The Search For 'Greener' Bullets

According to this report, there has been an enduring concern about toxic metals used in weapons contaminating the environment and harming human health. Consequently, non-toxic alternatives to depleted uranium and lead have been sought. One choice has been weapons-grade tungsten alloys which have been believed to be limited in toxicity. Unfortunately, the belief that tungsten alloys are relatively non-toxic was not based on actual testing. As such, it came as quite a surprise when research results found that tungsten alloys actually cause aggressive cancer tumors to develop when embedded in flesh as shrapnel.

The research team, led by John F. Kalinich of the Heavy Metals Research Team of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, implanted rats with tungsten alloy pellets, along with pellets of nickel and tantalum as control metals, and monitored results. Findings were that "100% of the rats implanted with tungsten-alloy pellets developed extremely aggressive tumors surrounding the pellets, although tumor growth was slower in rats implanted with lower doses. The tumors then rapidly metastasized to the lungs of the rats, necessitating euthanasia of the animals well before the anticipated end of the study."

The replacement of depleted uranium and lead with tungsten is considered a 'greener' approach to battlefield weaponry, however, if the initial research is validated by further study, Dr. Jim Burkhart, of Environmental Health Perspectives, believes that "soldiers could be at risk of surviving battlefield wounds only to develop an aggressive form of cancer."

My take is twofold. First, making wholesale changes in the manufacture of weapons based upon unsupported assumptions about the toxicity of tungsten is irresponsible. Some corrective measures should be implemented to assure that future management responses to greenie motivated political initiatives are sound, measured, and scientific. Flying off willy-nilly to do something without thinking things through is negligent.

Secondly, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but battlefield munitions are designed to kill people and the addition of tungsten to weapons makes them more lethal. So, by finding that the 'greener' bullets are more lethal, everyone is upset. With that logic, it appears that the search is not for a 'greener' bullet. The search is for a less lethal bullet. I'm confused.

In closing, the research thus far has not even touched on the relative threat of tungsten in the environment. The initial changes to tungsten alloys were made to eliminate the harm caused to water and food supplies by uranium and lead left on the battlefield. For all anyone knows, tungsten may be well suited for that purpose. Unfortunately, saving the water and food supplies may result in more deaths from battlefield wounds.