Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References from James S.

[edit]
General (partial list; see below)

Salbu, B.; Janssens, K.; Lind, O.C.; Proost, K.; Gijsels, L., Danesic, P.R. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125–135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf Abstract: "Environmental or health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...."

Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222, p. 213.

Hoekstra, H.R. and Siegel, S. (1970) "Uranium-Oxygen System at high pressure," Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 32, 3237-3248.

Abstract of Mishima, et al. late 1970s work: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm Search for "75 percent"; observe only particulate measurements. (Excerpts of the original are now scanned; see below.)

Mitsakou, C.; Eleftheriadis, K.; Housiadas, C.; and Lazaridis, M. (2003) "Modeling of the Dispersion of Depleted Uranium Aerosol." Health Physics 84, 538-44: http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf Please note that the study is of particulate -- not gas -- dispersion patterns only, as evidenced by the micrometer particle measurements.

Reproductive toxicity

Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91: http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf Summary contains: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...."

Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 "Conclusion: In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."

Kang H, Magee C, Mahan C, Lee K, Murphy F, Jackson L, Matanoski G. (2001) "Pregnancy outcomes among U.S. Gulf War veterans: a population-based survey of 30,000 veterans." Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 11, pp. 504-11: http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract Abstract: "Both men and women deployed to the Gulf theater reported significant excesses of birth defects among their liveborn infants. These excess rates also extended to the subset of 'moderate to severe' birth defects [males: OR= 1.78 (CI = 1.19-2.66); females: OR = 2.80 (CI = 1.26-6.25)]." Note that the effect in females is larger. citation search

Developmental toxicity

Domingo, J.L. (2001) "Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium: a review," Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 15, pp. 603-9. Abstract: "Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation periods."

Durakovic A. (1999) "Medical effects of internal contamination with uranium," Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 40, pp. 49-66: http://www.bovik.org/du/asaf_99.htm Abstract: "well documented evidence of reproductive and developmental toxicity...."

Immunological toxicity

McDiarmid, M.A., et al. (2006) "Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium," International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 79, pp. 11-21. Abstract: "genotoxicity measures continue to show subtle, mixed results...."

Schröder, H.; A. Heimers; R. Frentzel-Beyme; A. Schott; W. Hoffmann (2003) "Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf war and Balkans war veterans," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 103, pp. 211-220: http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf Abstract: "there was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of dicentric chromosomes (dic) and centric ring chromosomes (cR) in the veterans. group...."

Miller, A.C.; M. Stewart; K. Brooks; L. Shi; N. Page (2003) "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 91, pp. 246-252: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf Abstract: "chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one million-fold...."

Neurotoxicity

Briner, W. and J. Murray (2005) "Effects of short-term and long-term depleted uranium exposure on open-field behavior and brain lipid oxidation in rats," Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 27, pp. 135-44: http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf Abstract: "DU is a toxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, producing behavioral changes in male rats and lipid oxidation regardless of gender in as little as 2 weeks...."

Monleau, M.; C. Bussy; P. Lestaevel; P. Houpert; F. Paquet; V. Chazel (2005) "Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations," Neuroscience Letters, vol. 390, pp. 31-6. Abstract: "depleted uranium is able to enter the brain after exposure to repeated inhalation, producing behavioral changes."

Others scanned

As-yet uncropped scans from articles such as Ackermann et al. (1960) in full, Mouradian and Baker (1963) first page and graphs, Gmelin Handbook excerpts, Morrow et al. (1972) first page, and excerpts from the "Characteristics of Particles and Particle Dispersoids" page from the CRC Handbook. may now be found at: 

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

They are placed there temporarily for eductional, scientific, and petition purposes, and I can not provide certain assurance that I won't edit them and/or change filenames soon.

If anyone would like to crop and upload the fair-use portions they would like to include in the articles, please be my guest.

I will not be making a decision on whether to withdraw from mediation until the mediator has provided an opinion on the scanned articles, and two more pages to be provided in the next few weeks the future. These excerpts speak for themselves, and address the questions raised directly. I do not need to defend my actions, because I have done nothing wrong. I note that the plaintiffs are hard-pressed to come up with a single recent peer-reviewed article in support of their position, relying instead on conflicted sources.

I will continue to try to see that Depleted uranium and related articles remain accurate, whether or not that involves "mercilessly" editing contributions, including those of the mediator. We have agreed that there will be no moratorium on editing articles while mediation is in progress. As far as I can tell, that does not exclude convicted edit warriors from violating the conditions of their ArbCom parole. --James S. 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position has been, and remains that you are misinterpreting the information in those sources, and then using those misinterpretations to come to a novel conclusion of your own. I don't have to provide any other sources than the ones you are using. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if you are unable to verify the sources, then you have no standing to challenge their veracity. --James S. 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References from Dr U

[edit]

General

[edit]

prepared by Dr. Michael H. Repacholi of the World Health Organization, Geneva]

Balkans Syndrome

[edit]

Enough for now. I'll add later. Dr U 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

[edit]

(sorry, James I'm not trying to displace you here)

As a sign of Good Faith and to ease the editing process that must occur in the articles in question as points are decided upon I propose the following: The lock is removed from Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium and the material that was imported into Depleted uranium from there is removed and that article returned to the state it was in before the first agreement between us broke-down. Frankly I don't think that the first one needed locking in the first place, and the material forked over is a duplication, which some other editor may notice and decide to remove anyway, and we don't need that complication from a new party now. --DV8 2XL 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the protection on Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium and signal to the admin who protected it that I'm taking responsabilty (admin-wise) for the page while mediation is in progress. As for removing the material from depleted uranium, I'll take a few hours to have a think about it and to let James comment here. The forking of material from Health and environmental effects... is inappropriate and must be contrary to a WikiPolicy somewhere (WP:SENSE, for example): however, I wouldn't want depleted uranium to be left with any hazards section at all. I will try to put a couple of paragraphs together along the lines of what we use in other chemicals articles, on the understanding that this is a stopgap solution while mediation continues. Physchim62 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the settlement version you will see that there was a health section and links throughout the article to the other page James was happy about that before. I would rather you not put material in right now until we start discussions. --DV8 2XL 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the last unforked version [1] --DV8 2XL 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon myself to revert depleted uranium to the last unforked verision. --DV8 2XL 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object because the voluntary compromise settlement failed because of inaccuracy. I am restoring the accurate version. --James S. 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good faith James --DV8 2XL 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I have faith that you will agree that the expanded version is more accurate; please wait for the scanned documents. --James S. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that section in the style which we normally use on WP:Chem, expanding it somewhat to (partially) address the concerns raised on the talk page about its brief length. I don't expect this to satisfy everyone (perhaps not even anyone), but this is only meant as a stop-gap solution, not as any predetermination of a lasting solution. Physchim62 (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles included in the dispute

[edit]

I propose Gulf War Syndrome be included because of substantial overlap. Dr U 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see either a moratorium on editing the pages in dispute during mediation, and/or an agreement for people to sign their comments on talk pages, before I would agree to joinder of another page. I also ask that we explore the implications of the reason that we ask users to sign their comments --James S. 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In so far as the article Gulf War syndrome repeats many of the points under discussion here, I think it is only sensible to include it in the remit. A moratorium on editing the articles seems rather drastic, and would in any case be practically unworkable: I have no "special powers" over any of this, I can only protect articles in line with Wikipedia:Protection policy. However, if I must remind people to sign their comments on talk pages with ~~~~ then I am more than happy to do so. Physchim62 (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be no moratorium on editing articles during mediation, and no longer oppose including Gulf war syndrome in the mediation. --James S. 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing

[edit]

Before anyone complains, I had better set things straight here. Yes, parties are allowed to edit anonymously so long as those edits are in good faith. CheckUser exists to police this type of activity. Physchim62 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered objections to Dr U's edits

[edit]

As these edits are clearly a revert to TDC's version why not pose your question to TDC, who is the original creator of the version you are so intent on discussing. I reverted to his version, because I believed that, overall, it reflected a higher standard of quality. Reverting in good faith only shows that you believe that the a previous version was better overall, not that you believe it was free of problems. I have also previously addressed the mendacious assertion that I said that DU was not toxic. Clearly the version you refer to states that DU is toxic numerous times, just not in the paragraph that you point to. Dihydrogen monoxide is also toxic. Perhaps we should edit the opening paragraph of water to reflect this. As a side note, I have personally observed people die from it's toxic effects. Dr U 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I await reply to my request for justification of these edits:

  • DU is not toxic
  • 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."
  • Al Marshall's Department of Energy-funded Sandia study did not consider nonradiological reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, or immuniological effects. Nonradiological reproductive toxicity will be discussed in a forthcoming journal paper by Marshall. The doses received by veterans and civilians from DU exposure are far too small to result in radiological effects on the imune system.
  • "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."
  • Removal of "See also: Agent Orange"
  • Removal from Category:Uranium

Accordingly, I consider the plaintiffs who have insisted on these edits to be jointly and severally responsible for them. Moreover, as they show gross inaccuracy, I will continue to revert them and consider the spin-off page to be failed as long as they are replaced. --James S. 07:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be far more constructive if you wrote them up into question form and added them to the list of points for mediation. All parties are reminded about WP:3RR, which has certainly not been suspended for the mediation far from it! As for "joint and several responsability", I would rather you left that for me to decide: it is one of the things which admins have to look at when resolving edit wars, but not the only thing. Physchim62 (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for mediatior

[edit]

Physchim62:

You have repeatedly referred to personal attacks without providing any examples. Which statements do you consider personal attacks, and why?

You have been editing the articles under mediation, for example you have claimed that teratogenic uranium poses the greatest danger to the kidneys. Yet you have provided no sources for this and other assertions. Can the parties expect that you will hold yourself to the principle of verifiability? Will you expect the same adherence from the parties to this mediation?

Since you have already tried and convicted me of making personal attacks, and you have been editing with an obvious bias, is there any reason that anyone could consider you a neutral mediator?

Will you agree to recuse yourself and join a request for a mediator capable of mediating from a neutral point of view?

What weight should those charged with determining credibility place in claimed credentials of those who refuse to allow their credentials to be verified?

What impact does refusing to allow one's name to be associated with one's statement have on credibility? --James S. 09:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither side is innocent on the personal attack front, as I have made amply clear. I have edited depleted uranium in an attempt to provide a stop-gap solution whilst the concerns about some of the claims in your edits are addressed: instead of discussing the matter, you are attempting to pass by force. You yourself frequently edit without logging in, so you are in no position to criticize those who prefer not to reveal their real name. If you wish to withdraw from this mediation, that is your right: please indicate your choice. Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Depleted uranium has been reverted by James with, (revert: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier#Parole violations) as a reason. I wonder what exactly that ArbCom case has to do with this mediation? --DV8 2XL 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per a recent Arbcom, I may only make one content Rv every 24 hours, and not without explaining it in talk. Ten Dead Chickens 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does DU belong in Category:Uranium?

[edit]

Yes of course it does. I have no idea who removed it from there or why. --DV8 2XL 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An examination of the literature cited by James S.

[edit]

I have looked at the entry for Morrow, P.E et. al. Health Phys. 1972, 23, 273-80 at [2] and this appears to be a paper on the retention of UO3 in the lungs of dogs (the UO3 is retained in the lungs suggesting that it is a solid). I know that actinide oxides are much worse when inhaled as powder than they are when taken by mouth. It is important to understand that something does not have to be a gas for you to inhale it. Silica powder and coal dust cause lung damage, but neither are gases. I have looked in yahoo for "uranium trioxide gas" and I have found nothing other than James Salsman's petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and wikipedia. Cadmium 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract and first page is here. --James S. 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the rest of the paper ? sadly I have difficulty getting hold of this journal.

The first page does suggest that the UO3 was inhaled in the form of a powdered solid rather than a gas. I think that the difference in the solubility of the different uranium oxides should be mentioned in the wikipedia.Cadmium 09:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the surface area of a particle is inversely related to the cube of its diameter. I will endeavor to scan the remainder of the Morrow paper. --James S. 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... as file names isut*.jpg. Please see the UO3 molecular size diagram I penciled in on page 280. --James S. 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for saving us the trips to the library. If you want a picture of the α-form of uranium trioxide, ther is one here. Physchim62 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James,

Thanks for putting up the scans of the papers.

I have read the paper by R.J. Ackermann et. al., this paper does describe some work done at high tempertures where vapours of WO3, MoO3 and UO3 were detected. I think that it is important that we shoul;d be careful about the use of the term 'gas'. To many readers the term means a thing which is a gas at room temp. rather than a vapour which exists at a very high temp.

I think that it is reasonable to assume that a burning shard of uranium metal might form at the surface some uranium oxide gas which will on cooling absorb onto a surface. So while some UO3g might exist for a very short time during the uranium fire which occurs when a DU slug hits a solid object (eg a tank) this gas will not be the form of the uranium when a human is exposed to it.

While the general public's mind concentrates on the threat of 'gas' (terms like 'creaping death gas' have appeared on newspaper headlines, this one was in relation to a HCl leak.) I would consider that the threat posed by some fine solids is greater than true gases. For instance if you were to inhale in a lungfull 1000 Bq of 222Rn in perfectly dust free air, you would hope to then exhale almost all the activity. But if you were to stand in a smoke filled room (or worse still smoke a cigar {more upmarket}) while standing in this imaginary radon infested room then the radon daughters would attach themselves to the smoke particles. The smoke particles would stick in your lungs, as a result the contamination of your lungs would be much worse.

About gas

Overall I think that it is very unlikely that a human would be exposed to a uranium oxide in gas form, but I think that the condensation of uranium oxide gas onto fine dust would form a substance which is a clear threat to humans.

Cadmium 10:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, exposure to some amount of UO3 in particulate form has never been disputed in this debate. In fact, it is explicitly addressed in the RAND Report, and the literature referenced by that report. "From the heat of combustion as well as weathering, these small particles will eventually become oxidized, forming predominately depleted U3O8 but also small amounts of depleted UO2 and depleted UO3 (CHPPM, 1998). Most of the suspended aerosols will rapidly settle to the ground. Activity or surface winds may disturb the settled particles and resuspend and redistribute a fraction of them (see Appendix C)." "One study examining toxic effects in a variety of animals exposed to concentrations of 19 mg UO3/m3 for four weeks reported moderately fatty livers in some of the rabbits and rats tested, while other animals in the study exhibited no such effect (Rothstein, 1949)." "In another study, researchers found that rats exposed to a weighted mean of 19 mg UO3/m3 for four weeks (with short periods approaching 30 to 40 mg UO3/m3) exhibited significant differences in myeloid and lymphoid cells of the bone marrow but found no significant hematological change." "In earlier studies examining the toxic effects of uranium trioxide inhalation in a variety of animals, evidence for renal injury was observed only in rabbits at a concentration of 19 mg UO3/m3 for four weeks, or a concentration of 22 mg UO2/m3 for 30 days (Rothstein, 1949)." "Only very slight pulmonary change was observed in dogs and rats exposed to 19 mg UO3/m3 for four weeks." "Maynard observed no toxicity in rats fed a diet up to 20 percent uranium by weight in the form of UO2 or U3O8 or up to 0.5 percent uranium in the form of UO3." "However, mortality was observed following a single application of 1 to 2 g UO3 mixed in lanolin per rabbit to the shaved skin of rabbits (Orcutt, 1949)." "Uranium oxides (U3O8 and UO2) are relatively insoluble compounds (Types M and S). As discussed, these uranium compounds are retained longer in the lungs and cause lower toxicity to distal organs such as the kidney than that observed with more soluble industrial compounds. Uranium trioxide is considered between Type F and M (Morrow et al., 1972)." Uranium trioxide particle clearly exist in measurable amounts. Their toxicity has been studied. This is not a new issue. The debate is whether or not they exist in amounts sufficient to cause harm, and whether any such harm has been proven from epidemiological studies of Gulf War veterans and Iraqi civilians. It hasn't, because in order to do that you would have to show that those exposed to higher levels of DU and its combustion products got disease at higher rates than those less exposed. The only study that identified people exposed to DU shrapnel (who would also have been exposed to inhalation of above average amounts of combustion product inhalation) found no clear evidence of increased morbidity in comparison to the general population. Dr U 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr U 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr U,

Thanks for your thoughts, but I thought that the most important topic was UO3 gas. I have seen some very POV commnets about UO3 gas staying in the air as gas for many days after the use of a DU antitank slug, which I doubted. I think that the uranium oxide pages should be rewritten to explain the difference between the different uranium oxides as they are very different in solubility. I am well aware that aqueous UO2++ can be transformed into UO3 and back again with ease. While used fuel as UO2 is very insoluble in water, it is thought to be more insoluble than high level waste converted into borosilicate glass. My interest in this debate is in the UO3 gas debate, so please excuse me if I have little to say about the other topics being debated here.

Cadmium 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cadmium, There is no doubt that UO3 gas is the most disputed claim. And I agree with your assesment. You had mentioned UO3 particulates, and I just wanted to state that other sources agree with your assesment, and that there are other issues relating to those particulates that need to be addressed as well. Dr U 15:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that if we don't get some consensus on the "gaseous uranium trioxide" issue it will continue to poison the other debates. This is why I have not yet opened the other questions for discussion. There are obviously plenty of studies which both sides of the debate can use to defend their point of view on, for example, the teratogenicity of uranium: I would rather we had some agreement on basic uranium chemistry before discussing these. I'll take this opportunity to ask the parties to make a distinction between the acute or semi-acute exposure of Gulf War veterans and the chronic exposure of Iraqi and Kuwaiti residents: my reading of the literature makes me think that the two cases have different toxicological and epidemiological criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. Proof by assertion is all we're seeing now. Dr U 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate statistical inference is not proof by assertion. However, if the math is done right, it can approximate proof to any desired level of confidence. --James S. 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the sample is unbiased (in the statistical sense), statistical inference can approximate proof to the level of confidence of the appropriate tail of a Gaussian distribution: most statistical samples, however, have some bias, and so the appropriate level of confidence is somewhat lower. One example is the level of kidney cancer in uranium workers, which is significantly lower than in the general population (Royal Society report): this doesn't mean that handling uranium is good for the kidneys! It is an example of a well-known systematic bias in occupational health studies, known as the "healthy worker effect": the general population contains individuals who are too sick to hold down a steady job, so any sample of workers would be expected to be healthier than the general population (by what proportion is controversial). Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual dispute remains

[edit]

Factual disputes remains!!

As seen on Talk:Uranium trioxide.

First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standard 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 standard 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 08:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be answering the above at Talk:Gulf War syndrome and Talk:Depleted uranium, where it was also posted. --James S. 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by cadmium

[edit]

It does appear that this is turning into a battle between those who want to write NPOV articles on uranium (+ other actinides and other radioactivity related subjects) and those who wish to use wikipedia as a soapbox for putting forwards their POV. I have seen some very non-NPOV matter on the subject of "DU", I quote.

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air [32] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas[33], and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine[34], but those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas -- also known as uranyl oxide gas, or UO3(g) -- which is formed during uranium combustion (R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355, "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U3O8 with oxygen." U3O8 being the dominant aerosol combustion product [35].) Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets [36]. UO3 gas remains dissolved in the atmosphere for weeks, but as a monomolecular gas is absorbed immediately upon inhalation, leading to accumulation in tissues including gonocytes (testes [37]) and white blood cells [38], but virtually no residual presence in urine other than what might be present from coincident particulate exposure.

(I added the bold to make it clear where the most objectionable text is)

I consider that a central part of the "soapbox brigade's" thesis is the idea of a Creeping uranium trioxide death gas (my paraphrase) which is corrupting the bodies of everyone living anywhere near the site. I have read in a good NPOV secondary source that the fallout Pu from the Pu metal fuel in an A-bomb falls to earth in the form of a high fired oxide, I would reason that if the inferno of a A-bomb detonation is unable to spread Pu in the form of a long lived gas then a small scale uranium fire will be unable to spread U far and wide in the form of a long lived gas. As a person who has an academic interest in radiochemistry I am well aware that the inhalation of radioactive material can lead to dire health effects, I think that the UO3(g) argument may be an example of crying wolf which may lead to wikipedia being brought into disrepute and may in the long term lead to people not viewing real airborne (eg 222Rn) radiological threats in the serious manner in which they should be viewed.

Furthermore because many of the lanthanide and actinide dioxides (CeO2, UO2 and NpO2) are semiconductors in which oxygen is mobile then it is reasonable that uranium metal might burn to form the trioxide not through oxidation in the vapour phase but by a gas-solid reaction where oxygen dissolves in the oxide coat and migrates towards the metal through the oxide coating.

I think that James should stop pushing his uranium trioxide gas ideas as these ideas appear to be unreasonable.Cadmium 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cadmium's comments

[edit]

I grant that Cadmium, did emphasize another of the many supported statements which I have been asked to prove has support, and I agree to support it with this citation which can be found on most any high school chemistry reference shelf. However, this is the first I have heard any complaints about that particular emphasized statement, and Cadmium should have contacted me directly and asked me to support it before complaining to the ArbCom. --James S. 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Cadmium has provided a thermodynamic reference which shows the free energies of UO3(g) formation, and combined with the other peer-reviewed sources I provided, I believe Cadmium is now satisfied as to the existence of the gas. I note that Cadmium is a party to the mediation but not the arbitration, and other than taking sides against peer-reviewed reference-supported assertions when DV8 2XL canvassed him, has done nothing which supports joinder to arbitration, as far as I know. --James S. 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since provided ample support that even the particulate combustion products have been detected continents away: Busby and Morgan (2006) "Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe?" European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics, 1(5), 650-668, as recently summarized in The Sunday Times of Britain, on February 19. --James S. 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the paper by Busby and Morgan

[edit]

Thanks for the link to the interesting paper, I would like to know if the paper was subjected to peer review before publication. The file which you provided a link to seemed a little odd for a accademic journal; the picture of the woman holding up a finger is rather rare in accademic journals.

I have checked the web site of Liverpool University's department of human anatomy and cell biology and I can confirm that a Dr C. Busby is a member of staff there.[3] I am interested to read that his report has been described as contraversal [4]. I would like to know why he did not publish his findings in a more conventional radiochemical journal such as Radiochimica Acta, I am sure that these conventional journals are not narrow minded for instance a topic picked at random they have published papers on the radioactive content of cigarette smoke.

I have looked at random at the web site where the majority of his work is [5] and I picked at random to look at smoke detectors. I found a factual error, the site stated that Am-241 is a fission product. In fact it is a minor actinide which is an activation product of Pu-239 (very different to a fission product). I have looked at other parts of the web site and it does appear that Dr Busby's web site is not NPOV so I would say that we should trust it not as much as a NPOV source such as the output of a journal such as Radiochimica Acta or Analytical Science [6]. If you want an example of the sites bias then look at the jargon buster.

Also I would like to know more about the journal, A good accademic journal is NPOV it has only an interest in the publication of good results and will attract and accept papers with different POVs so that overall it will be NPOV. I have looked at the abstracts of European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics and it does appear that the journal has a strong bias overall. I have no problem with people doing research on the subject of enviromental radioactivity and its relationship with man/other living things but it should be published in a good peer reviewed journal rather than journal with a strong biais. As an example I would like to commend to the other readers the good work of Gavin K. Gillmore on radon-222 in mines and caves, some of this has been published in Ecotoxicology and Enviromental Safety and Health Physics. I do wounder why Busby does not attempt to publish his findings in a similar journal if he has biological results, or if it is a paper on the transport of radioactivity in a mainsteam analytical chemistry or radiochemical journal.

I think that James should consider finding a paper in a more conventional journal on the transport of uranium powder or other dusts to go alongside the paper by Busby which he has cited.

I also find the sharpness of the peak of uranium level rather interesting, the question I have is why is the peak so sharp when the Cs-137 peaks due to atomic bomb tests and the chernobyl fire are so wide in terms of time.[7] Also figure 8.21 in Jiri Hala's text book suggests that the Cs from chernobyl stayed in the air for years before comeing out.Cadmium 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, you join the motion to dismiss, and I'll look for confirmation in other medline-indexed journals. --James S. 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, I just have some doubts about the paper which you cited. The science might be OK but it might not be. I would be more happy with the reference if it was published in a better journal. For instance EB Harvey, JD Boice, M Honeyman and JT Flannery, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 541.[8] is a good paper which is on the subject of unborn kids and radiation, I imagine that if this paper had been put in a bad journal such as FHM or loaded then the paper would not have had such an impact on our thinking.
I am shocked at how narrow the peak in the graph of uranium activity against time is. I have looked at the cesium graphs, the source of the cesium in these graphs is a mixture of fallout from bomb tests and chernobyl, I imagine that this is a fine solid. I also reason that if the uranium dust can migrate all the way from Iraq to England then it will have to be a fine powder, so I am shocked that it did not remain in the air for long. What do you think of the graphs of cesium vs. time ?Cadmium 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Busby's work should be treated with some caution, from his web site (and an examination of his publication record in science journals) it does appear that he is strongly anti-nuclear. His input into the literature includes many letters to New Scientist in which he shares his views on matters of radioactivity. I think that he is not a balenced scientist, I think that we should exclude the above mentioned paper until someother scientist who is more likely to be NPOV can do similar work.Cadmium 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The results on uranium in air are so different to cesium (about three trustworthy sources give given graphs of Cs-137 concentration in air as a function of time in europe). The chernobyl cesium remained in the air for much longer than Busby has claimed that the uranium from the golf war did. I have found no comments in Busby's paper on this. If he has good reasons to believe that the uranium would behave so differently to cesium, then he should have included his reasoning in the paper. I do not know what the particle size in the fallout from the two different sources is, but this is a possible reason for a difference in behaviour. Yet in the paper this issue is not considered. This is a big problem with Busby's paper, which might be a sign of some greater and deeper set of faults in the work.Cadmium

'Bold text[[Media: == ==

====Response by James S.==

[edit]

We are both ambivalent about the article and the journal, and I agree that Americium 241 is a neutron activation product, not a fission product. However, the data displayed in the article is sourced to the U.K. government, through their new Freedom of Information Act. Shouldn't we wait for an official response before passing judgement? --James S. 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) == == ==]][reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Depleted_uranium_and_related_articles&oldid=1066122788"