Depleted Uranium 7.62

Falcon, There has been a lot of hype on how terrible DU is, but it doesn’t even make the list of “toxic metals” on Wikipedia. in fact they say specifically

I know it is probably not as dangerous as some of the hype makes out. However I thought that fine dust caused by cutting or sanding it when sectioning could be a problem as it could be easily inhaled. I hae also heard that the dust will ignite on contact with air, although I am not sure if this is correct. I certainly wouldn’t want to cut into a piece of DU.

I’m sure it was on this forum that I read that DU dust could lead to an area being sealed off while it was decontaminated. In today’s world, think of the chaos that would be caused if someone was found to be cutting into DU in a city house.

In my opinion Wikepedia is a poor source for scholarly, accurate material, especially assesment of dangers. It is not that it never contains scholarly, well-documented and well-researched material. It is simply because anyone can add to it. That includes self-styled experts that really don’t know the subject matter.

I would suggest that you read the IAA Article appearing in the IAA Journal Issue 434, Nov/Dec 2003, pages 20 and 21, entitled “Denal” - “DE”-“Depleted Uranium”: A Warning," by Fred Davis. I actually submitted this article on behalf of Fred, who indicated he had broached the subject with IAA before with no reply nor any mention in their publications, and felt that he might be sending it to the wrong people.
I submitted this to Chris Punnett on August 13, 2003, with the following opening paragraph to my letter of submittal:

“Enclosed herewith is a letter addressed to you, but sent to me for review, by my dear friend Fred Davis, on a matter of much concern to him. It is also of concern to me, after reading his letter and enclosures, and reviewing my own, fairly substantial file on DU munitions.”

Fred is a retired professional chemist, who was with the Port of San Francisco U.S. Customs Laboratory. He had military service in Germany during the cold war, I believe in the Medical Core. He has a degree in Chemistry, and as he said in his letter, which was published as an article, forty years of hands on experience in the field, including dealing with known and potentially radioactive materials. He is, in short, a professional in the field, and agree or not. his article is a scholarly review of the hazards involved with, among other things, the sectioning of DU cores.

aAnyone interested in a professional view of the dangers inherent to DU should read this article. If so requested, and approved by Chris Punnett, I will scan the article and have it put onto the forum.

Falcon - you are correct about DU being pyrophoric. Finely divided Uranium can ignite spontaneouly in air. That is briefly covered in the cited article.

2 Likes

hello

“I would suggest that you read the IAA Article appearing in the IAA Journal Issue 434, Nov/Dec 2003, pages 20 and 21, entitled “Denal” - “DE”-“Depleted Uranium”: A Warning,” by Fred Davis"

the “denal” is depleted uranium ?
because i know an existence of a 5.56x45 french round with “denal” core but some people think is another version of tungsten ? and for others is DU

lacquered steel case ,bullet with black tip and magenta annulus
the other round but with tungsten core had a bright red annulus

on this site “denal” maybe a variation of tungsten
plansee.com/fr/Materiaux-Tungstene-403.htm

The Safety Datasheet of Denal is found here: SD-DENAL-02.pdf (48.3 KB)

As far as i can tell, it’s no DU (but it does contain Cobalt)

It’s classification specifies “not hazardous material pursuant to Regulation (EC) no. 1272/2008 EC or
EC Directive 67/548/EEC *Compact Metal / Alloy with no Risk to Human Health or the Environment”

The interesting article by Fred Davis originates from the assumption that Denal really refers to the material more commonly known in the U.S. as “DU - Depleted Uranium”. However, this is not correct, as the materials known as DENAL are not depleted uranium but tungsten based alloys containing reinforcing elements. These are widely used for many different applications, but only one specific alloy with a density of 17.5 g/cm3 is used for penetrators, that is half between tungsten carbide (15.6 g/cm3) and DU (19.1 g/cm3). Also, cobalt-free DENAL is used for environmentally friendly projectiles (green ammo), for example.

These alloys were developed by CIME Bocuze of Saint-Pierre-en-Faucigny, France, which since 1999 was separated from GIAT and is mostly owned by the Austrian group Plansee.

Regarding the meaning of DENAL explained as “Denuclearized Alloy”, I don’t think that this is correct and it seems that this is the main reason that created this confusion. Based on other trademarks used by this company, it seems that this is an acronym that combines the words “Dense” and “Alloy”.

Regards,

Fede

btw
Is this a joke?
us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f58 … d5c9d0ac00

I have had a theory going for a while that there is some entity, or group that has been engaging in making these phony viral ammo products as part of some sort of contest or prank, and it might be all the same person(s). It began with “Seasonshot”, and then “Flower shot”, and now this “Tacnition”. They make the product and promote it on some sort of cheap web page in such a way as to be perfectly packaged for outlets such as Huffington Post, “Before-its-news”, and others, and from there the viral phenomenon starts. When I first came across “Jihawg ammo” I was sure they were in that category, but they turned out real. The annoying thing is that the news outlets who cover these products report them as if they are 100% real.

Another product which followed this exact same M.O. was “Glow Bar” - a glowing crow-bar intended for use as a weapon.

I cannot comment, other than from what I have read here, about the correctness of the assumption that “Denal” is not depleted Uranium. Even Mr. Davis, in his article where he mentions Denal primarily as simply another term for “DU,” qualifies his sentence with the caveat that “He assumes” that it is what is commonly called “DU.” Evidently, they are not one and the same.

However, let us not lose sight of the fact that the article is about Depleted Uranium and the hazards involved with it in its various forms, including the dust caused by cutting into it.

The feasibility of a 7.62mm DU flechette cartridge was explored by the Air Force Armament Laboratory in the late 60’s. The final version consisted of a 28.5gr DU flechette with a lightweight plastic sabot loaded into a standard 7.62x51mm case. Velocities in excess of 4000fps were achieved. Interestingly, concerns were expressed about in-flight ignition due to aerodynamic heating although this did not appear to be a real world problem. The details can be found in AFATL-TR-69-53 dated April 1969.

With regard to the potential hazards involved with DU particularly dust created by sectioning, it is extremely difficult to find objective information due to vested interests. Unfortunately even scientific peer reviewed articles are not immune from bias.

So saying, a WHO monograph on the health effects of DU exposure states “Potentially depleted uranium has both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs.” With regard to the latter, the monograph states “…. inhaled uranium particles, 1-10 µm in size, tend to be retained in the lung and may lead to irradiation damage of the lung and even lung cancer if a high enough radiation dose results over a prolonged period.” This is an extremely good reason NOT to cut DU penetrators.

NATO Dave

1 Like

Cut a way. The amount of Uranium dumped in the enviroment is extraordinarily large compared to that tiny amount created cutting into one single bullett. Not that I would want to waste one of the rarest bullets one can find. That being said I would avoid breathing in as it is just one more bullett to your body on that long winding road to cancer that everybody seems to be getting. It is the same in toxicity to smoking a Parlimant Cigarette as cutting one bullett.

quote: 12.7 million pounds of uranium waste had been disposed of in pits since the plant opened in 1951. He said an additional 167,000 pounds had been discharged into the Great Miami River and 298,000 pounds had been discharged into the air.

not to mention all the nuclear waste dumped on indian lands so one little bullet dose not warrant shutting a shop down or really anything at all for that matter considering piss is more toxic than that bullett.

While you have factual information on a Federal level, I believe you are completely missing the realities at the local level and the potential issues.
The typical person does not have extensive, or even limited experience with radioactive materials. As such, public reaction to potential exposure (personal or regional) is based on what they have seen in the media, typically television or the movies. This is also true of law enforcement and first responders, until you reach the level that has specific training and experience.
So the response to learning that DU exists or is being manipulated nearby, regardless of what exists hidden in our everyday world or the hazard that actually exists, is going to often be inaccurate and overzealous, “in the name of public safety”. You can discuss dump sites and what has happened on military proving grounds or reports by the CDC, this will mean nothing to your neighbors or the local police that they have called.
In many ways the issues of DU and our collections can be compared to dealing with asbestos. There is a definite toxic hazard, which can be dealt with and handled in safety, but the public perception is much greater and the fear frequently dwarfs the reality. This then becomes the new reality, as you have to deal with it. In performing a questionable action - like a cutaway - you have to deal not only with the limited potential of your possible exposure, but what the public perceives as toxic release. Break out the yellow tape.
In my opinion looking at this from a Federal clean-up level is missing the local reaction, and the problems that it can present to the average collector.

wolfganggross
Many,many moons ago I managed to get a hold of this one I was told
it was the Canadian version of the creation.I will se what others will have
to say.I know I will now poke into a giant Hornet nest,what and where is the
facsination with those sectioned cartridges the same goes very often with
this often total senslesness of puling bullet,in many cases the seals of
perfectly in tact cartridges are broken.I have in more than 50 years of
collecting pulled a dozend bullets and that only when I felt the cartridge
was either destroyed anyway or at the point of it.
Sherryl

Canadian, yes, but just a short range cartridge.

I second that.
When colleges and universities allow wiki to be used as sources in term papars I may change my mind…

Wikipedia is not and should never be used as a primary source. It’s merely a way of acquiring proper sources (linked references/sources/citations in the bottom of each article) through a summary article (the main article).

Ole

1 Like

Unfortunately, some are now doing just that.

PS. Just to authenticate not a DU round in the family

4 Likes

Pepper
Thank you for posting this line up of Nato rounds,I am sure it
did not only solve my problem but for some others too,I am in
possession of n0 7 and a blue one( Brazil) the n0 7 was sold to me
about 25 years ago as one of those DU rounds.Thanks again it
was a great idea by wolganggross to open this post.A few of us
now know a lot better what is what.
Sherryl

Nice Pepper !

Withdrawn post

2 Likes