You must be included in the Guinness Book or Records for most patient person alive.
7 Likes
You are misreading the grammar of Item 9 in Amendment 10.
The license authorizes the use of tank turrets and hulls as depleted uranium armor components.
The word as equates the Hull to the DU Component.
The NRC is legally defining the Hull itself as a Depleted Uranium component.
If your “Box of Nails” analogy were true, and the hull was just the non-radioactive box holding the radioactive nail, the NRC would not define the box as the radioactive component. They would license the nail.
By explicitly licensing the Hull as a Depleted Uranium component, the NRC confirms that the hull is the radioactive item. You cannot license a steel box as a uranium component. That would be a false classification.
So we have:
-
The NRC defining the Hull as a DU Component.
-
The CBO stating Heavy Armor was added to the Hull.
-
The Federal Register defining Heavy Armor as the radioactive system.
The Hull is the radioactive component. The license text proves it.
That’s not how it works.
One radioactive nail in a box doesn’t make the whole box radioactive - it just means there’s one radioactive nail in it.
Radiation isn’t contagious.
Same way one decent player in a match doesn’t suddenly make the whole team good.
Can you define ‘heavy armor system’ ?
Here:
They do not install just one of the parts on any of the tanks, all tanks will get both parts. When the System is handled it is radioactive in all of it’s steps of handling due to it containing the turret armor.
For 5 tanks. It does not define all tanks in existence. It authorises.
They do not define all tanks. they authorise to have. it is covered by the 5 tanks.
Not in all instances of it’s existence.
They aren’t doing this. they are authorizing. they are not saying that all tanks are.
I ment that the box will emit radiation when handled due to having that one radioactive nail in it. look at any machine with just one radioactive component in it, then the machine is labeled as radioactive.
It very much is.
If you were to sell that box would you have a radioactive warning sign on the box? I think you would.
Like on an electron microscope. Is every part of that thing radioactive? Nope. The machine itself isnt at all. The samples are.
Section 3, Paragraph A explicitly says:
…in all instances, the maximum potential exposure to radiation from the Heavy Armor System will fall well under the 100 mrem/year NRC limit.
The government states right there that the Heavy Armor System emits radiation. Steel and ceramic do not emit radiation. Only the Depleted Uranium package emits radiation.
This proves that Heavy Armor System is the official name for the radioactive DU package.
So when the CBO Report from 2006 states Heavy armor added to hull and turret, it is stating that the radioactive armor system was added to the hull.
It doesn’t:
Your diagram contradicts the CBO report.
The CBO explicitly distinguishes between Improved Composite (IPM1) and Heavy Armor (AIM).
If the AIM hull was the “non-radioactive hull armor” blue circle in your diagram, the CBO would have labeled it Improved Composite, just like they did for the IPM1. They have a specific term for non-radioactive armor, and they used it in the very same table.
But for the AIM hull, they switched the term to Heavy Armor
Why would the CBO switch from “Composite” to “Heavy Armor” if the material remained non-radioactive composite?
They switched terms because the material changed to the Heavy Armor System , which the Federal Register defines as the system that emits radiation.
Regarding the license:
You admit that for those 5 tanks, the hull is legally defined as a DU component. That establishes the physical definition: A Heavy Armor Hull contains DU.
The CBO Audit confirms that the entire M1A1 AIM fleet received Heavy Armor in the hull.
So choose, either the CBO lied to Congress about the fleet receiving the Heavy Armor upgrade, or the fleet actually received the upgrade and the NRC license covers it because they removed the 5-tank limit in 2006.
“Radiation is contagious” is one of the most scientifically illiterate things posted in this entire thread. Depleted Uranium is primarily an alpha particle emitter. It does not emit high-energy neutrons capable of neutron activation. Steel does not become radioactive just because it is bolted to a radioactive turret. That is not how physics works.
The only way the hull falls under the “Heavy Armor System” radiation definition from the Federal Register is if the hull itself contains the radioactive material.
Item 9 of the license puts this to bed legally. It authorizes the storage of tank turrets and hulls as depleted uranium armor components.
It defines the hull as the component. It doesn’t say “hulls attached to DU turrets.” It explicitly categorizes the hull itself as the piece of hardware made of Depleted Uranium. The NRC isn’t licensing a steel box because it “caught” radiation from the turret. They are licensing it because it is filled with uranium.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes, because the former doesn’t have DU in turret while the latter does.
They don’t need to, there is already an all encompassing term for it, Heavy Armor System. Why use words to describe all the parts of the system when you can just mention the System and cover all parts?
The turret became DU.
As shown in my drawing doesn’t have to mean that all parts are DU.
Yes.
No, it doesn’t define the name the hulls of those 5.
Yes, that doesn’t mean it’s DU.
Logic fallacy.
This is like talking to a brick wall…
1 Like
No.
Correct, this doesn’t make all hulls radioactive.
In those 5 tanks.
You completely ignored the physics correction because it destroys your red circle diagram. You claimed the whole system is treated as radioactive just because the turret is there. That is scientifically false. Depleted Uranium is primarily an alpha particle emitter. It does not emit high-energy neutrons capable of activating steel. The hull does not become radioactive just by sitting next to a DU turret.
If the hull was just non-radioactive steel as you claim, it would be radiologically cold. The NRC does not license cold steel. They only regulate Source Material. By listing the Hull as an authorized use for Depleted Uranium in Item 9, the NRC confirms that the hull itself is a hot, radioactive component. Your diagram implies the NRC licenses non-radioactive parts just because they are nearby, which is not how nuclear regulation works.
You also admitted Correct to the fact that the license defines the hull as a DU component, but then you retreated to In those 5 tanks.
This traps you. You admit that a Heavy Armor Hull (as defined in the license for those 5 tanks) is a DU Hull.
The CBO Report confirms that the M1A1 AIM Fleet (hundreds of tanks) received Heavy Armor added to hull.
Since you admitted Heavy Armor Hulls contain DU in the prototypes, and the CBO says the fleet received Heavy Armor Hulls, logic dictates the fleet contains DU. You are back to arguing that the Army built 5 Real Heavy Armor hulls and 1,000 Fake Heavy Armor hulls and gave them the exact same name in the federal budget to fool the auditors.
1 Like
Cool, and your interpretation is just as good as Senzawa’s at this point since we don’t have an objective statement. We’re all working off conjecture. A bunch of documentts suggest something.
Which goes besides the point: Just buff the LFP and give either one as a reason. Like I said with a dart on a cork board. Just throw one blindly and see where it lands so you can use it as an excuse to buff the LFP as we know for a fact that it was made stronger but we don’t know the direct mechanism nor how.
It doesn’t. I haven’t claimed that all radiation will cause other nearby object to become radioactive. But it is very much a possibility depending on the circumstances and the emitter. If nothing else then by proxy of radio active dust contamination.
Incorrect. All containers containing radioactive materials (that exceed a specified level of radiation) must be marked as such even if those materials make out only parts of the whole content in said crate. the radioactive parts within that crate must then also be separately marked. These markings are often different as they are denoted by the radiation level expected to be measured outside os each marking step.
I have not claimed it does. If both parts are transported in the same crate the crate must be marked as radioactive.
correct. the 5 hulls.
5 of them.
nope, i have not implied nor claimed this.
yes
no.
Nope. it doesn’t. There is nothing in any of your documents that defines ALL hulls as radioactive. There is nothing that says that all hulls contain DU.
Yes, doesn’t have to be DU.
yes.
No.
Nope.
NRC:
Letter dated February 22, 2006 (with enclosed application) (ML060590665):
3 Likes
Additionally:
Federal register only mentions the Lima Army Tank Plant as the place where DU armor is inserted. That place is run by General Dynamics Land Systems. They only have a licence to handle DU in turrets:
You admitted that for the 5 prototypes, the Heavy Armor hull contains DU.
You admitted the CBO says the AIM fleet received Heavy Armor in the hull.
So your argument is that the Army uses the specific term Heavy Armor to mean DU for the prototypes, but uses the exact same term to mean Non-DU for the fleet, and the CBO just went along with it.
That is the definition of creating ambiguity where none exists.
You are forcing the CBO to use a deceptive double-definition just to keep your theory alive. If the AIM fleet hull was non-DU, the CBO would have called it Composite like they did for the IPM1. They called it Heavy Armor because it matches the DU definition established by the prototypes.
Also, regarding your crate analogy:
Item 9 doesn’t license the crate. It licenses the component.
It authorizes the use of DU material utilized as Armor in tank turrets and hulls.
It explicitly defines the Hull as a utilization point for the material. If the hull was just a cold box next to a hot turret, the NRC would not list it as a utilization point. They listed it because the uranium is inside it.
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the Army maintains a massive conspiracy of identical names for different materials to trick federal auditors.
See my previous post.
Your talking in circles around yourself. Half your statements fail at logic.
1 Like
Yes it is speculation but when you factor in the fact the US from 1986 to 2000 had anywhere from 5000+ M1A1s in service with an average age of 14 years do you honestly think with the AIM program that they would magically refresh every M1A1 to M1A1 AIMs with DU hull and turret armour? I really dont think you grasp the sheer monetary value involved let alone the the amount of DU needed to do this WHILE still producing M1A2s and M1A2 SEPs which would also have been using DU supply chains.
Which brings me to my other point, why would the US siphon DU supply to an M1A1 upgrade program when they HAVE M1A2s and M1A2 SEPs using Gen 2 and Gen 3 DU armour. its not something you can simply ignore even if speculation because reality is, thats expensive and if supply is limited in the DU supply chain department well I would expect them to prioritise M1A2 variants and beyond and not a refresh program of sorts.
HA armour could just have meant a more denser composite array or DU, we simply dont have enough information to confirm as such but WHAT we do know is and you conveniently ignore the timelines.
Why would the AIM which came into service in 2000, 9 years after the M1A2 and 1 year after the MA12 SEP still list HA for its armour when in that span of 9 years prior DU armour was already in full blown use in the M1A2s. You also should look into the AIMs that got sold to Australia because they too conveniently debunk DU being in all Abrams and even confirm the AIM they acquired used a special composite of some sort.
See the paragraph at the bottom where they state “The Australian tanks have not had depleted uranium fitted to them in the past. Instead, during rebuild they will be fitted with an advanced non-DU armour.” The fact they make a dinstinction here relative to past tense implies DU was never fitted during the rebuild which is what AIMs are, they are rebuilt M1A1s (like new)
Spoiler
Then we have this reference:
Sources here:
Spoiler
Granted the likely hood that the exported AIMs would have got DU to begin with is questionable but tis the fact even the Australian defence talk about how during rebuild it wasnt being fitted with DU, now that could potentially be specific to the Australian export agreement but I doubt the US would have 2 production lines for there AIMs, again it would be financially cheaper and easier if they simply produced the AIMs with some composite array or denser array that isnt DU to make exporting easier
holy yap bro