this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
232 points (96.8% liked)

Global News

6772 readers
462 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.


Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. Any kind of discrimination will not be tolerated.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Damaged or burned munitions pose the greatest danger, as they may release radioactive dust hazardous to people and the environment. A gamma reading of 24 microsieverts per hour is roughly 80 times background and enough to flag debris as hazardous to anyone in prolonged contact, though a single brief exposure at that level is far below the dose that causes acute harm.

So if this is just a "higher cancer levels years from now" kind of thing, why would Russia bother adding uranium? Isn't uranium expensive?

[–] DempstersBox@lemmy.world 84 points 5 days ago (3 children)

According to the article, it's depleted uranium.

Which is the leftover part that's not useful for making nukes with.

Still radioactive, it's basically hazardous waste... That weighs more than lead.

So you put it in munitions, and the same size projectile has more force, more stopping power. So you get more damage out of each round, plus convenient disposal of toxic waste, plus the radiological contamination around your targets, which either ties up more resources or gives the people you're shooting at cancer later. Or both! Or your own guys! veritable carnival of excitement

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

DU is far less radioactive than natural uranium.

EDIT:

According to the article, the uranium found gives off between 8 to 24 microsieverts (µSv) per hour.

Let's take some real world examples and compare:

A transatlantic flight typically exposes you to 0.08 millisieverts (mSv), or 80 µSv.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons

This means that you would need to stay next to the piece of Uranium for 3,5 - 10 hours to get the same dose as one transatlantic flight.

Is it bad? Sure! Is it a crisis? Nah.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 17 points 5 days ago (3 children)

But this is weird because drones arent projectiles in that sense. This is pretty much equivalent to putting very slightly radioactive lead ballast in a drone. All it is doing is slowing the drone down and reducing it's range. Very odd.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If they're not expecting the drones to return, this could be a 'salting the earth' tactic.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Its a terrible way of doing that though, if you wanted to do that there are far lighter materials (i.e. you can carry more) and you'd disperse it as a powder from altitude.

Like I said, its weird.

I'm not surprised it makes little sense. Remember this was/is a "Special military operation". Emphasis on Special...

[–] DempstersBox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They're putting it in the munitions on the drones

[–] Womble@piefed.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Ah, I misunderstood. Its a missile ON another missile (the one way drone) for shooting down other drones that try and take it down and that missile has a usually tungsten fragment warhead which is being replaced with DU.

Still weird but not completely baffling in that case.

[–] felixthecat@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The drone is a kamikaze drone. It delivers the warhead and destroys itself.

The uranium is armor piercing. That's why they use it.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As I said, drones arent projectiles in that sense.

A uranium (or tungsten, or even jacketed lead) dart hitting a target straight on with a sharp point while going multiple times the speed of sound is armour penetrating. Just putting a heavy metal in a subsonic aircraft carrying high explosive does nothing to help it penetrate armour and likely would impede it.

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The R-60M missile uses a continuous rod warhead -- the DU is apparently included for "enhanced fragmentation".

[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

The west has been using depleted uranium for years, Israel loves it

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 points 4 days ago

Thats just a side effect. The primary purpose of the uranium in the warhead is its armor piercing capabilities.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

~~Enriched uranium is expensive. Uranium ore isn't~~

Edit: They did not use uranium ore

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 16 points 5 days ago (2 children)

This is depleted uranium, not uranium ore. It's actual refined uranium, but not the right sort of uranium for use in fission reactions like nuclear power plants or bombs

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Alright, I stand corrected. I admittedly did not read the article before commenting, so I did not know they used depleted uranium.

Although my point about uranium ore being cheap is still technically correct 🤓

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

But it is radioactive. But given the mess around Chernobyl, drop in a bucket.

[–] felixthecat@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago

For armor piercing capabilities. And no it's cheap because it's radioactive and isn't useful for very many things.

Lots of awful things about war. This is one in the endless list.