George |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of 630
thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that, we're still talking about a lot of tons of material. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message ... "Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside? Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU? Glenn D. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it backfired.
I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next elements on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were created by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created. Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before we'd have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message ... "Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years before coming up with the result? Um, no. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...r/halfli2.html Glenn D. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it backfired. I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next elements on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were created by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created. Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before we'd have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence. Shooting stars never stop even when they reach the top Here comes a supernova what a pushova, yeah (FGTH sometime in the eighties) Rob R. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Gleason wrote:
Glenn Dowdy wrote: "Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside? Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU? History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far That's a lot, but what sort of tonnage of lead? I'm not saying uranium isn't bad for you, I'm just saying that lead is also bad for you. And leftover land mines are really, really bad for you. And I would worry much more about unexploded ordinance than any of these things... how many dud bombs and shells are lying around there now? I bet an awful lot. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years before coming up with the result? Well, no, radioactive elements decay by emitting (surprise) bursts of radiation. So you use something to measure the decay events, like a geiger counter or something with phosphorous and an optical detector. You measure decay events for a period of time, and then you can figure out the rate at which decay events are happening. Then it's just some simple math to determine the half-life. And no, you'll never be sure that you get exactly the right answer. But then, one of the interesting things about radioactive decay is that there IS no right answer. As far as science can tell (if I understand this correctly), any individual atom is just sitting there and during one second of time, it has some small probability of "deciding" to decay. If, during that first interval, it doesn't decay, then during the next one-second interval, it has exactly the same probability as it did in the previous interval. So you could in theory have a chunk of something radioactive sitting there, and you could have no decay occur during the first second, and then you'd be *exactly* where you started a second ago. This is very unlike doing math with a car traveling down the road at a constant 70mph. With the car, you can say that one second later, it will about 103 ft further down the road. Radioactive decay would be more like a car where you never actually take your foot off the brake, and the wheels never roll, but about every second or so, it teleports itself to a position 103 ft further down the road[1]. So anyway, after all that the point is that the half-life can only be measured approximately, so they don't know that it's exactly 4.5 billion years, although they can be quite confident that it's awefully likely to be very close to 4.5 billion years. But, the half-life isn't all that important. All it tells you is how quickly something is spitting out radiation. It is somewhat informative because things with long half-lives are not going to spit out radiation very fast; otherwise, they'd spit it all out long before 4.5 billion years' time. The important thing is really what kind of radiation is coming out and how much. And *that* can be measured pretty directly. Well, also, the more important thing is the damaging *chemical* effects of heavy metals like uranium. Uranium is dangerous for the same sorts of reasons that you can get lead poisoning. - Logan [1] Actually, it would be more like a greyhound bus full of little ants, and each ant has a little button he can press that will teleport the bus 103 ft down the road, but each ant can only press his button one time, and you can't really predict when he will do it, and the ants don't act in a coordinated fashion at all. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of 630 thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that, we're still talking about a lot of tons of material. Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in the first Gulf War. http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du.../gulfwar.shtml An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high. Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms dust when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits. With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that should remain inside the destroyed vehicles. And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year half-life is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill you. Glenn D. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't recognize the reference, but I didn't pay a lot of attention to music
in the eighties, or at least the music OF the eighties. Did my own, still sitting on my shelves! g The point was that third order suns that ultimately create heavier atoms won't be dying for a while. And it's got to be a HUGE sun to start fusing even heavier atoms for fuel. Perhaps it's just a fuelish thought. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Rob Reedijk" wrote in message ... Roger W. Norman wrote: It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it backfired. I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next elements on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were created by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created. Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before we'd have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence. Shooting stars never stop even when they reach the top Here comes a supernova what a pushova, yeah (FGTH sometime in the eighties) Rob R. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
But in weaponry, size still matters. But, size is not the only thing that matters. For example, consider blended-metal bullets. Terribly deadly on soft tissue, yet they won't go through drywall. If a police officer takes 5 to 10 shots to take down a perpetrator, then why aren't we giving them .45s? I'm not sure the goal is allways to take down perps. Well, the real answer is they can't shoot, but it's obvious that it takes more 9mm hits to take down a man than it does to take down a man with a .45. Depends on the 9 mm, depends on the .45. If a person get's hit with a .45, they are going down. Since completely missing the target has been brought into relevance, this is not always true. Whilst .22s can kill a man, perhaps most likely in a mafia style execution, Common US military ammo is 5.56 mm, which is just a scosh over 0.25 - close enough to .22, right? I'd never go into the woods to kill a deer with a .22, DU or not, because not only do deer live in the woods, but so do ****ing bears, and 1200 lbs of angry bear is NOT what I want to be the last thing I see! g However, bears are full of soft tissue, so maybe a blended metal 5.56 mm might exactly the thing to use. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where does stupidity begin on any of these questions, Scott? How about NOT
doing what's bad for you? Isn't that the real idea? -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... George Gleason wrote: Glenn Dowdy wrote: "Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ... Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside? Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU? History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far That's a lot, but what sort of tonnage of lead? I'm not saying uranium isn't bad for you, I'm just saying that lead is also bad for you. And leftover land mines are really, really bad for you. And I would worry much more about unexploded ordinance than any of these things... how many dud bombs and shells are lying around there now? I bet an awful lot. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Common US military ammo is 5.56 mm, which is just a scosh over 0.25 - close enough to .22, right? Nit: it's closer to .22 than .25. 5.56mm divided 25.4mm is 0.218898. Glenn D. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
