Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Depleted uranium. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Badagnani reversions duplicating Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

Badagnani, I understand your desire to replace the missing text, but much of what you are replacing is already in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium.

Why are you reverting the article instead of replacing the passages you are concerned about?
Do you think the four-layer section scheme (where "Uses" has nothing in it but other sections, for example) is better than the new section headings?
Why are you replacing the {{disputeAbout}} tag?

I realize that you didn't participate in the mediation discussions, but you had every opportunity to and plenty of notice if you were watching the talk page. Please respect the consensus settlement decision to split the articles. If you can't, them please at least explain why not. --James S. 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing interwikis and links that belong in Depleted uranium, as I explained before. You are the one who should be doing selective editing instead of reverting, not me, as I was not the one who chopped up the article in this way. Also, the article is now bereft of even any meager description of this material's health effects/concerns and reads now essentially as advertising copy for all the uses to which it can be put; in contrast, many readers coming here "off the street" are likely to want to know about its health effects and may not find their way to the other article. I was not invited to be part of the negotiation so I do not agree with these aspects of the new version. Badagnani 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So where were you Badagnani when James was standing up to four of us? Your a bit late to start making demands. Anyway the new topic dumps on with much more detail that this article ever did. --DV8 2XL 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, the compromise version we have here came about from 5 editors, and has been agrred upon by all. You had your chance. DTC 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think the Health concerns section here should be more than three sentences and a link. --James S. 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on James, the agreement was it was ok as it is; the topic has it's own article now. --DV8 2XL 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As one coming in late on this dispute I must express my surprise and concern that so many links have been cut out. The justification "We already agreed on these changes.." seems to me to be poor. I must agrree with Baghdadani that the present article reads like advertising copy for the use of depleted uranium, with its accentuation of the positive and elemination of the negative. Even if the opposition to the use of depleted uranium is misguided and wrong, or if the arguments used against the use of this substance are unproven, the concerns of people about this substance should be dealt with in this article. Michael Glass 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of 'we split the topic because it was too damned big' don't you people get. Go and read the other article, it has much more detail on the negative issues than this one ever did. It also covers the politics and history of DU use, something that was never here. This is just about the material it is not written in support of it's use, just the applications that it is found in. And we link out to the other topic no less than three times; are you suggesting that our readers are too stupid to follow a hyper-link? --DV8 2XL 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation link at the top is a great solution. --James S. 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the "we split it because it was too big" argument quite disingenuous. One article accentuates the positive; the other one accentuates the negative. The links between the two articles are a sop to a NPOV overview, I agree, but I find something inherently fishy in splitting the positives and negatives of DU in this way. Michael Glass 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To fill you in, what happened is that pro-DU use physicists tend to congregate here, and thus control content. Before Nrcprm2026 came on the scene a few weeks ago those who came here and made edits questioning the safety of the material would get shot down or ganged up on, always with the claim that they didn't know what they were talking about or were "not scientific," as the physicists' agenda (stated on their user pages in some cases) involves rehabilitating the image and promoting the "safety" and "efficacy" of a material they consider a very exciting one, with many wonderful properties that could be useful in various future technologies. It was quite something to see Nrcprm2026 show them that not only was he skeptical about the safety about DU (especially as regards its teratogenicity when used as a weapon), but he could back it up with considerable scientific knowledge. When the pro-DU physicists found, to their chagrin, that they could not accuse him of not knowing what he was talking about, as they had always done before, they tried several other tactics, essentially forcing him into something called arbitration. In order to save the text pointing out the negative health effects of DU, he basically had to agree to cut almost everything out and move it elsewhere. I agree with you completely; this isn't a good thing, as many people will come here looking for the health information. But most puzzling is the refusal of all of them to address why the links and interwikis (links to DU articles in foreign languages) were also purged. I'm glad at least someone else is disturbed by this. Badagnani 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know what an "interwiki" was until just now (I had a vague idea they were used for translation or something.) I've added them back. I hope this doesn't devolve into everyone reverting into their favorite version. That would be worse than the situation before mediation, where pieces were getting reverted out and back. --James S. 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani your revisionist version of what happened here is an outright attempt at dissemination. It does not reflect the debate that went on here for the last six weeks. It does not assume good faith. For the record JamesS was not forced into arbitration, but agreed to a voluntary process called mediation. The chemist, the engineer, the physician, and the metallurgist, that were party to this actually have contributed to the new topic bring up even more negative aspects of DU than was ever in the original article. On top of which this debate was carried out publicly, not via e-mail, so that everyone interested could have input - yet all of you left James to twist in the wind by himself and only show up to try and destroy a compromise that took as much effort on his part as any of the other principals.--DV8 2XL 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that any of the editors are actually physicians or metallurgists, and some evidence to the contrary. If you wish to maintain the benefit of those credentials, they should be cited. --James S. 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You want my PE license number? Ten Dead Chickens 18:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, it's not you who I suspect is claiming false credentials. --James S. 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

Copied here for explanation:

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, and on those seeking to remove it.

This is posted to serve notice that as per the agreement at depleted uranium I will defend this article from any attempt to remove content that is properly referenced and verifiable as such. --DV8 2XL 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DV8, it looks like this is your show - I am new to wikipedia, so I dont know how to fix it, but it seems the links are a bit off... Link #53 sends the reader to the DU battlefield effectiveness story (although a secondary source) and link #52, in the area of the text dealing with the battlefield effectiveness of US DU tanks, sends the hapless reader (me) to a medical text. 17:00 CST, 6 February 2006.

This is not 'my show' I posted the above to remind others that may edit here that someone will be watching and reverting any attempts to remove properly sourced statements. There is much in this topic that is contentious and the old Depleted uranium suffered several edit wars as one side or the other on this issue sought to get the upper hand. We all finaly came to an agreement and keeping this article to the rules of content that are inforce was part of it. --DV8 2XL 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of FOIA

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the FOIA was considered original research. Ten Dead Chickens 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The FOIAR abstract is published by the Navy monthly; this one ended up in their September, 2005 abstract. --James S. 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This still does not establish its relevance. Ten Dead Chickens 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

To clear a few things up: Sandia is "managed" by Lockheed, not funded. Thats like saying the cafeteria at work is "funded" by Aramark when they just run it.

Secondly, I went over the CDC tox profile for sulfur mustard, and once again, the only referecnes to birth defects in humans I found was statment that there was no information available, and all information on birth defects was via animal studies. Please provide a "specific" page in which you found the material.

Lastly, with respect to the Marshal Study, you put in the follwoing text:

but did not consider any reproductive or developmental toxicity, immuniological effects, or neurotoxicity.

All these issues were in fact considered in the report. Have you read it? Ten Dead Chickens 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have read it. Have you? Let me help you. In section 1.2 on "Scope," it claims to include a complete evaluation of both radiological and nonradiological hazards. However, Section 5.2 on p. 72, "Other Heavy Metal Effects," reads:

"Some evidence has been reported for the possibility of other chemical effects associated with uranium internalization.... Among the tested veterans, McDiarmid s team observed a statistically lower score in [a] neurocognitive test for veterans with high uranium concentrations in their urine....

However, the slight neurocognitive effects did not appear to affect normal functioning; and the measured effect appears to be declining

"Veteran, animal, and in vitro testing suggests that a few other chemically induced health effects are possible, such as reproductive effects and chemically induced cancers....

"However, epidemiological data for humans with exposure to elevated levels of uranium

particulate do not show an increase in health effects of any type, relative to the general population (refer to Appendix D). The evidence for other chemically induced DU effects is not, at present, well established."

"Uranium is also deposited in the kidney, liver, lymph nodes, and other organs in small quantities....

"Some evidence has been reported for other chemical effects associated with uranium internalization. In vitro studies suggest that DU can induce malignant transformations with frequencies similar to those observed with the nonradioactive heavy metal carcinogens, nickel and lead. Studies by Benson et al. on female rats with DU implants have shown that uranium can cross the placental barrier....

This finding, however, was disputed by the National Academy of Science, and the possible association of DU with prolactin levels was not found during McDiarmid’s 2000 reassessment. Furthermore, no excess health effects of any type have been observed from epidemiological studies for uranium workers

And that is the full extent of Marshal's discussion of reproductive, developmental, immunological, and ~~neurological~~ chemical toxicities, none of which are factored into the risk ratios at all. The only reproductive hazard computed is the strictly radiological one, which is very low because uranium isn't very radioactive. Reverting. --James S. 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

once again, please stop cherry picking pieces of information, without providing the conclusions. And, by your own admission Marshall does investigate reproductive or developmental toxicity, immuniological effects, and neurotoxicity, although not his conclusions may not be satsifactory to you, he has covered these issues, and your text says the exact opposit.

Plus, you have not explained the "Lockheed Funded", when it is just managed by Lockheed, and the CDC tox profile, which does not mention human studies on birth defects. Ten Dead Chickens 16:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some fuel for the fire

Check out what GNC is selling: http://www.drugstore.com/qxp88904_333181_sespider/gnc/liquid_multi_colloidal_minerals.htm

They don't seem to be alone. I'm sure that it has as much uranium in it as a pinch of average topsoil, but the fact that they're able to market it as a health suppliment shows that Congress and the FDA are asleep at the wheel. Dr U 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Back into mediation?

Unless I can convince myself that "Dr U" who claims to be an M.D. can justify any of the edits he seems intent on, then I will ask for a return to mediation. ----James S. 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, MY edits? The anonymous edits are the ones that substantially deviate from the original version. Each of mine were justified in detail, and made one at a time, and were primarily directed toward cleaning text or reducing reference to mustard gas, which is a strawman argument. SOMEBODY else, logging in anonymously made RIDICULOUS edits. Dr U 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

These differences are primariliy yours, Du U, and since you are obviously so ashamed of them that you feel you need to lie about whether most of them were made after the compromise settlement shows the intellectual, moral, and scientific bankruptcy of your position. You claim an M.D.? This is the kind of scientific misconduct for which M.D.s licenses may be challenged in every state of the union. I challenge you to justify your changes; to wit, that:

DU is not toxic

That’s not the issue, anything is toxic in high enough levels. What the contention, and correct me if I am wrong here Doc U, but are exposure levels from DU weapons significant enough to cause toxic effects in exposed populations. Most studies say no. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There are any reputable (e.g., peer-reviewed) sources after 2000 which claim nerve agents may be responsible for increases in the congenital malformation rate
Any government agency has ever disclosed anything more than "snapshot" information about the congenital malformation trends
"Any connection between Gulf War Syndrome and depleted uranium exposure is purely speculative...." versus "The symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome can be explained by uranium combustion product inhalation exposure. Until the extent of uranyl oxide gas vapor production is known, the amount of uranium in exposure victims bodies will only be measurable through invasive techniques. Metallic uranium(0) shrapnel exposure and uranium(IV) oxide exposure is qualitativly and toxicologically different than hexavalent uranium(VI) uranyl compound exposure."

James, all you can provide on this front is your own original research, and you cannot find even one peer reviewed source to back this, it’s a no brainer, gone.

Al Marshall's Lockheed-funded Sandia study considered any nonradiological reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, or immuniological effects.

For the last time, Lockheed does not “fund” Sandia, they manage the labs, big difference. 5.2 touches on nonradiological reproductive effects, 2.4 covers nonradiological developmental effects on offspring. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"There is no proof that battlefield exposure to depleted uranium has caused harm, except to those targeted...." versus "The U.S. has admitted that there have been over 100 "friendly fire" DU victims, and an unknown number of inhalation exposure victims. Uranium combustion product inhalation exposure can result in substantial harm. No formal comparison can be made between the tactical advantages and the strategic drawbacks until the congenital malformation incident rate trend is known."

The proof that you have been editing against the compromise mediation settlement:

Your removal of "See also: Agent Orange"
Removal from Category:Uranium

Do you have any sources at all which support these absurd changes? --James S. 18:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these anon edits are you James, are they not? Ten Dead Chickens 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course; I shouldn't need to log in every time I edit. Who else? I went back and fixed my sig after I remembered my password. --James S. 18:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then don’t call it a “personal attack” to ask you to sign in when reverting. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider accusations of "edit waring" by a convicted edit warrior to be personal attacks. --James S. 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The mediation page is here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)

U.S. Army

I read up on DU while serving in the Army back in the 80's. We used DU in our tank ammunition (still do). I also tested the rounds with a Geiger counter. Even held against the round, the counter only registered background radiation. Our manuals gave us some rather interesting instructions regarding what to do if one of our tanks gets blown up. The manuals explained that the DU would oxidize (burn), and the burned DU was a threat. We were to treat the burning tank as an NBC threat with MOPP2 10 meters upwind and 610 meters downwind. MOPP2 means charcoal protective suits and gas masks. Some of the guys took this to mean that oxidized DU was a radiation threat, but I don't think a simple chemical reaction has any effect on atomic decay. I think the threat was from heavy metal poisoning. It's simple enough to find DU on Iraq's battlefields. I've seen video of reporters pointing out pieces on camera. However, I have yet to see a clever young journalist hold a Geiger counter to a piece of DU and get excited about the meter count. And I doubt that's because we have a shortage of clever young journalists. They probably tried it and found they had a non-story. I suspect the real threat here is the DU and DU oxide dust in the environment causing heavy metal poisoning in a manner similar to lead, cadmium, etc. And the real question is how significant is the poisoning? To answer this, we must go backwards and look at where DU has been manufactured and used and see if the workers have demonstrated unfortunately high levels of medical problems. After all, folks working around the stuff are going to be the ones dropping dead first - if at all. Cheers, Rklawton 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your experience is an interesting one, and thank you for sharing it here. However, you may also wish to read the work of Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor, who did indeed find high radiation concentrations in sites where DU munitions had been used in Iraq. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html He was also interviewed here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/16/160254 Read this, then please share your reactions.

Unfortunately, his work really needed to be followed up on by other journalists, but as far as I know it is a subject that has been avoided before, during, and after the war by most mainstream journalists. Other than the Monitor, the only media outlets doing any serious investigation of DU use in Iraq are non-U.S. outlets.

Add to this the secrecy behind the production of such weapons and the suspicions that larger munitions such as "bunker buster" bombs may include not only DU but other radioactive metals such as neptunium, americium, and plutonium--thrown in for good measure, since they're being used against "bad people" anyway.

Regarding the health of those working closely with combusted DU munitions, I believe that of the team of Doug Rokke, which was assigned to clean up such sites after the First Gulf War, almost all are dead or seriously ill. And they weren't very old guys. I don't know if this is addressed in either article but he has spoken widely about his experiences. Badagnani 06:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding radiation. I'm still puzzled over the mechanism, though. No doubt the titanium shell shielded any radiation from the DU core in the rounds I tested. The funny thing is, I now remember reading that article a couple of years ago. Silly me. I'm surprised the rest of the media hasn't picked up on it and run. Feds radiating kids ususally makes front page news.

As far as bunker busters go, the early versions used worn-out tank cannon barrels for the munitions casing. Where do you find your information about the rare-earth elements? Most of those have an extremely short half-life, and I’d be very surprised the feds would go to the expense. They use DU ‘cause it’s dirt cheap. If they wanted to spend the dough, they could use Tungsten (symbol: W), and it would work just as well. As far as killing power goes, if they can make something go "bang" in a bunker, it's game over 'cause there's no where for the "bang" to go. I do wish we'd build atomic bunker busters, soon. We'll need them badly when North Korea is ready to pop. Rklawton 06:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood; the rare earth elements might not be waste products "thrown in" to get rid of, but instead be small quantities left after these materials are extracted from the DU. This Google search will bring up some things. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=americium+neptunium+%22bunker+buster%22 Badagnani 06:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the low radiation, it is also an effect of the type of radiation emitted, alpha radiation, which get stopped by a few centimetres of air let alone a thin metal casing. The increased hazard from uranium oxides is nothing to do with higher radioactivity—as you say, the radioactivity is exactly the same—but from the fact that the fine particle can enter the lungs and stay there, effectively radiating you from the inside. Chemical toxicity is another problem, of course, but a seperate one. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting--why, though, the high geiger counter readings by the Monitor reporter's team in Iraq, particularly as regards spent munitions lying around which were tested? Badagnani 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article specifies that the reporter was measuring munition fragments and the dust (uranium oxides) which were around Iraqi tanks. The photograph shows that the counter is close enough to pick up alpha radiation. Yes, he was certainly looking for the highest readings for his story, but at first sight they are plausible in the conditions he was measuring them. Physchim62 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to show my ignorance, but I have trouble understanding what you are saying here because you had stated just above that such DU should not show much radioactivity above background levels in such a setting. Can you explain in very clear terms that a layman can understand why such levels were found, when, according to what you said above, they should not have been found? Badagnani 07:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton mentions that the ammunition rounds have a titanium case: this is presumably to protect against corrosion, but would also have the effect of stopping any alpha radiation escaping. Bloody military, a good coat of paint would serve equally well for both purposes at a fraction of the cost! The CSM reported, on the other hand, was measuring munition fragments, which would obviously no longer have the casing, and he was measuring them very close up so that the alpha particles were not stopped by the air. In such circumstances, yes, you would get a higher reading. To get a background reading, he would merely have had to take a step backwards. Physchim62 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your expertise. The thing is, one of the main assertions being made by editors here is that DU--even it its exposed form--is "not very" radioactive, at least not enough to have any effect on health whatsoever, no matter how close you get to it, or how much; and that the only real danger is not due to its "weak" radioactivity, but instead its toxicity and teratogenicity. This is hard for the general public to understand or accept when they read such stories finding "very high" levels of radioactivity, in areas where children are playing, etc. Badagnani 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is also one of context: the readings can be "very high" in the sense that there are children playing around these things, people eating and drinking nearby etc, and still be "relatively low" on the scale of radiological dangers. There is a little bit of journalistic hyperbole in the article, but not so much that I could really criticise the reporter: the situation is, to say the least, worrying. Physchim62 (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content forking

I object to forking this article because:

Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

I also object to the absurdly long title of the fork. I will continue to merge. --James S. 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong: but you were the one that came up with it as I recall. --DV8 2XL 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I corrected a misspelling, but you proposed the title. In the future, when I correct you when you are wrong, please do not revert my corrections. --James S. 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scans up

As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, there are now scans of new source articles in:

 http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/

--James S. 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks James. Physchim62 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections moved

I moved nuclear energy and nuclear weapons applications out to uranium 238 since it is the isotopic properities of the material that are relevant to these uses, not the source. --DV8 2XL 04:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to ask for mediation on U-238, too. --James S. 07:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at it, and will comment on the mediation talk page; feel free to raise the matter there if you wish. Physchim62 (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this English?

Some scientific studies usually found no link: drop the usually. I'd do it myself, but seeing the dispute, perhaps the intent was to mislead the reader into reading Scientific studies usually found no link instead, so I'm leaving the edit to the Powers That Be Depleted. ;] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.245.70.224 (talk • contribs) .

Patterns of congenital malformations

I have data from 95 and 2000. This suggests that there should be data from 2005. Dr. Margaret A. K. Ryan would rather we look at lengthy tables showing no effect of marriage on congenital malformation rates. So, if the arbitrators say we have to get verification from those Iraqi doctors with the gross-out photos, then don't say I didn't warn you. --James S. 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

I can't speak to the accuracy dispute, but the general quality of the writing in this article is atrocious; the editors involved seem to have been more interested in scoring debating points than in conveying factual information to the reader. Adding proper reference citations (probably on a per-section basis) would help, although I would argue most of the major sections in this article ought to be articles in themselves, particularly if the controversy prevents effective summarization. In general I think this article tries to do too much: it is not the place of a Wikipedia article to be a general review of the scientific literature on a subject; IMHO that's original research. 121a0012 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we tried the route of splitting it up, and putting the health and environmental issues in their own topic, but that fell through, and an attempt was made to move some of the material off to the Uranium-238 article, but that was opposed as well. --DV8 2XL 09:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take this opportunity to show your "work page" Depleted uranium/Temp which so carefully avoids so much unplesantness? --James S. 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As a casual first time reader of this article, I agree with the '121a0012' comments. Initial impressions are that sections that represent some people's POV seems over-stuffed with citations, redundant and off-topic information. If contributors want to effectively communicate that DU is a health hazard and that governments that use it are criminals then summerized the most powerful arguments. IMHO, some suggested changes to make this article more readable:

as far as dangers of DU, just have a section that compares and contrasts it with Lead. Most people are familar with lead, its uses, its dangers, its toxicity. How is DU different?

That seems overly simplistic. How many sources do you think there are which make such a comparison? None that I have found. The sources and likely victims of exposure are completely different, as are the toxicology, symptoms of poisoning, methods of treatment, methods of exposure diagnosis, and pharmokinetics. What makes you think that a source-supported comparison of that type is even possible? --James S. 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think simple is what this article needs. The relative differences between Lead and (Deleted) Uranium and perhaps even Plutonium would make this article so the average person (like me) can grasp it. My understanding is Lead is dangerous because its a heavy metal and plutonium because its radioactive. Why isn't DU as dangerous as plutonium or as relatively safe as lead? When you inhale plutonium you cannot get it out of your body (I think I remember that from 'Silkwood'), how about uranium? that’s the sort comparison I meant not really the level of detail you mentioned. --MarsRover 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

remove seemly weak, way over complicated arguments like Karyotyping measures exposure. Sorry but it reads like a scientific journal.

Why is that a problem? The advanced terms involved already have their own articles? Do you complain that those articles read like a scientific journal also? --James S. 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is some pretty heavy material. I think it raises the required reading level of this article to post graduate. --MarsRover 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

too many pictures of rusting uranium hexafluoride cylinders. I think we get the picture with one. First demostrate the dangers of DU before worrying about it leaking into the ground. Uranium came out of the ground to begin with, didn't it?

Perhaps you are unaware that when those cylinders leak, they leak into the air, not the ground. Did you even read the linked pages? --James S. 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize it leaks into the air. But all you need it one picture that shows how many cylinders there are around a site. And maybe one close up to show the general condition of the cylinders. Also resize smaller to look proportional to article section. Otherwise it just looks over done. --MarsRover 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

move Legal status of depleted uranium weapons to another article. This article is about DU. Ok, so we might have a section about DU weapons. Ok, so stretch that a bit maybe we talk about the legal status of that. But, when you start reading the section and you have comment from Carla del Ponte about war crimes. Thats a about 3 degrees of seperation of what this article is about. Is she a chemist or medical doctor is her spare time?

--MarsRover 02:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To where? Please review Wikipedia:Content forking it would be silly and against policy to remove discussion of legal aspects of DU weapons to its own sub-article, just so that readers of this article wouldn't see it. The use of poison gas weaponry has been a war crime sine the 1920s. --James S. 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this article should concentrate more on clearly proving the dangers of DU. The legal section is a large section and is only applicable if DU like you said its a poison gas weapon. This section of the article is very tenuous. First you have to believe DU is a poison gas weapon, then for the war crimes to be applicable wouldn't "intent" be required? I am not a lawyer but it seemed like a stretch. --MarsRover 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not a poison gas weapon according to the opinion of the ICJ! This section is now MUCH larger than it was a couple of weeks ago [1] before I started editing it. I have done that because the previous version was not very accurate, and I wanted to make sure that it was clear to anyone who disagreed with the alterations I was making that the sources backed up what I was writing. Now that it is in place and no-one has taken a contrary position, the section needs to be edited down to a summary on each point. A Google of ["War Crime" "Depleted uranium"] Shows why a section like this is needed on Wikipedia. In fact the previous version of this section is a reason why a section like this is needed on Wikipedia! --Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some fair points about the legal status of depleted uranium weapons. I have moved that subsection into the "Military applications" section. But unless the whole "Military applications" section is moved into another article the legal section should remain here.

Churchill said of Chamberlain that he viewed foreign policy through the wrong end of a municipal drain (Chamberlain's family made their political name in local Birmingham politics). There is a real danger when one comes to a Wikipedia article that one views it through the prism of preconceived perceptions, (for example there is a debate going on at the moment about what the page Oil should contain). About 25% of the articles (excluding nuclear weapons) which link to this page are to do with war and weapons. These often contain sentences on the legality of DU weapons in which case the comments by from Carla del Ponte about war crimes is relevant to this article. As a person heading a team of international lawyers prosecuting war criminals, she is better qualified, than any chemist or medical doctor to give an expert opinion on the use of DU in weapons and if it constitutes a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised people made edit based on my suggestions, thanks. The people who are writing this article sound very knowledgeable and I wasn't about to edit it. I had some fundamental questions that really weren't answered by this article. How dangerous is DU relative to the alternatives? Why doesn't the US just use lead instead DU what’s the military advantage? Isn't tungsten a heavier metal wouldn't that work? Is DU going to be a debated topic like agent orange or is there a smoking gun? Too much is the article is raw material like stuff you would see in the appendix of a book. Maybe an article can only be the raw material for a debated topic like this. But without summarizing this topic (perhaps just excluding stuff that just obscures the arguments) it really hard to use this article to learn about an important topic like this. Also, I admire Carla and love what she is doing but DU and ethnic cleansing are apples and oranges. --MarsRover 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is enriched uranium needed to make plutonium?

From the section on nuclear weapons: "The use of U-235 in nuclear weapons has been superseded by plutonium fueled devices. However the production of plutonium itself requires enriched uranium as a feedstock."

Is this true of all reactors, or merely of light-water reactors? The CANDU heavy-water design can produce power commercially using unenriched uranium; presumably some amount of plutonium would be present as a byproduct of the fission reaction? --carlb 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. "Reactor grade" plutonium" is much more difficult to work with, as the isotope mix is far from ideal (particually with CANDUs). The overwhelming bulk of weapons grade Pu comes from breeder reactors operated with the specific intention of creating plutonium for thermonuclear devices. This is not to say that with enough desire you couldn't squeeze enough material out of used NU fuel - it's just that there are easier ways to go about making a bomb. Both Pakistan and India who have CANDUs made their bombs with reprocessed fuel from "research" reactors running HEU. --DV8 2XL 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from mediation

UO3 vapor; Total inhalation exposure; Teratogenicity; Neurotoxicity; Carcinogenicity; and other questions from "Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?" to "Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?" (history.) --James S. 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do any factual disputes remain? --James S. 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual disputes remains!! First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standart conditions. Only at temperatures above 1000° (Ackermann) and at low pressure (all MS studies) Intrinsic stability is never a good creteria for the real world chemistry during combustion reactions. There is no other studie showing it. The linarity of the log pressure to 1000/T diagramm gives the pest hint for the UO3 I can see, but at standart conditions this would make a U03 pressure of 10 ^-56 atm (nothing would fit best for this number).

Mixing the Ackermann paper wich has no experimental data for 2500°C (ending with 1600°C) with the burning temperatur of Uranium from another paper above 2500°is primary research and has no place in Wikipedia. The phase diagramm for Oxygen and Uranium is discribed as complicated and chalenging but well researched ( U02 and the other oxides have high importance in the nuclear fuell cycle!)in most literature (Gmelin), so why are you so sure that they overlook something so important than a U03 gas which would be a better oportunity for enrichment than the toxix chalenging dangerous waterinstable UF6. Factual disputes remains!!--Stone 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wilson (1961) shows the reaction in the context of a combustion temperature and pressure study, and the Cotton (1991) book agrees: there are no uranyl oxides other than UO₃ (although U₃O₈ will slowly dissolve to some uranyl ions.) The use of vacuum spectroscopy partial pressure exrapolation, based on sublimation from micron-scale particles is inappropriate for combustion from the maximal surface area of plasma combustion above 2000 K. At no point in the preparation of uranium fuel is combustion involved. Gmelin specifically sttes that the reaction is "not infrequently ignored," so why jump on the bandwagon? UF₆ wouldn't be so much of a problem if those in charge of the thousands of tons of the byproduct would remember to keep the storage tanks painted, but still, I'd prefer to see it all converted to dioxide. --James S. 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The solide is sometimes ignored and the gas as combustion product is nowhere mentioned. So pink elephants are nowhere mentioned in the literature! So they have to exist! One question : When is the Decision on the Petition? So we gan end the fight? Its gets boring!--Stone 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cordoning off contaminated areas

How many different kinds of possible spills are there? What are the top three ways to secure each kind of a spill site? --James S. 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uranium

The Uranium trioxid GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product!--Stone 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up article

I spent some time cleaning the article up. It is now more concise and removed a large portion of the POV and diputed info [[2]]. The article is much better now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

please explain how you think that the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium/Workshop justifies the edits that you made and have reverted. In particular the complete removal of the section "Incendiary projectile munitions: History: Legal status" which is one I have contributed. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

the article is now balanced. the legal status is too long. Likewise, if somebody wrote 5 paragraphs on civilian uses for a crane that would be excessive. Narrow legal status down to one paragraph. ER MD 09:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that the "the article is now balanced" and at the same time say that the legal status should be narrowed down to one paragraph when you have completly removed it. Either the legal status is needed or it is not. You have not addressed the question "please explain how you think that the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium/Workshop justifies the edits that you made and have reverted". Also please explain in detail the other change you are making. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the entire page? It explains it in there. ER MD 09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not a detailed answer. For example which section in that page deals with the legal section in this article? Further you have not answered my other questions about balance or given detailed reasons for the other sections you have removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In the history of the article you wrote "Health section moved to back of article please re-add legality, i accidentally deleted it", But above you wrote "the article is now balanced. [I deleted it because] the legal status is too long" which statment is correct? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have found it dificult to reason with ER MD. --James S. 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that this article is absolutely stuffed full of misinformation, propoganda,irrelevent material and POV. It could not possibly be used as a reliable source of information. Could it not be edited to include factual information about the subject only? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.176 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

As facts are added, or checked, please alter the inline URL notes into Wikipedia:footnotes. This aids long term maintainance of the article because when a URL is changed it is much easier to find a replacement if the Author, Title and Date is included between in the <ref></ref> than just the inline URLs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of Presentation

An anonymous editor has rearranged the article to downplay the health concerns. The reason given was that it is POV to put the health concerns near the beginning of the article. However, the same applies to tucking away the health concerns near the end of the article. The question is, should the health concerns be mentioned early in the article, or not? What do others think? Michael Glass 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the standard order in other articles? Perhaps we should go with that. That being said is it the place of Wikipedia to place data in an article to emphasize or down play any aspect of a topic? --DV8 2XL 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Lead which also has Health Concerns but not the controversy, this is the order.

Notable characteristics
Applications
History
Occurrence
Isotopes
Precautions
Health effects
See also
Literature
References
External links

--MarsRover 02:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Even with berylilium,plutonium,fluorineand even chlorine which was used as chemical weapon, the order is this way. So lets leave it that way.--Stone 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From my examination of the other articles on toxic metals, the presentation of facts varies. With fluorine the dangers are mentioned at the beginning of the article whereas with lead the dangers are dealt with later. I feel strongly that the risks involved with all the heavy and toxic metals should be very prominent in the article. In fact, with the article on lead i am very concerned that the proven dangers involved in the use of this substance have been downplayed even more than in this article. Therefore I feel the article on lead is not a good model for this article to follow.

That said, there should be a consistent policy on the presentation of information on hazardous substances, and safety concerns and precautions should be prominent Michael Glass 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to take this up with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements team. They have described a standard format guideline for articles about chemical elements. The presentation at Lead seems to have been based on it, though differences exist. --Christopher Thomas 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Treasure Trove Of Information To Refute Tenuous Claims

Anyone interested can see what an MD/PHD and other professionals have said about these alleged and exagerated health problems:

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/library?source=*&library=PRM_2026_public&file=*&st=petitions-a

I found Dr. Nancy Standler, MD/PHD's perspective particulary insightful. Some of these respondents included original documents from research refuting these claims, so save a trip to the library, and read these documents first.

Comrade Lenin 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was certainly worthwhile to read Dr Nancy Standler's comments. Not only is her comment a model of clarity, it is also a model of good manners in dealing with someone who has a concern about the toxicity of uranium but limited technical knowledge. Michael Glass 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you all enjoy my response just as much. Some of the most important comments in support of my position were made by Dr. Standler herself. --James S. 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)