[ RadSafe ] pyrophoric uranium considered nonessential

[Alan Watts]

James,

I have seen the word pyrophoric used many times in your messages, and 
others, regarding uranium (depleted uranium) when used in military 
applications (munitions).  I think you need to look at the MSDS excerpt 
below for depleted uranium (DU) which clearly says that DU is not 
pyrophoric per the following definition:  Pyrophoric material is any liquid 
or solid that will ignite spontaneously in air below 130 degrees F (54.4 
degrees C).

MSDS -
GENERAL FIRE HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS COMBUSTIBLE PRODUCTS - depleted uranium:
Solid which exhibits difficult combustion or is difficult to ignite.
Avoid generating dust, particularly clouds of dust in a confined or 
unventilated space as dusts may form an explosive mixture with air, and any 
source of ignition, i.e. flame or spark, will cause fire or explosion. Dust 
clouds generated by the fine grinding of the solid are a particular hazard; 
accumulations of fine dust may burn rapidly and fiercely if ignited.
Dry dust can be charged electrostatically by turbulence, pneumatic 
transport, pouring, in exhaust ducts and during transport.
Build-up of electrostatic charge may be prevented by bonding and grounding.
Powder handling equipment such as dust collectors, dryers and mills may 
require additional protection measures such as explosion venting.
Metal powders, while generally regarded as non-combustible, may burn when 
metal is finely divided and energy input is high.
DO NOT use water or foam as generation of explosive hydrogen may result.
May be ignited by friction, heat, sparks or flame.
Metal dust fires are slow moving but intense and difficult to extinguish.
Will burn with intense heat.
DO NOT disturb burning dust. Explosion may result if dust is stirred into a 
cloud, by providing oxygen to a large surface of hot metal.
Containers may explode on heating.
Dusts or fumes may form explosive mixtures with air.
May REIGNITE after fire is extinguished.
Gases generated in fire may be poisonous, corrosive or irritating.
Emits toxic fumes if involved in fire.

Just my two cents worth.

Alan

Alan Watts
RSO
Ohio University
wattsa at ohio.edu

--On Tuesday, July 05, 2005 7:04 AM -0700 James Salsman <james at bovik.org> 
wrote:

> Bob Cherry, who sent citations of invalid safety studies
> of pyrophoric uranium munitions from the Army to the NRC
> in 1990, wrote:
>
>  >... activists want to remove an essential armament....
>
> Since when is slow poison essential?
>
> Ignoring obvious uranium trioxide gas and other uranium
> (VI) heavalent compounds is not a valid defense for
> violations of Article 23 of the Hague Convention VI, and
> Article 35 §2, and Article 51 §§4c and 5b of the
> Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention.
>
> Weapons with an affect off the battlefield are
> disallowed.  Uranium armor is fine but still
> potentially risky.  Battlefield (non-range) use of
> uranium pyrophorics is an atrocious crime against
> humanity.  No uranium cluster bombs, either -- the
> line is back at armor.  Winning isn't all about killing.
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/