Green Student University
Search
 
Monday, October 06, 2008
     
Did You Say Eco-Friendly Bombs? OurWorldToday
Posted May 30, 2008 by Trish Smith Comments [1]

I search through various news sources every day to bring readers the latest news pertaining to the environment. And as much as I try to be unbiased or non-judgmental, I just couldn’t believe it when I saw the Yahoo! News headline “Environmentally Friendly Bombs Planned.”

After the initial shock of the headline, I decided to read the article first to try and understand the sense in using eco-friendly bombs that would destroy things over toxic bombs that would destroy things.

Here’s a summary of the article:

explosives
Scientists in Germany have discovered a more environmentally friendly alternative to the regular materials that are used in explosives.

Instead of using TNT, RDX and other common explosives that contain carbon, they decided to use a safer class of materials called tetrazoles, which contain nitrogen.

The results of the “safer” explosions were less toxicity and pollution in the environment. And by mixing the two tetrazoles known as HBT and G2ZT with oxidizers, the bombs also avoided releasing hydrogen cyanide gas, which regular bombs usually emit after exploding.

Quoted German researcher Thomas Klapötke, “These compounds have great potential, especially for large caliber naval and tank guns."

You can read the entire article here.

I’m hoping that I’m not the only one who finds this “discovery” quite disturbing.

Instead of writing out my opinion (which would be long), I came up with a few questions for these scientists to think about:

  • Maybe it’s just me, but regardless of what materials are in the bombs, when they explode, don’t they all destroy the environment and whatever else happens to be around? Is that safer?
  • Does it really matter if hydrogen cyanide gas is released after the explosion if there is nothing alive to be subjected to those fumes?
  • Nitrogen can cause asphyxiation, it can severely damage your mental judgment and liquid nitrogen can cause frostbite. Is it really that much safer than carbon?
  • If you want to shoot eco-friendly explosives out of naval and tank guns, why don’t you just fill the guns with fruit? The sheer speed of the flying fruit would surely create an explosion upon impact, and the seeds would even replant themselves in the freshly exposed holes in the ground.

explosion
Okay, the last one was kind of sarcastic, but I personally think that every kind of explosive is dangerous. It seems silly to me to try and put a “green badge” on something that is only used to de-green the planet.

But I still have faith in the advancement of technology. Maybe one day people will build zero emissions electric Hummers that will be used to transport food to impoverished third-world countries.

Tags: environment, pollution, green initiatives digg it
    
Comments View all 1 comments

     
mrb Jun 14, 2008, 12:31PM
Hello, I'm currently studying at the University of Munich and know him from several of his lectures. I hope to give satisfying answers to your questions: 1) The toxic substances released by explosion reach far wider than the blast itself. What is worse: An explosion leaving poisened ground and spreading toxins through the air or an explosion that doesn't? You have to think of the long term effects, too. 2) Hydrogen cyanide is very harmful, especially if it get's into lakes, rivers or the groundwater. Again: This toxin reaches far wider than the original blast. 3) Nitrogen as gas (N2) is harmless. 80% of the air is nitrogen gas. Liquid nitrogen is as dangerous as every other very cool substance (liquid helium, liquid air, dry ice). But explosions don't release liquid nitrogen. 4)Look up Gauss guns/coil guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun). Those will be used by the military. For maximum destruction metal instead of fruit is used, but it's the same concept. (No explosives.) You have to ask yourself the following question: Do you want wars with high collaterla damages leaving landscapes uninhabitable for years or do you want wars with minimal unintended destruction? Wars are bad, nobody is arguing that. But as long as there are warmongering political leaders there will be wars...
    
Post a comment
Name (required):
Email Address (will not be displayed):
Your Comment (required):
Submit
free rice


Email
Get GSU by Email
Recent Posts