DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Ammo and Munitions » Cancer Worries for New U.S. Bombs

Cancer Worries for New U.S. Bombs

The U.S. military is working on a small, precise bomb that could hit targets “previously off limits to the warfighter.” The problem is, it might cause cancer.
Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) is one of the Air Force Research Laboratorys responses to the challenge of fighting in an urban environment without hurting innocent bystanders in the process.
Recent news about an airstrike which may have killed civilians, as well as Taliban fighters, highlights the problem. Similar situations have occurred repeatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan; sometimes targets could not be engaged, because of the risk of harming nearby civilians. One option is to use smaller weapons. Another is dropping inert bombs, filled with concrete rather than explosives, to minimize collateral damage.
DIME.jpgBut what’s really required is something which is just as lethal as a standard bomb, but keeps its lethal zone to a minimum. This is exactly what DIME delivers.
DIME is used in the Low Collateral Damage version of the Small Diameter Bomb currently under development. This has a carbon fiber casing which turns into dust rather than creating dangerous fragments. The bomb is filled with explosive mixed with tungsten powder, which becomes micro-shrapnel. The small-sized tungsten particles drag to a halt at about 40 charge diameters. In the case of the SDB, that gives a destructive radius of about 25 feet.
The result is an incredibly destructive blast in a small area, what the Air Force Term “Focused Lethality.” The AFRL Munitions Directorate provided this picture of a DIME test, but were unable to discuss the topic. However, I talked to others who have worked in this area. They were consistently awed by the destructive power of the mixture, which causes far more damage than pure explosive within the near field. The impact of the micro-shrapnel seems to cause a similar but more powerful effect than a shockwave.
Early blasts even destroyed test instruments:

Unfortunately, the high-velocity, high temperature inert metal particles found in DIME fills have proved to be extremely damaging to traditional pressure measurement instruments. Hence, new measurement diagnostics had to be developed to investigate DIME formulations.

Because there are no large fragments, Focused Lethality Munitions should not cause a hazard at any great distance. The standard Small Diameter Bomb is claimed to be lethal out to 2,000 feet or more, the Focused Lethality version will have a smaller but deadlier footprint — a 12-gauge compared to a rifle.
DIME2.jpgLittle has been released on the exact effects of DIME explosives, but its interesting that a presentation on future munitions illustrates focused lethality with a tank which had been turned on its side by blast. Aimed accurately, it looks like it would be capable of destroying a building completely without damaging the rest of the neighborhood.
Metal powders — typically aluminum — have been added to explosives for many years. But those are reactive metals, making the blast even stronger. Tungsten, on the other hand, is inert. So it remains in metallic form and absorbs some of the energy of the explosion. DIME originated in work to increase the density of the explosive mixture, improving the penetrating power of bunker busting bombs. But the bonus effect of the micro-shrapnel proved to be more significant than the increased density.
The Air Force’s focused lethality munition had an enthusiastic write-up in the Wall Street Journal. The US Navy’s Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren is also working on DIME munitions.
According to the Air Forces FY 2007 Unfunded Priority List, the focused lethality munitions “will be able to prosecute targets previously off limits to the warfighter.“
This suggests that they will be used in close proximity to civilians or friendly forces. The only collateral damage may be stray tungsten particles clumping, or larger particles in the mix might mean some effect outside the focused zone. Would grains of inert tungsten present a problem? According to New Scientist magazine:

In a study designed to simulate shrapnel injuries, pellets of weapons-grade tungsten alloy were implanted in 92 rats. Within five months all the animals developed a rare cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma, according to John Kalinich’s team at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Maryland.

92 out of 92 — “tumor yield was 100%” — is a significant result. The full report is here.
I checked with University of Arizona cancer researcher Dr. Mark Witten, quoted in the New Scientist story, to see how things have developed. Dr. Witten is investigating links between tungsten and leukemia, and is concerned about its possible use DIME or other munitions:

“My opinion is that there needs to be much more research on the health effects of tungsten before the military increases its usage.”

We dont know whether a Focused Lethality Munition is likely to result in tungsten particles striking anyone outside the lethal area. Nor do we know the possible environmental impact tungsten powder left afterwards. But given that the Focused Lethality munition will be used in situations which are likely to produce media attention and political repercussions, these should be addressed.
The aims of the Low Collateral Damage program are worthwhile. But unless the issues around tungsten are resolved we could see a repeat of the depleted uranium story. Instead of decreasing controversy, the new weapon might create even more.
– David Hambling
UPDATE 05/22/06 1:45PM: Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch comments:

While Human Rights Watch is supportive of the US military’s commitment to reducing civilian casualties, collateral damage as they call it, it is unfortunate that these weapons are being developed specifically for use in densely populated areas which may negate the intended effect.

Share |

May 22nd, 2006 | Ammo and Munitions | 188478 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/05/22/cancer-worries-for-new-u-s-bombs/Cancer+Worries+for+New+U.S.+Bombs2006-05-22+14%3A24%3A25matthew_tompkins You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 05/20/06 | NSA: “Total Access,” or Info Overload? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. JSAllison says:
    May 22, 2006 at 11:12 am

    Now that’s what I call dropping a dime on someone.

    Reply
  2. fronten says:
    May 22, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    i just noticed that ‘carbon fiber case blasted to dust’.. and it reminds me of some old old story about asbestos-powders and cancer.
    besides that; why are shrapnells neccessary?
    i mean: shrapnells are to kill people — and i thought to minimize this was the intent of this invention..

    Reply
  3. Canary says:
    May 22, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    A cancer bomb to use on civilians? Cool.
    Wouldn’t sweat the carbon dust too much — we get lots in coal mines and it takes plenty of exposure to kill you.

    Reply
  4. Big D says:
    May 22, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    The point is to kill everybody within 10′ of a point, and not kill anybody more than 20′ away.
    My question is as to whether the conditions required to cause cancer occur outside of the lethal radius–that is, you’d get cancer if you hadn’t already been blown up. Likewise, the effect of tungsten particles lying around with the potential of inhalation needs to be studied.

    Reply
  5. Smartalix says:
    May 22, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Joe Haldeman predicted something like this in his book The Forever War.
    His weapon involved a shotgun round for a rocket launcher that created a blast that was instant death to five meters and harmless dust at 10. (page 240, look it up on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/102–9049076-4623369?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=shotgun%20&v=search-inside&asin=0060510862.

    Reply
  6. Charles says:
    May 23, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Well, shrapnel in the case of this bomb is a purely incident product of blowing up the case. Unless you had a caseless bomb, you’d have a metal case which was destroyed in the explosion, sending fragments. You can’t necessarily “do away with” shrapnel, so they’ve decidd to use something that breaks up into dust quite easily, which is the carbon case. Another advantage is that the case is lighter and could probably pack in more payload for the same weight…

    Reply
  7. David Hambling says:
    May 24, 2006 at 2:42 am

    Brian,
    1) Human Rights Watch’s concern is that the safer weapon will result in it being used in more dangerous situations where current munitions are not used, negating the benefits.
    2) It is unlikely to be be feasible to remove tiny tungsten fragments from all friendly troops and civilians. If you look at the pieces used in the study, just 1mm x 2mm and conosider that these produced a 100% cancer rate, we don’t know just how small a piece is dangerous but clearly it’s fairly small.
    It’s certainly not true to say all heavy metal fragments are equally carcinogenic. Tantalum pellets used as a control in the tests caused no cancers. The researchers also mention that “we did not observe tumor formation in DU-implanted rats” — and there are still people walking around cancer-free with DU fragments from the 1991 Gulf War. See — http://​www​.defenselink​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​M​a​y​2​0​0​4​/​n​0​5​0​3​2​0​0​4​_​2​0​0​4​0​5​0​3​6​.​h​tml
    Whereas the rats in the tests did not just develop tumors: they died of them. Tungsten shrapnel is seriously bad stuff.

    Reply
  8. Josh Narins says:
    May 24, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    American troops are taking, as General Carter Ham recently said “great measures” to protect innocent civlian lives.
    That’s not to say that even one member of the US Armed Forces has laid down his or her life to protect an non-combatant.
    You know, I don’t know that Hitler used air strikes against the French Resistance.
    The mayor of Philadelphia used air strikes to get the group MOVE, ended up burning down 60 blocks of Philly.
    Traditionally, in US law enforcement, helicopters are not used as attack platforms, but for monitoring activity on the ground. They don’t need to be terribly close to see people running with weapons any larger than a pistol.
    I’m quite convinced, though, that it is evil to use air assaults on non-military units. We can roll up, 100% safely, in a variety of military units. I’m not saying it is a good use of M1-A1 tanks, but it certainly doesn’t kill any innocent bystanders.
    SWAT is the mindset I sorely wish the military had in mind.
    I sorely wish we didn’t care about an Iraqi Army, since any of its neighbors would be insane to invade it now, but instead trained cops. The mindset (crowd of civilians vs range of targets) is critical.
    If the insurgents show up with tanks or planes, or even the most primitive of armored vehicles, I fully support the use of aerial attack platforms.
    Since we are not now engaging any foreign armies in urban areas, nor can we reasonably expect to do so any time in the immediate future unless we start another war, this program is of very low value.

    Reply
  9. nbk2000 says:
    May 25, 2006 at 2:32 am

    The comment that the picture of the tank on its side was a result of the blast…is that correct?
    Having seen the whole picture, not the cropped version on this site, it looks to me like the tank is on it’s side to faciliate testing of a multi-mode warhead, aimed at the top of the tanks cupola, like it would be if it was air-delivered.
    Reason?
    Test instruments are more easily emplaced on the ground than suspended up in the air, like they’d have to be if the warhead was suspended above the tank.
    So tilting the tank over greatly simplifies test instrumentation.

    Reply
  10. technically speaking says:
    June 5, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    The shrapnel used in the cancer tests were “tungsten cobalt” and “tungsten cobalt nickel” alloys. Pure tungsten metal powder has been used in medicine for ages, biomedical implants, and even nutritional suplements. It is an inert element, and has never been linked to cancer.
    It’s interesting to note that the Gov’t is stuck with Hundreds of tons of DU, Tungsten costs about 200X that of DU, and the cancer tests conspicuously avoided using pure tungsten powder (cobalt has been known to cause cancer for years, and nickel is poisonous as well).
    If I mixed sugar & tobacco, had rats smoke it, then published on the resulting cancer, I could easily say “Sugar product linked with cancer.” Although the effects of pure sugar smoking was never tested, I could easily say “There is much more to learn about sugar, and it’s possible effects on human beings.“
    The spin works for everyone. The military gets to use more DU, the government spends less money, the scientist gets to do more testing because “There is much more to learn.” Tungsten carbide cobalt is dangerous and there are procedures to handle the material safely.

    Reply
  11. Russell Seitz says:
    June 7, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Please give us the ‘alloy’ composition in full– and to a tenth of a percent on all components one expects that rather more than cobalt is being used to glue this powder metallurgical wonder together — nickel, for instance , is a lot more bologically active than either Co or W.
    It would also be handy to know what strain of lab rat.

    Reply
  12. Joe Katzman says:
    June 8, 2006 at 8:22 am

    …and a couple weeks later, the USA nails Zarqawi himself in… an air strike.
    Any more brilliant ideas from Josh?

    Reply
  13. James says:
    October 12, 2006 at 5:53 am

    nbk2000 top attack mode of a javalin missle shoulder fired troop carried.. this such munition is capable of producing a frontal attack mode as well but excellent at hitting armor in defliade. it carries a dual primed warhead for punching thru armor..
    what i find thats intresting is that i recently read that italian news gropups are saying this weapon DIME was used in the gaza strip.. hmm when was that oh yeah sept 2006– but wait didnt this article say just now above us that this weapon will be in the hands of troops by sept 06 regarless that its not tested or cleared under the geneva convention..

    Reply
  14. nicole says:
    October 18, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    i got here after some armchair research on wikipedia provided a link.
    i do not see how anyone can possibly suggest that these weapons are any less destructive when they are not only immediately and obviously destructive with explosions but are actually subversive which makes them even more dangerous BIOLOGICAL WMDs. this is disgusting.

    Reply
  15. Steven p. Toal says:
    October 18, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    I feel very strongly that if we can develope these kinds of munitions to prosecute this war to ultimate victory we should do so…our soilders and marines deserve every advantage on the battlefeild that we can find for them…where ever they are fighting now and in the future …!!

    Reply
  16. Steven p. Toal says:
    October 18, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    As this weapon has the ability to destroy the measureing equipment ..in the past testing .…sounds like a dam fine bomb to me …lets get real busy with it …again our troops deserve any and all advantages we the people can provide to them …the enemy plays by no rules at all…!!

    Reply
  17. Paul T says:
    October 19, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    The good mr lambrecht and mr toal have probably never seen a combat victim. No doubt they will respond citing a largely imaginary sevice record. A munition no matter what type hitting a civilian is just plain wrong. Lambrecht’s comments are totally inaccurate as well as armchair warrioring

    Reply
  18. Micah says:
    October 20, 2006 at 5:55 am

    Testing on rats wasn’t “conclusive”, so the US warmongers gave some of these things to Israel to test on live humans as part of their “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0„1924906,00.html

    Reply
  19. Dakota says:
    November 17, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    With regards to:
    “Little has been released on the exact effects of DIME explosives, but it

    Reply
  20. mack says:
    March 1, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Gaza doctors say patients suffering mystery injuries after Israeli attacks

    Reply
  21. china tour says:
    March 28, 2008 at 1:50 am

    VI
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?

    Reply
  22. charlie says:
    June 12, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    FLV to 3GP

    Reply
  23. dada says:
    September 1, 2008 at 1:27 am

    wedding dresses
    wedding gowns
    bridal gowns
    lace front wigs
    wedding invitations
    bridal shower invitations
    baby shower invitations
    custom wedding invitation
    diablo 2 cd key

    Reply
  24. Ada says:
    November 17, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Fronten, the story is not that old. Unfortunately is a story that many people are condemned to live it. You

    Reply
  25. ??? says:
    April 21, 2009 at 4:30 am

    I do‘not understand English!
    ?????????????:???,???,????,????,??,???,???,?????,?????,?????,????????.

    Reply
  26. 54 says:
    June 4, 2009 at 1:19 am

    ert

    Reply
  27. ?? says:
    August 17, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    a bape clothes.
    NFL clothes.
    many merchandise
    my blog

    Reply
  28. fhaio says:
    August 26, 2009 at 2:46 am

    Ok.You are right.

    Reply
  29. star says:
    August 31, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????

    Reply
  30. Anonym says:
    September 24, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    ?? ??
    Capital?????????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???????
    ????????
    ?????
    ?????????
    ???????
    ????????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???????????
    FX
    ????????
    ?????????
    ??????????????
    ?? ??
    ????????
    ?? ??
    ????????
    ???????
    ??????
    ????????
    ?? ??
    ????????
    ?? ??
    ????????
    1979??????
    ???????
    seego

    Reply
  31. GFHDGFH says:
    October 7, 2009 at 12:00 am

    cheap-prada-shoes
    mens-prada-shoes
    comfortable cheap fashion
    prada-shoes cheap
    comfortable

    Reply
  32. www.shoespaty.com says:
    October 16, 2009 at 12:31 am

    cheap-prada-shoes
    mens-prada-shoes
    comfortable cheap fashion
    prada-shoes cheap
    comfortable

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up?
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    Recent Comments
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      Actually, no! Our economies are not interdependent. We...
      rugerblake
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      You can bet the farm that those 150...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Quote: "China would undeniably...
      Benjamin
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      How about we produce 5 more B2s and have it...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      China would undeniably destroy all the...
      Alex`
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I have an even better idea –sell them...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I would say that because Taiwan has 146 F16...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Mainly because the Taiwanese don't...
      andercon05
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Go with the Euro Fighter. Obama will sell...
      Phillip
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Excellent article on strategypage.com called...
      WJS
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage