Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 7

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 5

Untitled

Archived previous discussions --DV8 2XL 18:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Siegwart-Horst Günther's investigation in Iraq

After I added the following reference

Günther, Siegwart-Horst (1995), Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children, ISBN 3-89484-805-7

User Dr Zak reverted this edit several times and wrote this on my talk page:

This looks like a rather tendentious book whose aim isn't to examine the effects of DU ammunition but to convince people that there is a problem with it. Out article on Depleted uranium on the contrary doesn't aim to convince people about the problems with DU, it merely wants to outline its effects.

The book doesn't really pass the mark set in WP:RS. This has (I think) been your fourth revert. If you want this reference kept please discuss on the talk page. Dr Zak

"This looks like a rather tendentious book", "doesn't really pass the mark" -- You should prove your accusations first. Feelings and impressions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion and cannot serve as a substitute for a proof. This attributes to your feelings as well. Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther was the first scientist who did an investigation on the consequences of the bombardment with depleted uranium in Iraq. If you want to outline the effects of this weapon, you should know about the results he found. --DenisDiderot 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And the peer-reviewed papers that this book is based on would be...?--DV8 2XL 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To start: You want the stuff in, you prove it's any good. WP:V applies to references too. This is an encyclopedia, not a game of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours".

Disclaimer: I'm an organic chemist, not an epidemiologist, so I can't make qualified statements on the toxicity of DU.

Some groups have a vested interest to show that DU is/is not an extremely dangerous substance. The military is greatly in favor of DU. DU is is cheap and remarkably efficacious against armored targets. Taking a long-term view on the impact of DU projectiles is not in the military's portfolio, it's the local politicians who get to deal with it. It's in the military's interest to display the element as harmless as possible.

The purpose of charities on the other hand is to continue to exist, that it to continue to be able to solicit donations. Any antiwar charity will paint DU in as black a light as possible just to keep itself talked about.

In a contentious area like this it's essential to sieve out any references that might be tendentious to remain credible.

Now Professor Günther states on his homepage [1] that he worked in Iraq for years and lectures on Tropical Medicine in Leipzig. No qualifications in epidemiology or toxicology are mentioned, which would be essential in a research area like this. Also, I was unable to find any refereed publications of his on DU.

His book that you quote [2] is published in Ahriman-Varlag [3] who are "focused on classical psycho-analysis …, Marxist thought … and present day political information highly disliked by the international thought police …." This isn't anyone you would trust to be impartial on the issue, rather the contrary. Dr Zak 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have searched for publications by him in serious peer reviewed publications and I have found nothing about uranium which has been written by him. I suggest that we reject his work, if you want a good source of data on natural alpha emitters then see the work of Gavin K. Gillmore (Northampton, England). Gavin K. Gillmore has published on the subject of the health of uranium mine workers.Cadmium

Professor Guenther wrote two books on the subject: War Eye-Witness and Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children, both of which describe and illustrate the influence of Uranium on the children and their relatives. He also gave a lecture in Washington, which was attended by officers from the Pentagon on the influence of Uranium and the mortality percentages among the Iraqi children.

Siegwart-Horst Guenther:

…in March 1991 I found some cigar-like projectiles and shells at Iraqi combat areas on the road between Baghdad and Amman. I took them because I was suspicious of their color, [since] I have seen children in the city of Basra playing with such projectiles. At the same time, there were children dying of Leukemia and I also saw children whose abdomens were swollen to a frightening degree because of liver and kidney diseases. When I carried out some tests at the University of Berlin, I found that the projectiles were toxic and radioactive.

Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther put his life on line for the truth. He was the first scientist who travelled to the Gulf battlefields to independently study health effects of DU. He predicted in a March 3rd, 2000, interview for “junge Welt” that a significant rise in DU casualty cases from Kosovo would start about March 2001. In the meantime, a message was circulated on the Internet that German authorities denied Günther medical help with his cancer.

Günther was arrested and maltreated in June 1995, following an anti-DU crusade. He remained under police supervision one year after release. On January 4th, 1999, he was told by a German court that, if necessary, he would be forcefully taken to a closed psychiatric institution. The authorities showed they were very nervous indeed about DU truth getting out into the open.

Professor Günther also travelled to Libya, where in 1986 A-10 aircraft attacked the residence of Qadhafi and a coastal town – the site of an alleged chemical weapons plant. In both areas Günther observed cases of leukemia and deformed babies. The same symptoms plus skin sickness and miscarriages were observed in the vicinity of the crash sites of A-10 aircraft at Ramsheid in Germany in 1988 and El-Al cargo plane in Amsterdam suburbs in 1992. Dutch NGOs found DU contamination in soil samples from the crash site.

Professor Guenther called upon the UN to prohibit the use of Uranium, which is used widely by the US, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Russia and Saudi Arabia. He recommended [that] all the afflicted Iraqi children demand compensation from Germany, because the technology for this weapon came from Germany [even though] it was produced in America. --DenisDiderot 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is all fine. Now why should we believe Professor Günther? In which regard is he qualified to speak? Where are the refereed publications? Dr Zak 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Professor Guenther is a medical scientist who did toxological studies in Iraq and published his results in several books. He inspired many researchers to delve further into the subject and their results confirm his findings:

Hindin R, Brugge D, Panikkar B., Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: a review from an epidemiological perspective, PMID 16124873

"Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. While the detailed pathways by which environmental DU can be internalized and reach reproductive cells are not yet fully elucidated, again, the evidence supports plausibility."

Lin RH, Wu LJ, Lee CH, Lin-Shiau SY, Cytogenetic toxicity of uranyl nitrate in Chinese hamster ovary cells, PMID 7694141

"This finding indicates that uranyl nitrate has the property of causing genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in CHO cells. It appears that this cytogenetic toxicity of uranyl nitrate provides a biological basis for the potential teratogenic effect of uranium on developing fetal mice."

Miller AC, Bonait-Pellie C, Merlot RF, Michel J, Stewart M, Lison PD., Leukemic transformation of hematopoietic cells in mice internally exposed to depleted uranium, PMID 16283518

"Intravenous injection of FDC-P1 cells into DU-implanted DBA/2 mice was followed by the development of leukemias in 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets. In contrast, only 12% of control mice developed leukemia. Karyotypic analysis confirmed that the leukemias originated from FDC-P1 cells. The growth properties of leukemic cells from bone marrow, spleen, and lymph node were assessed and indicate that the FDC-P1 cells had become transformed in vivo. [...] These results demonstrated that a DU altered in vivo environment may be involved in the pathogenesis of DU induced leukemia in an animal model."

...and many others. --DenisDiderot 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But where are the ones that he published or referenced? --DV8 2XL 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Massive anonymous addition

A very large amount of text was added to the article by 71.146.89.91 (talk • contribs) (diff). I've reverted it, as most of it was a cut and paste ("do not copy" notice intact), and all of it should be vetted by the various registered editors tracking this article. --Christopher Thomas 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An excerpt from this memorandum. Someone invented the dirty bomb. Dr Zak 02:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Added fact tag to Health concerns

Some further info re: my fact tag - the health concerns section currently reads:

Exposure to massive amounts of DU has caused birth defects, cancer, central nervous system damage, reproductive effects, and other health problems in laboratory animals;

The only support currently offered for that statement is a 2005 Hindin article. The article looks good, but it doesn't support the statements about cancer or CNS damage. Hinden and her co-authors do state:

With at least 6 published studies on topic, Domingo et al. have demonstrated that both oral and subcutaneous administration of UO2++ to female mice engender decreased fertility, embryonic and fetal toxicity including reduced growth and malformations (cleft palate and skeletal defects) and developmental ossification variations. From their maternal animal exposure studies the members of Domingo's group concluded that it was chemical toxicity, not radiation that resulted in teratogenicity.

However, they don't say anything about cancer or CNS damage. Thanks,TheronJ 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

An earlier editor of this article seemed to have a great command regarding the health issues of DU, but unfortunately he was ganged up on and banned from this article (with no expiration date) a few weeks ago. Perhaps there aren't such effects (this text you mention was only recently written in the past few days as a replacement for more carefully sourced text that was blanked), so perhaps it's just due to careless editing. I don't recall the previous (now banned) editor mentioning carcinogenicity (though he did often mention, with sources, that teratogenicity is the primary concern for DU metal). But what, though, about the various products which are part of the fine particulate produced upon DUs combustion? These should be considered as well. Although the supposedly tiny amounts of residual plutonium, americium, and other radioactive elements in "pure" DU may have an effect on health as well, depending on how much DU a person has contact with; certainly a lot of it is now littering the Middle East and other areas. There are a lot of issues to consider. Badagnani 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to consider actinides other than U then please go to the new page Actinides in the environment which contains a section on Pu metal being scattered into the enviroment by an exposive event. You may find the information which tells you what you need to know. You might also be interested to know that reprocessed uranium can contain some Tc in addition to the traces of transuranium elements this is because TcO4- tends to co-extract with UO2++ in PUREX chemistry. This fact has already been added to the PUREX page.Cadmium 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UCT)

Legal matters

See also previous Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 6#Legal status in weapons

I have just noticed that someone has altered the text by adding some hidden text into this section baout the removal of UN sources of data. Please could the person who added the remarks please remind us of what sources were removed.Cadmium 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UCT)

I did not enter the comment, but see Revision as of 20:47, 12 May 2006 ->Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL --Philip Baird Shearer 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This statement would be funny if it weren't so pathetically sad. I was predicting that, after refusing to help restore the gutted content mentioned here, the excuse eventually would be, "Well, nobody can quite remember what text it was you're referring to that was deleted." It's even more amazing that such a statement would be issued only days after the deletion. As it has been all along, the onus is on the "deleter," and the enablers of the "deleter," to restore the text which was blanked in favor of editorial-like generalities sans actual UN info. Badagnani 20:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See the problem here is that there were no UN sources; oh there were links out, but to absolutely nothing germane to the topic. There were also a number of quotes from minor UN functionaries stating basically that nothing in the existing treaty structure made DU illegal. The passage that replaced it, on the other hand comes from a brief by Avril McDonald, an expert in international law for The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons - the most respected players in this matter in the word today. --DV8 2XL 20:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So you rejected inclusion of the quotes because the UN people quoted weren't high enough in the org.'s ranks. Why didn't you state your case in this detailed way at the time of deletion, instead of just saying "I'm cutting this section out, it doesn't make sense, and rewriting it." We could have gone through the quotes person by person, selecting with our collective judgement together whose quotes were important/relevant enough and whose weren't. But you didn't do that. Badagnani 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because quite frankly it had been butchered to the point where it was unreadable, and looked like an attempt to suggest that something that wasn't in fact was by snowing the reader under. --DV8 2XL 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not been watching this page recently, because I thought that this section had bedded in. I am surprised to come back and find that all the referenced paragraphs have been removed and replaced with a section which does not have one citation to support what is there currently.

I am going to restore the legal section to "Revision as of 14:02, 12 May 2006" as it was before DV8 2XL made very big changes to it.

To removed the ICJ and to describe a Carla del Ponte the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as a "minor UN functionary" a bit surprising. Now as Badagnani says if anyone would like to go through it point by point and suggest modifications, improvements with new citations. I am more than willing to help improve the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. It is clearly written that the ref is :The International Legality of Depleted Uranium (ILDU) --DV8 2XL 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the usual way to cite sources, sorry I did not recognise it as such, particularly as it does not support much of what is written above it. For example how does one square this paragraph as was in Wikipedia:

The law relating to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts contains some provisions that might potentially suggest the illegality of the use of DU, again however, in order to make any definitive statement in this respect, more evidence needs to be forthcoming regarding the long-term effects on the environment of these weapons, since it is not yet clear that the threshold for a finding of illegality would be met, it remains extremely difficult to reach a finding of illegality in the abstract.

With the source when in ILDU Section "2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW" the author writes:

However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties.

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently other editors decided to 'improve' it. I originally quoted the text from the source verbatim - which is also why I placed the citation information next to it. I didn't think that my first effort said anything different from what was originally there; only restated it in a clear and compact fashion.

The biggest issue that I had with the original sources (and yes perhaps it was a bit cruel to refer to her as a 'minor functionary')is that it is hard not to wonder if she was really saying 'nobody in their right mind would drag permanent members of the Security Council in front of an international court charging them with using illegal ammunition.' The source I quoted is politically independent, and well regarded on both sides of the debate. --DV8 2XL 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you (DV8 2XL) are confused, as your edit do include the paragraph without mentioning the statement made in the source: "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties." and as far as I can tell you never put it in as a quote.

Revision as of 18:49, 12 May 2006 -> Revision as of 20:08, 12 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL

Part of the problem in assessing the legality of the use of DU weapons concerns the fact that the applicable international humanitarian law generally measures the short-term rather than the medium to long-term effects of the conduct of hostilities. The assessment of whether a particular method or means of warfare is, for example, indiscriminate, is usually gauged by looking at its immediate effects and only in the context of a particular armed attack: how many civilians are killed as a direct result of the use of a particular method and means of warfare.

Given that the impact of DU can only be measured in the medium- to long-term, that its effects may be indirect rather than direct, and that causality is difficult to establish, it cannot be said with confidence that the use of DU weapons is clearly illegal under existing Hague or Geneva law.

This edit was reverted [20:10, 12 May 2006 Badagnani (Put brakes on deletions / POV rewrite.)] you then reverted this edit [20:16, 12 May 2006 DV8 2XL (Revert - I was working on the explanation as you reverted)] this revision was reverted [20:36, 12 May 2006 FayssalF m (Reverted edits by DV8 2XL (talk) to last version by Badagnani)

In your next major edit of this section, when you restored similar text to that reverted by FayssalF was Revision as of 20:47, 12 May 2006 ->Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL there is no mention of the phrase However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties. and the text you added is not in quotes

Given that the impact of DU can only be measured in the medium- to long-term, that its effects may be indirect rather than direct, and that causality is difficult to establish, it cannot be said with confidence that the use of DU weapons is clearly illegal under existing Hague or Geneva law.

The law relating to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts contains some provisions that might potentially suggest the illegality of the use of DU, again however, in order to make any definitive statement in this respect, more evidence needs to be forthcoming regarding the long-term effects on the environment of these weapons, since it is not yet clear that the threshold for a finding of illegality would be met, it remains extremely difficult to reach a finding of illegality in the abstract.

The next major edit of this section Revision as of 08:01, 14 May 2006, Give Peace A Chance. The next change was Revision as of 15:47, 17 May 2006, Cadmium This edit was criticised and edited 19:01, 18 May 2006 ER MD, Legal status in weapons - should not stat a main parapgraph with "it" where did people learn their writing? ER MD followed this up with another edit on the section to fix a simple typo. As can be see from that typo edit by ER MD to the one immediately before my reversal not significant changes to the last two paragraphs of the section were made: Revision as of 19:02, 18 May 2006, ER MD ->Revision as of 19:37, 6 June 2006, DV8 2XL.So the text of the last paragraph immediately before I reverted:

The law relating to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts contains some provisions that might potentially suggest the illegality of the use of DU, again however, in order to make any definitive statement in this respect, more evidence needs to be forthcoming regarding the long-term effects on the environment of these weapons, since it is not yet clear that the threshold for a finding of illegality would be met, it remains extremely difficult to reach a finding of illegality in the abstract.

was largely what you wrote when you replaced the previous text (see above Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL) which I restored. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW the version which ER MD wrote to replace mine, looks very similar to your entry [4] and that edit also missed out the line in the source "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties.", and the tart comment in the history [21:55, 7 June 2006 ER MD (→Legal status in weapons - "Yeung Sik Yuen writies" huh? this section is not encyclopedic)], is rather similar to what you wrote above "There were also a number of quotes from minor UN functionaries stating basically that nothing in the existing treaty structure made DU illegal". Do you use both user names when editing this article, or has the User:ER MD nothing to do with you other than preferring your version of the legal status? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page[5]:

I just saw your remark in discussion. For the record I am not User:ER MD and I only edit with a single account. I do not see how anything has changed between my edit and yours - but I am too tired to fight with the likes of you anymore. Do not bother to reply, it's unlikely that I will see it. --DV8 2XL 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive effects

I have found some papers on the effects of uranium on animal reproduction. I hope to be able to add it soon to the page.Cadmium

James in possible violation of Arbcom Ban

Recent addition from anon user may likely be JamesS, a user who was banned from editing the article. Although a checkuser request has not been initiated, an IP whois shows this IP address sources to a server also used by James. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not so sure about some of the recent edits done in the last twenty-four hours. While I know this material is covered in other topics I'm not convinced that this means that we shouldn't have a two or three paragraph summery here. The more vocal critics of the edits done since the end of the ArbCom case have accused us of gutting information from this topic and burying it away; I'm afraid that I find myself agreeing with them after today. Do we have some idea where we are going here? --03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture

The words Pop Culture are short popular culture. As in popular. As in a lot of average people have experienced or are aware of such trends. I feel that the references listed would be better categorized as obscure subculture. I do not think they are relevant. Give Peace A Chance 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above - we need to come to some understading where we want to go with this topic - as it stands I fear it's becoming an open invitation to cranks and POV pushers--DV8 2XL 01:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Such references had better be emblematic for ... something. Those two references in there really are not. Dr Zak 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DU vs uranium

It really is an error to talk of DU as if it was a separate entity from uranium when referring to its chemo-toxic profile. --DV8 2XL 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2Xl is right, the chemistry and biology of DU is the same as NU, LEU and HEU.Cadmium 11:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chemo-toxic is, +/- epsilon, identical. The biological impact of the various isotopes is, of course, quite different. Which would you rather inhale? ²³⁸U or ²³⁴U?

Atlant 11:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the half lives and other data for both (bar the possibility that the decay chains have some great difference in the daughters) and I assume that 1 KBq of ²³⁸U will have about the same effect as 1 KBq of ²³⁴U. But the concentration of ²³⁴U is low even in HEU, ²³⁵U is much more common. In uranium used in a reactor and then put through a perfect PUREX plant you might find some ²³⁶U from the ng reactions of ²³⁵U.

If you want to consider radioactive effects then it will be best to express yourself in Ci or Bq, if however you want to consider chemical effects then use g or mg (or grains if you are old fashioned).Cadmium

Nice dodge of the question and attempt to shift the point by switching from mass to radioactivity quantities. I take it you'd much rather breathe in the ²³⁸U dust then?

Atlant 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you blanked my answer, and it wasn't a dodge, I made the edits, another user reverted me saying the article was about DU, I reverted back and explained myself here. I thought your question was a rhetorical one - no ones attempting to minimize the radiological hazards of uranium or its daughters - it's just not germain to this article.-- DV8 2XL 12:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Editorial note: I didn't blank the following piece of the text; it surely wasn't in my browser's edit window when I started editing. It appears the Wikimedia software is failing to flag certain edit-collisions (as this has happened to me twice in a week's time) -- Atlant 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlant, my comment was in support of an edit I made where I replaced the term DU in several places with 'uranium'. That's because in the health section we are concerned primarily with the material's chemo-toxic issues not the radiological ones. --DV8 2XL 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion of a "dodge" was aimed at Cadmium. As I mentioned above, I'm comfortable with your claim that all the isotopes are sufficiently similar in regards to their chemical toxicity. But their overall biological effects (a term introduced by Cadmium) clearly vary.

Atlant 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No attempt is being made to wiggle out of a question, I asked a question to get more information to allow me to know what you are asking. If I was to be exposed to a chemically toxic substance that also happened to be radioactive then I would if I was forced to inhale a given activity then I would (all other things being equal) the isotope which has the highest specific activity (smaller mass). But if I was going to inhale a mass of the substance then I would choose the isotope with the longer half life (less radioactivity). Or I might be inclined to wrap my body in plastic sheet like some werid thing, and don a XXX rubber fetish thing called a dust mask. Then I would be inclined to walk to a cleaner place spray my plastic suit with hairspray (that fixs dust to the surface) and then get a good friend with a hose and a brush to wash me off in a perfectly clean place.Cadmium

Actually the radiological toxicity is neglegible compared to the chemical toxicity. Worrying about the radioactive damage caused by uranium when the chemical toxicity is greater is a bit like a heavy smoker worrying about benzpyrene in barbecued meat. Dr Zak 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Close, Dr Zak, it's like a smoker worrying about the effects of jackhammers on her fetus. Give Peace A Chance 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that some aspects of the chemical toxicity of DU are caused by certain compounds of uranium created in the explosion and inhaled as dust, not the elementary uranium. So it is quite misleading and unchemical to talk about uranium as a substance (suggesting the elementary substance) instead of depleted uranium as a weapon (which implies compounds and impurities). --DenisDiderot 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe if you read the section you will find that compounds are mentioned. Why you think the term Depleted uranium implies compounds and impurities is unclear to me as it is clearly defined in any number of places as the metalic elemental form. Also I am at a loss to find a reason why combustion products get such high attention when they are transient, while corrosion products are persistent and present in greater amounts on ex-battlefields, and likely to be in more soluble forms. --DV8 2XL 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those damn impurities. We'll just ignore the baseline actinides in soil, and start a new wave of panic that the trace impurities in DU weapons might make jack diddly squat difference to someones health. Unless the potential victim grinds up the munition and eats it, I'm not buying it. Give Peace A Chance 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Have we come to any consensus here as to whether the term DU is equivalent to uranium? My edits were re-reverted and I'm three reverts in on this article today. --DV8 2XL 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we have not. Badagnani 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I put a new intro to the section which should keep everyone happy. (I hope) --DV8 2XL 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contaminated DU

Since we agree that the chemical toxicity is what matters I guess "uranium" is the more precise wording. (Cadmium mentioned a few weeks ago that uranium that uranium that has been through a reprocessing plant is contaminated with Tc. Strange that that subject hasn't come up again - does that contamination increase the radiological risks significantly?) Dr Zak 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that DU should be understood to be the U-235 lean stream which comes from an enrichment plant which has been fed with U from the mine/ore processing center. DU which is contaminated with Tc, Np, Pu or Am should be mentioned here only in passing. These metals should be discussed at minor actinides, actinides in the environment. While this term may be a little new to some of you, it is the de facto term used by people working on the back end of the fuel cycle to mean any actinide other than U or Pu.

I think that Badagnani should bit the bullet (not a DU one) and join in with the actinides in the environment. This page is starting to deal with all the alpha emitters in the big wide world. DV8 2XL's view about the corrosion products is already being addressed at this new page. I think that Give Peace A Chance should bear in mind that with modern ICPMS equipment that it is possible to detect any metal in anything (I would like to know that the Au content of dog food is), but a trace of a metal (at the ICPMS detection limits) might not cause any harm even if it was Pu or Am....But Pu / Np / Am in soil is something which should be addressed. Lastly I think we should all look on the bright side, we are having our heated debates/rows not on the article but on the talk page, this is a step forwards from what has gone on in the past.Cadmium 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The new intro makes sense except for the fact that the radiological concerns are not nil (as implied there); in fact the radiological concerns of are addressed in both nuclear industry and military regulations and training manuals. This is compounded by the fact that the "waste" DU available for purchase from nuclear facilities (such as that acquired by the military) is not "pure" U-238 but can also include amounts of americium, neptunium, and other radioactive substances. I'm not sure this is mentioned in the article, or how well documented this is, but it does mean that the DU "added to the environment" in places like Iraq may not be as innocuous, radiologically speaking, as some of you believe. Also mentioned earlier here in "discussion" was a Christian Science Monitor article which found very high levels (considered dangerous by Western standards) of radioactivity using a geiger counter to test fragments of metal littering the ground in urban areas of Iraq. I believe such information should be addressed, and not dismissed. Badagnani 21:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the Np/Tc/Pu in DU shells was due to a rare error when someone used the wrong supply of uranium metal to make shells. I will look at the sources which I can lay my hands on and then add something either to the DU page or the actinides in the environment.Cadmium

Great, that would be appreciated -- if, indeed, you can obtain accurate information, in the climate of secrecy and stalling or refusal of FOIA requests that now prevails in the U.S. regarding such matters. It's easy to see how such and "error" could be made, and might still continually be made, and made in the future, since the weapons are intended to be used against "bad people" in faraway places -- who cares what other waste components are in there? It's unfortunate that perhaps the only way to truly test if this contamination remains the case is to go to these places and test the scattered fragments, as the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson did in 2003. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html I'm glad editors agree that these issues be addressed here. Badagnani 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find several links to references on the topic of contaminated DU in ammunition in the second paragraph of Military applications section of the main article mentioning the issue. They have been there for some months now, I know - I put them there. --DV8 2XL 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I cannot find, however, the specific elements which contaminated the DU. Some specifics of this would be welcome. Regarding the text regarding military's statement that they immediately corrected the problem, the military "says" a lot of things, some of which (such as their recent reversals after evidence of the hitting of civilians with phosphorus weapons in Fallujah) have later been proven not to have been factual. Badagnani 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is of course in the context of Wikipedia, a limit to how much speculation we can do; we can only report what we can verify. In this instance (contaminated DU) however, I would more inclined to look at the manufacturer of the rounds instead of the military. --DV8 2XL 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Basically never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. --DV8 2XL 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb, true, but not just stupidity is dangerous; apathy, ambivalence, and a "who cares" attitude can be equally dangerous, or worse. Badagnani 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From Depleted Uranium in Urine of Soldiers by the WISE Uranium Project:

Is DU more hazardous than natural uranium, since it contains contaminants such as uranium-236, plutonium-239, etc.?

No. Depleted uranium used for bullets has been found to contain trace amounts of artificial radionuclides, such as uranium-236, neptunium-237, and plutonium-239. The presence of these radionuclides can be explained by contamination from recycling of spent fuel introduced in the manufacturing process; for details, see [Diehl 2002]. The radiation dose from exposure to such contaminated DU is only a fraction of a percent higher than from pure DU - and thus still is lower than from natural uranium; for details, see [Diehl 2001].

--DV8 2XL 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we all agree that some of the DU used did contain isotopes other than U-238 and traces of its daughters Th-234 etc, so we could add something to the Np section of the actinides in the environment. I would be glad to see Badagnani and DV8 2XL working together on this topic. I think that while they can not fully agree on how/why the other actinides ended up in the DU they both will be able to make a contributuion.Cadmium

legal section

See also previous section #Legal matters

Okay: did some modifications to make the section NPOV. Reads much better now. ER MD 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip: nobody agrees with your entry. Its POV, poorly written, un-encyclopedic, and you fail to explain the changes. ER MD 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My chages! I reverted to a version that was here as of 14:02, 12 May 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But then you (ER MD) knew that, because you deleted the section at Revision as of 07:52, 17 April 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are calling "some modifications" seems to be very similar to those made by DV8 2XL in these edits. (Revision as of 18:49, 12 May 2006 (edit) -> Revision as of 20:08, 12 May 2006 (edit)). Which was when the original text was replaced with the text you claim are "some modifications". I can not see one line of text which has remained the same, between the text there earlier on May 12. I am confused ER MD, is this your own edit or a cut and past job of the edit done by DV8 2XL--Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not cited the source you are using.

Under the current language of the Hague or Geneva law, it is unclear if depleted uranium weapons are legal or illegal and contentious debate exists about its continued use.

No citation given who says it is not clear. The UN working paper was delivered in 2002, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia both stated that it was clear and that these convention do not cover DU.

Since medical and scientific experts disagree on the mid to long-term effects of exposure to depleted uranium, a consensus has not been reached about whether the use of these munitions contravenes the principles or rules of international humanitarian law.

Then why did the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia state that "There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present."?

What does this mean and who said it?

Assessing the legality of the use of DU weapons in terms of international humanitarian law is difficult since legality is often interpreted on a short-term basis rather than a medium to long-term effects after the conduction of hostilities. The assessment of whether a particular method or means of warfare is, for example, indiscriminate, is usually gauged by looking at its immediate effects such as the number of civilians killed as a direct result of the use of a particular weapons system. Opponents have argued that the long-term effects of DU weapons is indiscriminate and therefore violates international law.

What is the source for the paragraph in italics below, and what are the "provisions", because the one you have given at the bottom of the section states in its section 2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties."

International law relating to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts contains some provisions that potentially suggest the illegality of the use of DU. However, some have argued that more evidence is needed regarding the long-term environmental and toxicity effects to find if DU weapons have met the threshold for illegality.

So I have reverted your changes what was the NPOV of the text as it is now? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From the history

81.76.230.73 (Emphasis removed.POV.)

Please explain why in a legal section on the military use of DU it is POV to emphasise that There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles in a document released by an international trubunal investigating war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)