Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Legal status in weapons

There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles.

Has anyone proposed one? LossIsNotMore 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly bans have been proposed. But since the main users of DU are France, US, and UK, all three of which are veto powers, they can obstruct any treaty from getting off the drawing board. Unless you can find a court which can rule against this new weapon under an earlier treaty (there are many candidates), the legal status will continue to be permissive. Clearly, because of the their direct influence on the lack of a treaty, any appeal by the US or UK as to the legality of these weapons is utterly specious.Goatchurch 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How typical of a liberal not to mention Russia.

ICBUW has drawn up a Draft Treaty for a ban on uranium weapons (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/13.html) - it is similar in form to the ICBL landmine treaty and will no doubt resemble the end result of the current Oslo process on cluster munitions. We are a few years behind the CMC but lobbying hard around the world. We've recently had our first domestic ban in Belgium - they are always the first with indiscriminate weapons:

On March the 7th, 2007, the Belgian Chamber Commission on National Defence voted unanimously in favour of banning the use of depleted uranium "inert ammunitions and armour plates on Belgian territory." Although Belgium isn’t a user of DU, it is the home of NATO and regularly has US DU shipments travelling through its port of Antwerp. (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/118.html)

Please can you update the page accordingly - I'm not a regular contributor.ICBUW 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)ICBUW

What about lead, tungsten, mercury? If one is going to ban DU on the basis of it being "toxic" or poisonous, then it would seem this standard would have to be applied universally. Most bullets are made of lead, which is approximately as toxic as depleted uranium, and tungsten can be harmful to the environment and human health as well. Mercury is used in electronic tilt switches, rectifiers and other materials. Surely this would be banned as well, even in tiny amounts?

I am curious to understand how one can justify the banning of banning of depleted uranium without also banning almost all materials that are somewhat toxic. The only material suitable for projectiles that is 100% nontoxic is bismuth, but it is much softer, more expensive and has less desirable characteristics.drbuzz0 26 July 2007

Lead is in most ways more toxic than DU. Bismuth is radioactive, but with an incredibly long halflife. So I guess if you make bullets out of Bismuth, people are then going to object that battlefields will then remain radioactive for even longer (;-> than they would with DU, which is sort of true.
The difference is that lead doesn't explode into a shower of sparks and dust, so it is much less likely to be inhaled or ingested. Starcare 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Lead does often melt on impact, and explode into a shower of molten metal, perhaps inside the victim. And DU is less toxic in other ways, hence its use in protective armour. But the point is that ammunition is designed to kill. The only solution to war is not to have wars. Claiming that war is acceptable is obscene. Trying to make war acceptable is immoral at best, and perhaps even insane. (This is not an attack on you or any other contributor, but a comment on both peace movements and pro-war movements generally, from a former draft resistor in the days of the Vietnam Moratorium.) Andrewa 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The question that's been going here for a while is whether inhaling uranium causes birth defects. It seems to me that it does. Lead doesn't have a similar affect off the battlefield. I agree with your comments about preventing war, but giving people more and more powerful weapons doesn't serve that end. Starcare 22:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting claim. Birth defects are an emotive topic, but of course they're also a valid concern. Breast shields made of soft lead metal were widely recommended by medical authorities to protect the nipples of nursing mothers in the 1940s, and many infants were poisoned as a result of this fiasco. After that I'd have expected both nursing and expectant mothers to avoid lead, and authorities to be even more anxious to avoid encouraging or allowing exposure for which they might be found liable. So I'm surprised that there's data available to substantiate the claim that lead doesn't have a similar effect off the battlefield.
Are you sure it isn't speculation? Look for statements like lead is not known to have any similar effect in your sources... it's not the same thing as lead is known not to have any similar effect, and the difference is important.
Agree about weapons, but you miss the point. The regulation of weaponry doesn't address the cause of peace either way, it just distracts attention from the real issues of mutual respect and justice. It's the easy way out, and like so many easy ways out, it doesn't work. Andrewa 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It's more than a claim, it's what the epidemiologists say (PMID 16124873). Given that wars have been fought with lead for centuries without excess birth defects in soldiers until the advent of chemical weapons, there's no comparison. An arms race, even a conventional one, has little to do with "mutual respect and justice." Starcare 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That reference is a study of extant literature, the sort of thing you should find as part of any scientific paper, but here it is the whole study. Its conclusion starts Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. Note that word possibility. It means we can't be sure it won't happen. Later they note the evidence supports plausibility, which means we don't know whether or not it's true, but we think we've made it believable. Such studies generate research grants in the current political climate, but it's not obvious what else they achieve. There's little justification for doing any genuine research in such fields. Without excess birth defects... Again, how would we know? Such records weren't even kept in those centuries. Someone is guessing, and then phrasing it in ways that encourage plausibility.
Agree that an arms race does nothing useful. But the debate over DU has had no impact on any arms race. Australia has simply switched to Tungsten penetrators, for example. The difference in price and effectiveness wasn't worth the political flak. These still kill and maime whoever gets in their way, be they General, conscript, or unborn bystander. Some suffer quickly, some slowly, some from known effects, some from unsuspected ones. I can't see any of these as preferable to the others. Even the Generals aren't the real villians. The real villians are the political types without whose personal ambitions very few shots would ever be fired. Andrewa 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I remember from Army cadet training a film that went Ammunition is designed to kill. It cannot distinguish between friend and foe. If I were in combat, I'd want to be firing the most effective bullets they could give me. Rules of war is an oxymoron to those actually looking down the barrels of the opposing guns. Andrewa 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If DU becomes standard, then everyone is going to want an isotope separation plant. Starcare 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a sarcastic comment? There's no significant advantage in using DU rather than natural Uranium in these weapons. DU is used because it's available as a waste product, which makes it cheaper. But the availability of this market for DU doesn't have a significant bearing on the economics of the enrichment plant. The cost of disposing of DU is insignificant compared to the costs of building and operating the plant, and the value of the enriched stream. Andrewa 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most health physicists

"Most experts in health physics consider it unlikely that depleted uranium has any connection with the Gulf War Syndrome if such an illness exists at all.[citation needed"

I am going to delete this until a citation is found. Puddytang 04:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this citation, from the Health Physics Society DU Fact Sheet: "A group of Gulf War veterans who have small DU fragments still in their bodies continue to be followed by government scientists to determine whether there will be long-term health effects. As of early 2005, only subtle but clinically insignificant changes in measures of kidney function have been observed. One common observation is a persistent elevation in the amount of uranium measured in the urine more than 10 years after exposure. This reflects the continued presence of DU in wound sites and its ongoing low-level mobilization and absorption to blood.

In summary, some minor health problems have been observed following exposure to DU, but ONLY with high levels of exposure. Exposures to airborne DU or to contaminated soil following military use are not known to cause any observable health or reproductive effects." Obviously the last sentence is the most direct and relevant, but I included more for completeness' sake. The entire document can be found here: HPS DU Fact Sheet.

I'd say the sentence should be put back in the article, especially since my quote agrees with every conversation I've ever had on the topic with any member of the Health Physics Society except one.--Hidesert 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Health Physics Society publications are not the same as "most experts in health physics." Secondly, exposures of metallic U(0) from shrapnel, which oxidizes almost entirely in vitro to U(IV) is not toxicologicaly the same as inhalation of U(VI) compounds. I wonder if anyone in the HPS understands that, required as they are to have training in radiation protection but not biochemistry or toxicology. Thirdly, nobody knows what the amount of absorption from combustion product inhalation exposure even is, because nobody has yet measured the amount of particulates smaller than a tenth of a micron, including the amount of uranium oxide gases, produced by combustion, since Carter and Stewart reported that the gases comprised half of the combustion product in 1970. The fact that only one member of the HPS has ever even called for such studies speaks volumes about how much they want to know the answer to the question. Finally, the reproductive toxicity of uranium exposure has been known at least since 1953, is well-documented in more than a dozen peer-reviewed medical journal articles, and there are no peer-reviewed medical or scientific publications which deny or cast any doubt on that fact. Could the reason that all HPS publications deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium exposure be that some of the past and present officials of the HPS are the same people who have certified to the U.S. D.o.D. and other agencies that uranium combustion product exposure is safe?
I will recommend that any non-peer-reviewed publication denying the reproductive toxicity of uranium be removed because of the large number of peer-reviewed publications which claim the opposite, and the fact that there are no peer-reviewed publications which agree. James S. 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't want to leave this standing unchallenged. The society in question seems to be *the* professional association for this branch of science and the DU sheet referenced above also briefly discusses DU inhalation which is pretty much as bad as breathing in regular uranium. TMLutas 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, several members of the HPS have specifically told me that their expertise if confined to radiation protection and not toxicology, which is the domain of industrial hygiene. None of the major IH organizations have any standards for uranium inhalation because it is so uncommon. James S. 04:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Used in improvised explosives?

Do Iraqi insurgents use abandoned DU slugs in their improvised explosives? James S. 12:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt some have been DU rounds used in IEDs just as a matter of statistics. After all, they've accidentally used Iraqi chemical weapons rounds so why not DU? TMLutas 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Health considerations section

I think that the "Health considerations" section needs some rewriting. This section is 1/3 of the article and the reader is left with the feeling that DU doesn't pose any significant threat to health. If this is so, who claims that (as stated in the introduction) possibly "depleted uranium is dangerous to human beings at the low quantities in which it could possibly be ingested from environmental contamination." and why?? I believe that either this section needs to be shortened or (better) to state the evidence which makes some experts believe that DU might be hazardous. 62.1.92.82 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DU is hazardous -- nobody disputes that the bullets are designed to be, and that inhaling the fumes is unhealthy. The question is how much, and whether the downside is worth the upside. I think tungsten is more cost-effective. We will eventually reach a point where people know how dangerous it is. It's a shame they haven't tried to figure out how dangerous it is yet. I think in twenty years, people are going to look back and wonder who would even suggest that DU munitions are reasonable weapons. Conventional military power is not as important as it once was.
that edit was signed at the time, don't know what happened to the sig, it will be there in the history somewhere. But in reply, it's also possible that they'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. DU seems to be far more dangerous politically than radiologically.
So far as the importance of conventional military power is concerned, that's easily said if you have a strong army. The citizens of Lebanon, having a few decades back been a peaceful and prosperous country that chose unarmed neutrality, now have a tragically different perspective. Andrewa 10:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I like this health considerations section. James S. 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Nuclear Engineer with Military Nuclear experience I can tell you that the hazards associated with Alpha-particle contamination are not due to ingestion but rather inhalation.

Therefore, the introduction should be re-written to show the following:

"while inhalation of alpha-emitting contamination is a proven hazard at any level, it remains debatable whether depleted uranium is dangerous to human beings at the low quantities in which it could possibly be ingested from environmental contamination."

Studies have shown that the impact of depleted uranium projectiles at high velocities can convert up to 70% of the ordinance into a fine particulate, breathable, dust. In addition, due to its pyrophoricity at 650' Centigrade, the uranium metal is converted into a ceramic dust which is highly insolubile, making it much more difficult for the body to remove once internal contamination has occurred."

Reference: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Medical-Effects-Mar99.htm Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium Croatian Medical Journal v.40, n.1, Mar99 Asaf Durakoviæ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington D.C., USA

Fascinating James! So you are a nuclear engineer now! How you get around. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to be a nuclear engineer to know that things that emit alpha particles are not that dangerous. The danger from DU is due to being a heavy metal, not because it emits radiation. Jtrainor 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Inhaled alpha sources are still pretty bad -- when the sources are adjacent to living tissue, they're worse than the same energy of gammas. Starcare 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
True about the comparison to gamma, but pretty bad compared to what? U-238 has a very long halflife, so there aren't many decays. Comparisons to more active inhaled alpha emitters aren't all that helpful... depending a bit on what you think of the LNTH. Andrewa 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything is relative to exposure of course, but on a per-Becquerel basis, uranium and radon are the worst of the radionuclides to inhale.[1] Clerkbird 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this section needs to be changed. Quote from the article: "Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body." Thats just so totally wrong. Humans do need to breath dont they? So the fact that people breath and that way DU finds its way (a very easy way!) into the body of the person, doesnt count or what? Noone speaks about not yet used bullets and stuff like that, we talk about used bullets, tiny particles of DU in the air in an area where they used those ammunitions. If it wouldnt be dangerous then why do people have to wear an abc-mask at all? Is it cause they know that they could breath in particles of DU? and get lung-cancer and other serious health issues that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.253.156 (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are some things from the James S. health considerations section linked above which are sourced well enough, and I would like to see in the article. ←BenB4 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

* Since the primary health consideration with DU is internal rather than external, this section quite clearly needs to describe some ways in which DU can enter the body. I've added some of this material based on a DoD website. Starkrm please attempt to justify your deletions of this material. Perhaps you believe it belongs in another section - I don't know. But imho simply deleting it is completely unjustified. Dlabtot 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement "When uranium burns it has no magical property that causes it to only be inhaled by members of the military. Civilians are also often exposed." My use of the word military in creating that section referred to the source of the DU.
As far as your comments here - I did not remove the methods in which DU can enter the body. I deleted the portions of your comments that were unrelated to the reference you presented. The statement "To address these health risks..." assumes there is a health risk, which is not presented on the DoD web site. In fact the DoD web site says the opposite in the reference I used. The statement "No similar program exists for civilian victims of depleted uranium exposure." assumes there are "victims" which would also assume a health risk, and a crime, which is not shown by your DoD reference. Also your reference does not even address this issue. I was sticking to the facts of DU. Starkrm 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the Department of Defense does in fact have a program that addresses the health risks of exposure to DU (despite the fact that they deny that risk exists). No amount of semantic hairsplitting will change this reality. Cheers. Dlabtot 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
They don't "deny" anything. The DoD program is there because people have made the accusation and they are good enough to respond to the concerns, but, study after study has found no link between DU and the health problems some are experiencing. Starkrm 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting viewpoint. Wrong, but interesting. I look forward to working together with you on the article in the future. Dlabtot 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
James, I cannot even begin to explain just how funny it is to see you talk to yourself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I havn't actually been on this page in months and months, but I'm going to tell you to a) follow WP:CIVIL and b) if you think I'm a sock, either put up or shut up. WP:ANI exists for a reason. Jtrainor 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Depleted Uranium" is simply Uranium-238

Depleted Uranium is 238U (99.27% by mass), 235U (0.72%) and 234U (0.0054%). Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

There has been a mix-up; those are the figures for natural uranium. That source actually gives depleted uranium as 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass, but I would expect the true composition to depend on who made it. Man with two legs 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually DU is U with the U-235 isotope removed. And it isn't simple. Starkrm 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The U-235 isotope will not be entirely removed in practice. Man with two legs 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Right. Nobody makes DU to produce DU - it's always the tailings, the processed Uranium coming out of an enrichment plant which is separating out the U-235 to produce enriched U for reactors or whatnot. The economics of raw ore price and how much the plant costs to operate change what amount of U-235 is left in by that plant... the "typical" amount is half to a third of the original U-235 quantity present, but that varies widely. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The U-234 is also removed from DU and concentrated in the enriched stream, quite accidentally but a bit more effectively than the U-235 is in both GD and centrifuge plants. This doesn't have a great effect on the nuclear properties of the enriched stream, but it's one reason DU has so little radioactivity. Andrewa 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

source: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/34.html

In the process, physicists use the names 'natural', 'enriched' and 'depleted' uranium. These names refer to different compositions of uranium. Natural uranium consists of 0.7% U235 and 99.3 % U238. In enriched uranium the concentration of U235 is increased above natural levels, while the concentration of U235 in depleted uranium is decreased. This is the origin of the term 'depleted uranium'. In the US, depleted uranium must to contain officially less than 0.3% U235.

'Natural' uranium

The 'natural' ratio of isotopes is found in ore, yellowcake as well as hex. These substances are therefore called 'natural' uranium. This can be confusing because yellowcake and hex are not found in nature at all. It can also be misleading. It is often stated that DU is only 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. This only holds true for purified uranium. DU is some thousand times more radioactive than the initial ore or uranium mineral (depending on the grade of the ore). One also hears that DU has the same chemical properties as natural uranium. Again, this only holds true for purified uranium. Processed uranium, wether natural or depleted, is far more chemically reactive than the initial 'naturally' occurring uranium mineral.

This is misleading - DU is uranium. Natural ore contains many elements - if you remove the uranium and then take that uranium and produce an enriched and a depleted product the depleted product is 60% less radioactive by mass than natural uranium. The chemical properties of uranium in the body are the same. What you are referring to is concentration. Starkrm (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This argument seems very literal and simple-minded since DU as used in weaponry might have different characteristics than the naturally-occurring uranium for which toxicity has mostly been tested. First, DU in the weaponry context is being combined with other materials to make these projectiles. Second, as noted in the article DU is both pyrophorric (reacts with humid air in small fragments by bursting into flame) and is self sharpening. It seems as though projectiles would have to shed many small particles on impact to achieve a self-sharpening effect. Though I don't know a lot of chemistry, it seems as though the pyrophorric effect indicates some kind of chemical reaction that may be changing the chemical structure of the material. Also from the little I know, particle size and any modified chemical state could both be very relevant factors for toxicity and health effects in humans. I'd rather see research from physicians who have duplicated the chemical composition and particle sizes of these weapons as they exist in real life in the field rather than relying on a simplistic "uranium is uranium" argument which completely discounts all factors but simple chemical composition of a raw material. That assessment may or may not have that much in common with the reality of the material as it is actually encountered. It's fine for a chemist to say "uranium is uranium" but seems like a rather weak argument for the context in which most people are concerned about this material.

As for the "no evidence" claim, I think it might just as easily be applied to the numerous Uranium studies which haven't tested the same combination of elements and particle sizes that actually exist in a field setting after the weaponry has been used.

Honestly, I have no idea who is right in this controversy, but I'm very disappointed in the need of people on all sides to prove they're right rather than to make any attempt to investigate the situation as it actually exists is in any objective way. I guess too many powerful interests are involved. As far as motivations, it seems like there are powerful motivations on both sides of the argument. There are huge cost and liability issues if DU is proven to be extremely hazardous to human health. As repeatedly pointed out in the article there are also political reasons to exaggerate (or minimize) the harm being done. If political issues are brought up, it would only be fair to mention that there are strong political interests on both sides, not only on the side that claims that DU is dangerous.Sbfisher (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important to point out that DU isn't unique in being pyrophorric. Uranium in general is pyrophorric. Particle size isn't an element of most epidemiology studies since it is the molecular (celular) interactions that are of importance to biological effects. The body doesn't react differently to Uranium of different isotopes, although one editor has suggested that the process rate is different for different isotopes, but the mechanism is still the same. I'm personally not politically motivated one whit, but I am motivated by good science. I'm still of the mindset that extraordinary claims about what Uranium can do to the human body need to be supported by multiple high quality references. Starkrm (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep talking about an 'extraordinary claim'? What is the extraordinary claim to which you are refering? Where does it appear in this article? When was it put into the article? Who put it there? Absent coherent answers to these questions, you appear to be countering a strawman of your own invention. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't dificult to look up the history of this article and the debates about the specific ill-health effects that are attributed to DU without any hard evidence. My contention is that if someone wishes to add material to the article that suggest otherwise, that they provide multiple high quality references. I'm standing by the science that Depleted uranium is Uranium. I've explained this to you multiple times. I'm sorry you don't understand the science behind this position, but I'm tiring of explaining the same point to you over and over again. Please stop asking me the same question that I have already answered. Starkrm (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've already answered these questions, could you please point out where, so that I can read the answers? I'm sorry that you insist on ascribing viewpoints to me that I do not hold, but no matter how many times you attempt to insult me by claiming that I "don't understand", it won't change the fact that I do not in fact disagree with you about "the science behind" your position. The only area of disagreement we have is how this Wikipedia article should address and inform the reader about the controversy over the use of DU - a controversy which does in fact exist. If you could just make the slightest, tiniest effort to assume good faith, stop arguing, and instead engage in a dialogue, we might be able to get somewhere. Dlabtot (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Density

The density is 18.9 g/cm3 according to this source so it denser than lead. 84.173.249.205 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Problems

As I read this article, I have my doubts. Not many references are in the article. Some of the links to references are dead links or wrong. Some of the claims seem a bit difficult or POV. Does this stuff really spontaneously combust? It has a reduced level of radioactive material from natural uranium. How does it compare with pitchblend? How does it compare with being a stewardess or living in Denver? How does it compare with being downwind from a coal-fired nuclear plant? How often does it aerosolize and form a dangerous dust? Does the dust stay in suspension? How reliable are these tests of laboratory toxicity in animals? The use of the word nuclear in the article in a few places is suspect. I am not sure what to do, since villainizing depleted uranium is an important part of certain political agendas.

I think we need a more balanced and well-referenced article here.--Filll 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

:Uranium is indeed pyrophoric, but the source link seems to have gone stale. This is apparently its new location. As for comparisons, they would depend on how much you inhale, wouldn't they? The James S. Health considerations section has some passages which answer some of your other questions.

I want to know why people think that complaining about depleted uranium is part of a political agenda. Granted, opinions are likely to line up along the spectrum of the importance one ascribes to conventional military might, but why would there be other political motives? How is being opposed to depleted uranium exposure any different than being opposed to chromium exposure, a la Erin Brokovich? ←BenB4 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into it. Things always get messier when politics is involved. The problem with DU is that it is linked with the military and military operations, including some unpopular wars. As a result, people in the political sphere even will sometimes characterize it inaccurately as a "nuclear" weapon. --Filll 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would advise that you read the past discussions on this topic involving James S. A number of Chemistry PhD’s and other science/engineering types stepped in and showed James’ contributions to be gross distortions and overexaggerations of the cited material. Also, advocating for a banded user can be a losing proposition. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read most of the archives, skimmed most of the pages in the arbitration, and slogged through the 2005-6 page history. One thing I am not seeing is a dispute about the interpretation of health effects sources. There were a lot of such accusations concerning combustion products and whether they were a gas or an aerosol, but I don't see any on the health effects. Are there any? For the health effects, all I see is dueling sources, with reliable sources contradicting each other. The sources for the health effects are often clickable so it is immediately obvious what they say. And I am aware that WP:BAN says action on behalf of a banned user is prohibited. It does not prohibit independent action. ←BenB4 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouls suggest you review the material again, james was know for his "novel" interpretation of cited material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything about misinterpreting health/medical literature references, just chemistry. You were involved at the time; can you remember a specific example of the former? ←BenB4 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[2]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but in the next section he links the same claim to [3] which is about humans, not mice. ←BenB4 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Brugge is an anti-DU activist. The bulk of scientific studies say that while high levels of DU have negative effects on animals, there is little to indicate that the exposure levels most commonly seen can be linked to significant health effects. This is the conclusion of nearly ever y study on the topic, and should be the dominant POV of the article, as it is the dominant POV of the literature. For example, the Royal Society of Medicine addresses most of the points in the article:
Reproduction
Studies on the reproductive health of workers in the nuclear industry, and of survivors of the atomic bombs, show little evidence of decreased fertility, or of an increased incidence of miscarriages or birth defects (Otake et al 1990; Doyle et al 2000).
Dust Inhalation:
Large inhalation intakes of DU particles may result in short-term respiratory effects, as would a large intake of any dust, but long-term respiratory effects are not expected, except perhaps for the most heavily exposed soldiers, under worst-case assumptions, where some fibrosis of the lung may occur from radiation effects, in addition to an increased risk of lung cancer that was discussed in Part I of the report.
On Immune Function:
Effects on immune function are unlikely to be significant and would not be expected to lead to increased susceptibility to infection.
On civilian exposure:
Those returning to live in an area where military action took place would be exposed to relatively low levels of uranium by inhalation and by ingestion. Although these intakes would increase the overall exposure to uranium, and may in some cases slightly increase kidney uranium concentrations, except in exceptional circumstances they would not be expected to be lead to any adverse effects on kidney function.
Adults and children returning to live in areas where DU munitions were deployed will be chronically exposed to slightly elevated levels of uranium, by inhalation of DU particles from resuspended soil and by ingestion of contaminated food and water. … Such levels might be expected to result in some kidney dysfunction but no effects have so far been reported.
This is typical of studies from the DOD, WHO, AMA and other governmental agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, why is Brugge an activist, and even if he was, what difference does that make? Secondly, why do results from "workers in the nuclear industry, and of survivors of the atomic bombs" apply to those exposed to DU? All the other sections refer to DU specifically, and you can't deny that there has been an increase in soldier and civilian birth defects. ←BenB4 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Brugge is an activist, and it considering that he is far outside consensus on this, places him in WP:FRINGE territory.

Uranium, depleted or not, has the same chemical properties and behaves the same way.

Of course I can deny that there has been an increase in soldier and civilian birth defects.

SANDIA REPORT An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case Study

A review in this study also found that veteran medical statistics do not support assertions of significant increases in cancers for DU-exposed veterans and that the statistics do not support assertions of significant increase in birth defects for their progeny.
Although in utero effects on the fetus (such as mental impairment) have been found to be statistically significant when pregnant women receive high radiation doses, no clear evidence of radiation-induced genetic birth defects has been observed in humans at any radiation exposure level. The probable reason radiation-induced genetic birth defects have not been observed in humans is that any increase in birth defects from radiation is too small to be detected relative to the spontaneous induction of birth defects. Thus, observation of genetic birth defects from DU exposure is extremely unlikely.

State Department of Health, Jackson Mississippi

The Department of Veterans' Affairs, Jackson, Mississippi, and the Mississippi State Department of Health conducted a collaborative investigation of an apparent increase in the numbers of birth defects and other health problems among children born to veterans of two Mississippi National Guard units who had served in the Persian Gulf War. The medical records of all children conceived by and born to veterans of the two units after deployment were reviewed; observed numbers of birth defects and other health problems were compared with expected numbers using rates from birth defect surveillance systems and previous surveys. The total number of all types of birth defects was not greater than expected, but whether the number of specific birth defects was greater than expected could not be determined. The frequency of premature birth, low birth weight, and other health problems appeared similar to that in the general population.

Walter Reed

During the study period, 33,998 infants were born to Gulf War veterans and 41,463 to non-deployed veterans at military hospitals. The overall risk of any birth defect was 7.45 percent, and the risk of severe birth defects was 1.85 percent. These rates are similar to those reported in civilian populations. In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis finds no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.

IAEA:

lt is not known if exposure to uranium has effects on the development of the human fetus. There have been reports of birth defects and an increase in fetal deaths in animals fed with very high doses of uranium in drinking water. In an experiment with pregnant animals, only a very small amount (0.03%) of the injected uranium reached the fetus. Even less uranium is likely to reach the fetus in mothers exposed to uranium through inhalation and ingestion. There are no available data of measurements of uranium in breast milk. Because of its chemical properties, it is unlikely that uranium would concentrate in breast milk.
The effect of exposure to uranium on the reproductive system is not known. Very high doses of uranium have caused a reduction in sperm counts in some experiments with laboratory animals, but the majority of studies have shown no effects.

IAEA Study

Since poor solubility of uranium compounds and lack of information on speciation precludes the use of radioecological models for exposure assessment, biomonitoring has to be used for assessing exposed persons. Urine, feces, hair and nails record recent exposures to DU. With the exception of crews of military vehicles having been hit by DU penetrators, no body burdens above the range of values for natural uranium have been found. Therefore, observable health effects are not expected and residual cancer risk estimates have to be based on theoretical considerations. They appear to be very minor for all post-conflict situations, i.e. a fraction of those expected from natural radiation.

UK Ministry of Defense

We conclude that, although there is the potential for uranium exposures to cause renal damage or lung cancer, the risk of harm following depleted uranium exposure in military settings seems to be low.

More? I could fill pages and pages on Wikipedia with material like this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you start with the citations for those quotes, please? It's impossible to tell which are peer-reviewed, or when they were published. And as for Brugge, what the heck to you mean by this? Having your paper cited on an activist web site does not make you an activist. ←BenB4 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I don't deny anything. I just am disappointed to see sort of sloppy scholarship here, a lack of proper citations and references, lousy POV wording and other hallmarks of a crappy article.--Filll 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. I was thinking about a cleanup, but am afraid that the whole thing will explode again. WP:NPOV requires that both sides should be represented, and there are recent, reliable sources that were omitted here. Maybe we can rework it if we post some proposed changes here on talk and discuss them first. ←BenB4 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means we don’t over represent WP:FRINGE material and viewpoints (as the article currently does). So I suppose its going to breakdown to probably 85%-15%. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." There are a plurality of peer-reviewed sources on each side of this issue. ←BenB4 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If there are so many peer-reviewed sources, why are they not in the article, and why does the article come across as a completely biased confused POV tract?--Filll 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
References 19-24 are the only peer-reviewed sources in the whole article, pertinent to the health effects, and only the last one has anything more than a numbered link in the footnote text. To answer your "why" question, this article has been the subject of several protracted long-running edit wars. ←BenB4 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously there was terrible edit-warring here in the past. I can see some of the scars on this talk page and in the article itself. It is unfortunate that we are left with this burned-out ruin. I wonder if we can fix it, or should we just give up and leave it as a disaster?--Filll 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, until the next edit war comes around. But it's worth it because that's the only way frequently contested articles make it into respectability (Scientology comes to mind.) There is a lot of bullcrap on both sides, with the anti-DU people saying it's worse than Hiroshima and the pro-DU people saying it can't cause any harm. The peer-reviewed sources are all in between, maybe we could agree on a ground rule to only use peer reviewed sources? Even the US government peer-reviewed sources warn of dangers. ←BenB4 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Of course all ground-up heavy metals are bad to inhale. And ground-up metals in suspension can ignite under some conditions. And of course, even alpha particles can be dangerous under some circumstances. But it can also be dangerous to live in Denver or Santa Fe. It can be dangerous to have a job as an airline pilot (because of the exposure to radiation). The exposure to radiation downwind of a coal-fired plant is dangerous. And so on and so forth. But for an article like this, we need to have some sort of balance and way to evaluate these statements and claims.--Filll 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I think we should document the minority views as well as the dominant scientifically-verifiable information on DU. We need references for all of it in the best possible sources. This will make this a far more valuable article. We should make it clear in the article which view is which, and what the support is for both of them, and where the controversy exists.--Filll 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On reference 19: The text states “its proven mutagenicity”, the source states: Comparison of the different acute UO2 inhalations showed that the genotoxic effect appeared only at the highest tested dose ... all in rats. This is typical of the references that James inserted. He takes a grain of truth in the source, and then attempts to draw an argument, one that none of the sources touch on, from them.

This is not an issue of pro and anti DU (whatever that means). A summary of the peer review sources indicates that while high doses of DU have been found to harmful in lab animals (rats and rabbits) there is no epidemiological link between real world measured exposure levels (both acute and chronic) and these same effects. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a very good representation of the article, you've taken that completely out of context. Two sentences later: "And at the same cumulative dose as AcUO2-3, given as 12 lower doses, DNA damage in RepUO2 group was induced in BAL cells at all days post-exposure tested." And the abstract says: "Our results show that exposure to DU by inhalation resulted in DNA strand breaks in broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) cells and in increase of inflammatory cytokine expression and production of hydroperoxides in lung tissue suggesting that the DNA damage was in part a consequence of the inflammatory processes and oxidative stress." The first few google hits on "depleted.uranium mutagenicity" support the statement.
This is why I'm hesitant to jump in here. As you probably know, I've been watching Gulf War and while I don't approve of using sockpuppets to avoid a block, I am pretty sure that there is no sign of any "scientific consensus" on this matter. ←BenB4 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As it now stands, this article just sort of reeks. Few references for any of its claims. And now it appears that the references do not back up the claims made. Misleading wording. No appropriate caveats or links to material to help understand it. I would like to see, if we can avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, possibly here and/or in subsiduary daughter articles, discussion of things like:
  • comparison of radiation from DU and other substances, both natural and processed by humans, and claims of activists and their rebuttal by other sources so we can understand that part of the dispute
  • discussion of how some activists inaccurately portray DU as a "nuclear weapon" and rebuttal by other sources
  • comparison of pyrophoricity of DU and other metals and under what conditions this is true. I would like the anti-DU activist claims that this pyrophoricity is the property of DU that leads to its value in weaponry be described, as well as rebuttals in other sources
  • discussion of toxicity of the DU, and comparison with other metal toxicity when aerosolized, and in other forms. I would like to see claims and counter-claims by anti-DU activists and others. Lets expose the debate to the light of proper academic scrutiny here, with references and citations, as is done in other controversial articles on WP.
  • discussion of aerosolization of DU, its temporal duration, and claims of anti-DU activists and their rebuttal by other sources.
This approach does not cover up the anti-DU claims, but puts them in context. It helps people to understand the claims of the anti-DU activists, but also to evaluate those claims in some sort of framework. I might have missed some of the outrageous claims that the anti-DU activists make, since I am not an expert in this area, but I have listed just those that come immediately to my mind which seem highly doubtful to me, or misleading if not considered in the light or more complete and detailed information and comparisons.--Filll 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
To briefly address your points, I don't think the pyrophoricity is controversial -- the link to the pictured 30 mm A-10 rounds explains that, and if you google around the military sources say the same thing, more than half of it burns when it hits armor. I don't think activists' or apologists' statements are worth including, but if we include criticism of the absurd claims on one side then we should include them from the other, including claims that DU is harmless which are not hard to find. I don't know if you're going to be able to find comparisons of pyrophoricity or toxicity or the duration it's airborne. My brief googling suggests that those factors are "not well studied" (e.g., this interesting NATO report -- so if it's not dangerous, why is NATO trying to come up with ways to defend against terrorist inhalation attacks?) ←BenB4 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, do present a source that claims that "DU is harmless". The following from the IAEA: "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts" would seem to indicate the broadest concensus on the issue. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There's this from the section of Gulf War you've been editing. ←BenB4 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who is editing these kinds of articles should know that the FAS is an extremely biased source and not a WP:RS source at all. One might as well use Answers in Genesis as a reliable source when working on the evolution article. And when metal is aerosolized, it can combust, even spontaneously. We did experiments on this in the laboratory when I was in high school. This is not rocket science here. My gosh. Even certain kinds of grain in grain elevators can spontaneously combust!
I think since this is a controversy, it has to be addressed as a controversy. It obviously has some political aspects. This should be revealed. It might very well have some real scientific controversies and unsettled science. This should be revealed as well. Why hide it?
Coal dust when inhaled can cause histoplasmosis. So can bat guana (feces), when aerosolized. Concrete dust and other junk that was aerosolized when the world trade center collapsed has caused the death and sickness of many of the emergency workers. I personally developed a chronic lung problem from breathing in smoke particles from a forrest fire that required serious medical treatment and pharmaceuticals. There are suggestions that aerosolized bits of rubber from tires can be hazardous to those living along freeways. Aerosolized bits of lead have been known to be dangerous for a long long time. Even lead compounds are dangerous, so we have taken them out of our gasoline. Mercury compounds that used to be a mainstay of medicines and preservatives have been largely replaced.
Anything that can be aerosolized and introduced in the environment is suspect. If it is radioactive, or even mildly radioactive, so much the better. Terrorist attacks rely more on creating fear and terror, and not necessarily on their true value as weapons that kill. A dirty bomb would be of this nature; more useful for disruption than for any other purpose. But it would be effective at causing turmoil, and we would have to clean up a big mess like we did after the Anthrax attacks. So of course, NATO and other organizations should consider these sorts of possibilities and make plans for them.--Filll 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is FAS biased? Here are some quotes from .mil sites:
  • "Offering speed, mass, and natural pyrophoric attributes that enhance incendiary effects, DU rounds perform exceptionally well against tanks and other armored vehicles."[4]
  • "Depleted uranium is extremely pyrophoric (it will ignite spontaneously). Additionally DU will emit sparks when scratched or struck with steel."[5]
Google is your friend. ←BenB4 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess you never heard of a flint and steel for starting a fire? Lots of metals will ignite under the right conditions. Certainly with the energy of impact, lots of things will ignite when aerosolize.--Filll 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Metal doesn't turn to aerosol when it hits something, the aerosol comes from the metal burning. ←BenB4 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another USAF/NATO report

There is a ton of good stuff in the directory from the NATO report I linked above. Here's another one from 2005: "Although there are no conclusive epidemiological data correlating depleted uranium exposure to specific health effects, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. Until issues of concern are resolved with further research, the use of depleted uranium by the military will continue to be controversial." ←BenB4 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So we present both the political and the scientific aspects of the controversy, with references on both sides. What are you afraid of? What are you trying to hide? This does not serve the readership well.--Filll 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing, there are not multiple sides of the scientific aspects of this. Nearly every study concedes that while there is evidence from lab animals that DU may cause X,Y, and Z, there are no coresponding human studies that have obseverd this. Or to quote the USAF/NATO report:
Since internalization of uranium in any form will result in a combined chemical and radiation exposure, there exists the potential for subtle differences in health effects between DU and uranium. Recent developments incell biology technology and understanding are providing more sensitive approaches towards understanding those differences (see [Miller 2001]). Although it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that mod-erate exposures to either DU or uranium present a significant toxicological threat, the new information could help improve current risk assessments of DU exposure
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we try to hide all the pseudoscientists completely, they will just become more frantic to edit war. We should put the pseudoscientists here with their references, and then present the scientific rebuttal. If there are real scientists that have contrary opinions, put them here too. If there are political activists, put their claims and misrepresentations here. If there are rebuttals, put them here. I wonder if an article like Depleted uranium controversy might be a good daughter article, and we put a lot of that material in there.--Filll 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it misght be a good idea to scrap the entire health effect section and start anew on a temp. Talk:Depleted uranium/temp health section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave it alone or change it incrementally. Your edit wasn't "scrapping" the health section, it looks like you took out the things you didn't like. ←BenB4 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course I took out the stuff I did not like, that was the idea. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe what we should do is take a section of a time out, and put them in a sandbox, and work on them, and then replace the corresponding article section when we are reasonably happy with the replacement section.--Filll 19:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to copying sections, but I don't think they should be blanked or biased in the article in the mean time. ←BenB4 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If the sections are obviously wrong, there is no need to leave them as is of the correction is simple. Some of them are so bad, its a disservice to leave them as is; example:
Article Section as used
Scientific documents produced by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute write of the "numerous unanswered questions about its [of DU] long term health effects"
Now for the whole quote:
The use of depleted uranium in armor-penetrating munitions remains a source of controversy because of the numerous unanswered questions about its long-term health effects. Although there are no conclusive epidemi-ological data correlating depleted uranium exposure to specific health effects, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.
Article Section as used
state that "moderate exposure to either DU or uranium presents a significant toxicological threat"
Now for the whole quote:
Although it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that moderate exposures to either DU or uranium present a significant toxicological threat
There is no way that this material can stand as is without being corrected, or tagged as factually wrong, I would opt for the former, and work on additional issues in the draft. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? If it's doubtful that future findings will alter the current view, what is the problem with stating that view? Those are fine. ←BenB4 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Go back and read the old version of the article because it morphs "Although it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that moderate exposures to either DU or uranium present a significant toxicological threat" into Scientific documents produced by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute... state that "moderate exposure to either DU or uranium presents a significant toxicological threat".
Its a clear distortion of a source and you dont see any problem with that? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If someone says it's doubtful that future findings will alter the view that the world is round, that means they believe it is. That is not a distortion. ←BenB4 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, but the text currently does not mention the "it's doubtful that future findings will alter the view" and only includes part of the second.
In the article as it exists now: Scientific documents produced by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute write of the "numerous unanswered questions about its [of DU] long term health effects", state that "moderate exposure to either DU or uranium presents a significant toxicological threat"
Now from the source: Although it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that moderate exposures to either DU or uranium present a significant toxicological threat
Leaving out the first portion completely distorts the second. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. Unless I am missing something, I think I perceive a problem here.--Filll 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a tiny one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand. What if the article said, "It is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that moderate exposures to either DU or uranium present a significant toxicological threat." Would that be acceptable? ←BenB4 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It did at one point yesterday [6] along with the Aussie report. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no, the words "doubtful", "future findings", and "moderate exposures" do not appear in any of yesterday's versions. ←BenB4 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read the link I put up again which states: Studies by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute have concluded that even though it was unlikely that future studies will alter the view that moderate exposures to either depleted uranium or uranium present a significant toxicological threat, the research was still useful to quantify risk exposure.

UK adjudication

Here's an interesting fact that made its way out of the article some months ago:

American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.(ref>Williams, M. (February 9, 2004) "First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim," The Herald Online, (Edinburgh: Herald Newspapers, Ltd.)</ref>(ref>Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (Spring, 2004) "MoD Forced to Pay Pension for DU Contamination," CADU News 17</ref>

I haven't bothered to track down the edit summary where it was removed. Are those sources reliable? I find it difficult to believe that those news stories would be forged, and this is certainly pertinent. Also, the Dr Schott stuff it mentions used to be in the article, too. ←BenB4 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, these particular sources are not reliable. Material like this should be taken from primary sources, not filtered through secondary entities. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, Google News has a new "archive" feature, without which I would not have been able to find these:

Those are surely reliable. ←BenB4 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats even more reliable are the studies that they cite. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Which are you referring to? ←BenB4 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Goal

I propose that we copy the sections, one at a time, to a sandbox, then edit them there, and then replace the old section with an updated section, which will have more references, and give a more balanced view of this subject. As it reads now, this article is more like some hysterical left wing tract than an encyclopedia dealing with a serious subject with scientific and medical implications.--Filll 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and I propose that we also devote alternating paragraphs for pro and con on the controversial issues, and use only peer-reviewed sources on issues where peer-reviewed sources are available. ←BenB4 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is already one up with a first rough draft. And if we only use peer reviewed source, I am fine like that. That should bring the article in line with the 85-15 ratio I had mentioned earlier. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Are we going to take it section-by-section or not? For this 85-15 thing, is that your own estimate or is there a source for it? If you try PubMed with "depleted uranium" it doesn't look like anything is as conclusive as you've been suggesting with your edits. For example, you changed the lead from:
"U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals, especially to the reproductive system and fetus development, causing reduced fertility, miscarriages and fetus malformations. It remains debatable whether depleted uranium is dangerous to human beings at the low quantities in which it could possibly be ingested from environmental contamination."
to:
"U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals, however the low quantities in which it enters the environment means that it does not pose a significant toxicological threat."
Where is the source for that? Also, and this pertains to your Gulf War edits, too, WP:RS#Claims of consensus says if you say there is a consensus, you have to have a very reliable source saying there is a consensus and not just a single non-peer reviewed source agreeing with your position. ←BenB4 08:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sandia Study: Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.[ http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/depleted-uranium.html] ATSDR: No definitive evidence has been found in epidemiologic studies that links human deaths to uranium exposure.[7]

Rand: No increase in overall deaths has been observed as a result of exposure to natural uranium in several epidemiological studies. The literature review paid close attention to the ongoing study of a group of GulfWar Veterans who received the highest exposure to DU. Those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, but researchers report neither adverse renal effects attributable to DU nor any adverse health effects related to DU radiation.[8]

Another Rand Study: There has been extensive distortion in the media and on the Internet concerning the effects of DU, but the facts do not warrant such scare tactics. Sound, objective research by RAND, the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences has shown that exposure to DU does not produce any medically detectable effects. The author concludes that the full and unbiased presentation of the facts to governments around the world has resulted in the continued use of DU — even in the face of concerted actions by some to distort the facts and media often more interested in shock value than in presenting the truth. [9]

IAEA: Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts. The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity. It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), very large amounts of DU dust would have to be inhaled to cause lung cancer from radio toxicity. Risks of other radiation-induced cancers, including leukemia, are considered to be very much lower still. [10]

I do not want to see this article locked down in debate for the next God knows how long. A temp page was made, no one edited it ... OK .. time to move the material over. Make your specific changes to article, and please stop rolling over my edits. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should try again to do this section by section in a sandbox. Want me to try to organize it if you are having trouble?--Filll 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So which of those reports you cite are peer reviewed? None! And what do the peer reviewed papers state? That the question is still inconclusive! Why do you think that it is even barely reasonable to use non-peer reviewed opinions as superior? ←BenB4 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They are all peer reviewed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
By whom? Peer-reviewed means subject to the review of independent editorial reviewers, usually in a journal. Those reports are all in-house produced. ←BenB4 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

radiation dose

In section "Health considerations", subsection "Radiological hazards" there is a sentence "According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass." Could somebody put a reference for that of a {{citation needed}} template? I can't because I don't have an account. Thanks. --78.0.67.6 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

I asked User:Deskana, an admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser, to review my protecting this article. He is also familiar with many aspects of this case, including the RFCU and SSP. He agrees protecting the article was approrpiate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my position. I'm not 100% familiar with all the history associated with this article but I do know that my attempts at editing tried to be towards rational science with an eye on fairness and balance. I seem to have been pointed at as a sock puppet seemingly without any regard to the content of my edits. What concerns me the most is that my edits were being reverted by the same editor without discussion and without explanation. I understand their concern but it isn't very fun to have your work reverted without an explanation other than something on the order of "Nice try, James." I am familiar with James Salsman from my participation on the email list server RadSafe and I know what fight is being fought here. I have been a health physicist for about seven years since finishing a Masters degree in physics, and I currently work for an agreement state program as a regulator. I am not James Salsman and I do not in any way support his troublesome opinions on radiological issues, especially depleted uranium. I say this in an attempt to assuage User:TDC who seems convinced that he knows who I am and what I am about. The goal here should be an excellent, encyclopedic article on depleted uranium.
Ronald L. Kathren, A past president of the Health Physics Society and the American Academy of Health Physics stated: "That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare and, as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge in the process, we should not squander our valuable and limited energies, resources and time, traveling down a road that has already been well traveled and which has already shown us that uranium, either by itself or in combination with other materials, is almost certainly not the culprit. Rather we should put politics and political correctness, personal agendas, media coverage, and posturing aside and instead focus on scientifically determining what is in fact the cause of these illnesses. This would provide a true benefit to mankind; pointing accusing fingers at depleted uranium in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is clearly wrong and counterproductive." [11]
An attitude like what is stated by Mr. Kathren is what drives me and it is also what should drive us here. IMO, of course.Starkrm 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious, if you read WP:NPOV that Mr. Kathren's viewpoint should be included in the article. As should the viewpoints of those who disagree with him, if those viewpoints have been published in verifiable reliable sources. Dlabtot 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected this article as the RFCU is over. Four socks were discovered (Becongito, Squee23, CME94, Publicola). Per this RFCU, Dlabtot and Starkrm are NOT socks. Everyone please work things out on the talk page vice edit warring over the article, as I will not hesitate to protect it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is in reality debate about the health risks of DU

Shouldn't the article reflect that reality? For instance, this study concludes: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." What posible justification under WP:FIVE could there be for deleting this? Dlabtot 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Doug Brugge is primarily an anti-DU activist. There are dozens of studies (just review the talk page) on the effects of DU on humans, and they all conclude that there is no demonstrable health risk in humans of low or moderate exposure levels. Review the talk page, because its all right there. WP:WEIGHT would preclude including http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1242351 this study] in the intro because out of the dozens of reports cited, it certainly is the lone wolf with its conclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page is not to debate the health risks of DU. You may be right about the health risks of DU - but right or wrong, your opinion on the matter is completely and totally irrelevant.
Could you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that states that the viewpoints of 'activists' should not be represented in Wikipedia?
It is funny that you should cite WP:WEIGHT, considering that the main flaw of this article is that it gives undue weight to one particular view - to the point of excluding all other views.
Finally, if you believe that the lead is the wrong place to put that study, where do you think it should appear? Dlabtot 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If Brugge is being cited as a scientific source, his activism certainly plays into his credibility and reliability as a scientific source. Bruggs study is not even a study, it’s a literature review of other people’s studies. The article does not give undue weight to one point of view, it presents that POV with the representative scientific evidence. For example, most studies have not found a link between DU exposure and cancer/birth defects/etcetera, this would be the dominant POV from scientific literature (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depleted_uranium#Problems for a recap of the big reports/studies).
I originally had the Brugge study in another edit, must have gotten thrown out with the bathwater, Health considerations would be an OK place for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am not interested in your opinion about the health risks of DU. But I would still like you to point out a Wikipedia policy that states that the views of 'activists' should not be represented on DU. No such policy exists. Just the opposite.
It seems that the controversy over the use of DU certainly should be mentioned in the lead. Don't you agree? When discussing a controversy, it is the official policy of Wikipedia to adopt a neutral point of view: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Dlabtot 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, yes the Brugge study was in the article in an earlier form, the only problem was that it was cited as saying the exact opposite of what it actually says. WP:AGF leads me to conclude that must have been accidental. Dlabtot 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The controversy is mentioned in the lead:

Its use in ammunition is controversial because of its release into the environment. Besides its residual radioactivity, U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals.

followed by the majority conclusions:

However, there has never been a definitive toxicological link established in humans and it is believed that low and moderate exposures to depleted uranium pose little if any toxicological threat.

WP:LEAD addresses these issues:

In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text.

Even in the prior version, the lead section was overly generous to the scientific (not to be confused with the political) debate over the subject. A review of the materal and debate here in talk makes that evident.
Once again, I am not giving my opinion here, I am only reflecting the most common viewpoint from the literature. Wight and POV does not mean we give more space to an idea than it deservers, or in this case is represented by available information. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also no excuse for this edit which rolled over all the intermedary edits I have made to the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to lose hope over any possibility of consensus emerging based on this discussion. There probably is not much point in me repeating this, but I will try again anyway. Your opinion about what you believe to be 'the most common viewpoint from the literature' is completely irrelevant. NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, and it states: It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Dlabtot 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No such claim is being made anywhere in the article, I am simply unwilling to allow a minority viewpoint to have itself represented more that it deserves, which is a violation of undue weight.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
Its not my opinion what the most common viewpoint is, it is a factual matter. The view that low and moderate levels of DU are harmful to humans is the minority view, expressed in only a few fringe outlets (UMRC and Brugge for example). Stack them against dozens of studies from the WHO, IAEA, New England Journal of Medicine, The RAND corporation, Sandia National Labs, Argonne National Labs, the UK Ministry of Defense, the US Department of Defense, the Australian Defense Ministry, NATO, the VA, NIH, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity and you have a very lopsided debate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is merely your opinion unless you can cite a reliable source that states it. You have not produced any citation that even attempts to state what 'the most common viewpoint' is. Dlabtot 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you want? One reliable source that states this? OK, done:
The present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction. Archive of Oncology, Spetember 4, 2001 pg 213.
More you say?:
general medical and scientific consensus is that in cases of high intake, uranium is likely to become a chemical toxicology problem before it is a radiological problem. IAEA
Still more?
"There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat" IAEA Director, Pier Roberto Danesi
Even more?!?!
"The existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited and limited to very specific circumstances" Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson
If you would like furher citations ...please ask. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What I would ask is that you just add those citations to the article, in the appropriate places, using the appropriate citation templates. There's no real point in putting them here on the talk page. Btw, other than the Archive of Oncology (I seem to have misplaced my copy), I'm not sure in what reliable source those statements were published. I'm sure that was just a hasty oversight on your part. Dlabtot 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good edit. The Danesi statement seems more appropriate than the Rand Study in this spot to me as well. Dlabtot 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Do the quotes given above really demonstrate a 'consensus'? Well, the Nato Secretary General's statement that there exists a limited hazard from depleted uranium and the IAEA statement that "uranium is likely to become a chemical toxicology problem" seems to contradict the IAEA Director's statement that "DU does not represent a health threat". What kind of consensus is that? The Archive of Oncology statement that DU exposure "is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction" is rather vague, but certainly should in no way be interpreted as saying that there is no risk from exposure - since it's not what was said. Dlabtot 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The demonstrate a consensus on several different points, all of which relate to each other.
On DU’s cancer causing effects (one hotbutton topic in this article): The present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction. And further on in the article: “The chemical toxicity of uranium has been extensively studied. Uranium is nephrotoxic, but studies of worker exposures to uranium over the past 50 years have shown only minor and transient renal disorders even after large accidental exposures of workers in uranium fabrication plants in the U.S and the U.K. As for its radiological toxicity, there has so far been no report in the literature of any human cancer occurrence that could be scientifically attributed to exposure to DU or indeed to natural uranium.
So, based on this information, (and so much more, this is only one of dozens of examples) there is a consensus that it is very unlikely that DU causes cancer in quantities seen either occupationally, or through expose from warfare.
The IAEA report comes to a similar consensus on cancer: general medical and scientific consensus is that in cases of high intake, uranium is likely to become a chemical toxicology problem before it is a radiological problem.” and it goes on to say in the same section There have been a number of studies of workers exposed to uranium and, despite some workers being exposed to large amounts of uranium, there is no evidence that either natural uranium or DU is carcinogenic. This lack of evidence is seen even for lung cancer following inhalation of uranium. As a precaution for risk assessment and to set dose limits, DU is assumed to be potentially carcinogenic, but the lack of evidence for a definite cancer risk in studies over many decades is significant and should put the results of assessments in perspective.
So, based on this information, DU is considered a potential carcinogen, but there is no evidence that it actually does cause cancer. A similar finding as the Archive of Oncology information.
Danesi’s comments are more focused on the Balkan contamination case.

Danesi's group collected 16 soil samples near DU penetrator holes and underneath penetrators found on the soil surface at five sites. Minefields prevented the team from visiting other areas hit by DU penetrators. Back at the IAEA lab, the researchers threw everything at the samples: instruments ranging from a secondary ion mass spectrometer to a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence detector. They found that in the most contaminated places, a few milligrams of soil could contain hundreds of thousands of DU particles--but still not a high enough concentration to elevate cancer risk, Danesi says.

Based on this information, the contamination in the Balkans poses no cancer risk.
Robertson’s comments would seem to sum up all of the above information quite nicely: "The existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited and limited to very specific circumstances". Those circumstance being extremely high dosages or in an enemy tank.
Based on the aggregate of this, and literally dozens of other peer reviewed studies, literature reviews and reports, it would suggest that while extremely high exposure levels may cause some ill health effects, these have never been seen in any epidemiological study and there appear to be no known ill effects from depleted uranium in the background qualities which it si found either in nature, industry or on the battlefield (unless you want to bring up the DU gas phase, which naturally got another editor laughed off of Wikipedia and several professional mail servers). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would respectfully again direct you to WP:TALK. It is certainly appropriate on this page to discuss sources and how the various viewpoints on the topic should be presented in the article. However, your conclusions about the health risk of depleted uranium are irrelevant. Even if they are a synthesis of what you believe to be "The aggegate of" several valid sources.
And again, there's no point in trying to persuade me of anything because I don't care whether you are right or not. OTOH, this is the kind of edit that improves the article, because it presents a significant viewpoint, and cites who holds that viewpoint. And it was an edit that was made in part in response to our dialogue here. So I hope this shows we can work together and improve the article. Dlabtot 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing scientific view

This sentence is problematic: The prevailing scientific view on the matter [20],[21] is that this data, and other scarce data available, prove no conclusively poisoning effect of depleted uranium. First off, neither of the cited references attempt to claim that they are presenting 'the prevailing scientific view'. But even worse, is that the sentence completely mischaracterizes the second study, which concludes: Despite the absence of large-scale epidemiological data, there is very good reason to believe that the contamination of modern battlefields with depleted uranium weapons poses a health threat to those living and working in the vicinity. The way the article describes it, a reader who did not read the original source would believe they reached the opposite conclusion. The weasel words about 'conclusive proof' don't overcome this problem. Dlabtot 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, whats worse is that Mike Pritchard's "Independent Review of the Scientific Literature on DU" wasn't even published, meaning it not a WP:RS for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the piece you are referring to, and it doesn't appear to be cited in the article. What is your point mentioning it? Dlabtot 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh you are referring to this very piece... I see... cpt.org... 'Christian Peacemaker Teams'... hmm, I agree, that's does not appear to be WP:RS I removed the sentence now that it is completeley unsourced. Dlabtot 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Come to mention it, nothing in the Basra section is linked to a peer reviewed study, I think it all has to go for now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS certainly does not say that all sources must be a 'peer reviewed study', lol. Where did you get that one from? This source covers it. Dlabtot 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is going to be cited as such, it certainly needs to come a peer reviewed source. Otherwise, its just another newspaper article with dubious value and quality. See Aspects of Reliabilty in WP:RS

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

  • The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
  • Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
  • Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are arbitrarily deciding that viewpoints published in newspapers don't belong in this article? That newspapers don't qualify as WP:RS? Are you serious? Dlabtot 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, but the language is going to have to reflect the inferior quality of the source, especially when compared to the rest of the material in this section. And wait till you see the rebuttal. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just added numerous citations to newspapers. 'The language' (as you put it) those citations support, is the sentence: Its use in ammunition is controversial because of its release into the environment. Certainly newspapers are not of 'inferior quality' when describing whether or not a controversy exists with regard to the use of DU. Dlabtot 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are all the citations even needed? Certainly this point of its controversial nature is not in question? To have all the citations in the lead is strange. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the foundation of Wikipedia is citations to reliable sources. Multiple sources provide greater context and give the reader more information with which to form their own opinion. I suggest you review WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Dlabtot 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this are ridiculous. You state in your edit summary: this is a political, not a scientific controversy - I understand that that is your strongly held viewpoint, however, it's not what the cited references say. Dlabtot 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be of some use - it is a distillation of some of the recent research into chemical toxicity by Dr Keith Baverstock, formerly of the WHO and now at the University of Kupio in Finland: [12] it was presented to the Defence Committee of the Belgian House of Representatives 12 months ago and was partially responsible for them introducing a domestic ban on uranium in conventional weapons and armour plate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICBUW (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As regards a prevailing scientific view - on December 5th, 136 countries voted in favour of a resolution highlighting serious health concerns over the use of depleted uranium weapons at the UN General Assembly. The vote was the second hearing for a resolution which was originally passed by the UN First Committee on November 2nd 2007. The resolution was drafted by the Movement of Non Aligned States and submitted by Indonesia. It requests that states and international bodies submit information on DU to the Secretary General, who will then produce a report on DU for next year's session of the General Assembly; depleted uranium weapons will also feature on the Assembly's agenda. UN General Assembly Passes DU Resolution

Well any such report would clearly be 'unscientific', because in the case of DU, the 'scientific method' requires that we first come to a conclusion - DU is harmless - and then find evidence to support that conclusion. Any contrary evidence can be safely dismissed as originating from 'activists'. Or at least so you would think if Wikipedia were your only source of information. Dlabtot (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Its not a study, its a resolution from the UN, and you are right that it is 'unscientific'. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No longer there?

I'm curious about this edit. What do you mean by your edit summary 'No longer there' ? Are you saying that this 2005 publication 'Neuroscience Letters' used to exist, but no longer does? I, of course, have no knowledge about it whatsoever. I seem to have left it with my September 2001, copy of the Archive of Oncology. Dlabtot 02:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TDC, I'm still waiting for your clarification. Dlabtot (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I was ignoring you, because you seem bound and determined to turn this page into the sorry state it was in several months ago. But since you keep asking: having information in the article referring to “Further Scientific Reports” is useful only if the reader has some easy way to access it. No online version exists for the study I removed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

User:TDC why did you add the phrase "and considered the debate to me more political than scientific" when describing the Rand Report?

Not only does the report not state this conclusion, but the word 'political' does not even appear in the report. Dlabtot 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the description of the debate as political and not scientific was in the other RAND report "A Case Study of Good and Evil", which I neglected to cite with all the edits (although it stil lis in the article), and which you could have found had you spent 2 minutes looking instead of complaining. Now Take care of it like I do instead of complaining. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
While you may consider yourself a good model of an editor for others to follow, I must decline your invitation, as I have no desire to engage in a series of edit wars, nor do I wish to become blocked, or be subjected to sanctions by the Arbitration Committee.
As to your admission that the citation is indeed incorrect... well of course I don't own the 2002 paper written by Bernard D. Rostker, but the abstract provided on the web also does not say anything about the controversy being 'political'. Do you have access to the actual paper? Does it say this? Or is this statement that this is a 'political controversy' your own interpretation? Dlabtot 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
According to your edit summary you do own a copy of the paper. Could you please say on what page the controversy is described as more political than scientific? Thank you. Dlabtot 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
TDC, maybe you missed this question, so I'll ask it again: Could you please say on what page the controversy is described as more political than scientific? Dlabtot (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
TDC, I just want you to realize that I won't stop asking this question. Eventually, you'll have to answer. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting... TDC could you please say on what page of the report this appears? I would like to note at this point that ignoring questions about your edits and sources is contrary to WP:ETIQUETTE Dlabtot 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dlabtot - I would point this out on your talk page, but I really don't want to be accused of incivility again. Anyway per WP:COOL "Sometimes you just need to walk away. There are over a thousand administrators here and countless numbers of users who can take over for you. Do not let an edit war supersede your personal Wikipedia time. Take a time out from an edit war that gets too hot; work on other articles, or take a break from Wikipedia in general." & "Please, please, please don't be a dick. Think about whether each action is going to make things better or worse. If an action might make things worse, give active consideration to not doing it." & finally "Don't take it too seriously. Remember that Wikipedia is a hobby and not an obligation or commitment. Keep a good community spirit up and make good edits as a community." User:TDC doesn't have an obligation to answer your questions. You have a right to ask, but you don't have a right to get an answer. Starkrm 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong about whether or not Wikipedia policy requires people to justify their edits and show that they are indeed verifiable and not original research. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. - per WP:V Don't ignore questions. - per WP:ETIQUETTE Dlabtot 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Its use in ammunition is controversial because of its release into the environment.

Does this statement really need six sources? Starkrm (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The foundation of Wikipedia is citations to reliable sources. Multiple sources provide greater context and give the reader more information with which to form their own opinion. In this instance, many different views (see WP:NPOV) are referenced so that the interested reader can see first-hand just what the controversy is. I'm not sure what exactly it is that are proposing, anyway. Deleting sources? Dlabtot (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - so let me quote citations to reliable sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." and "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." Not one of those six sources is peer-reviewed. They are all one sided. The statement that something is controversial does not need six non-peer-reviewed sources. Starkrm (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure exactly what it is that you are proposing in the way of an edit, nor am I clear as to why you believe the reader is better served to have less information rather than more. Could you be more specific on these points? Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: DU - Leicester University study

Should the Leicester University study headed by Randall Parrish and described in this UK Observer article be included? Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources: Science Daily, physorg.com Dlabtot (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit the article if you want but expect it to be under the scrutiny of other editors. Please note from Science Daily "However, under the scrutiny of peer-review, scientific studies have so far failed to demonstrate a significant connection between inhalation exposure and human ill-health." and physorg.com "However, under the scrutiny of peer-review, scientific studies have so far failed to demonstrate a significant connection between inhalation exposure and human ill-health." Starkrm (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why it Should

Because it is verifiable, it includes significant information that does not currently appear in the article, and is published in a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to this, the Request for Comment is an attempt to involve other editors in the process. Luckily for us, there is no deadline. Usually RfCs move pretty slowly; it might take awhile for enough people to weigh in for there to be a clear consensus. For instance, your comment doesn't actually say whether or not you still think it shouldn't be included. Are you for inclusion, or still against? If you are now for inclusion, perhaps you should just restore the material that you deleted. You could even reword it if you don't like something about User:Bleaki's version. But I am really in no rush. I think we would be well served to have more editors on this article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • TDC it is highly inappropriate to edit another editor's talk page comments in this manner. WP:TALK: Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Dlabtot (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why it Should Not

How do you include a study that has not yet been published? The article includes quotes and statements from individuals which, I am assuming, would not be part of a scientific study. I have no objection to including the study, and its conclusions, once it is published. I do object to including a news article about a yet to be published study which includes elements which obviously will not be a part of the study. Starkrm (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

  • Newspaper articles should not be used as references for scientific studies. But if the information in the newspaper is correct, then the study should be published in the next issue, so would it not be easiest to wait until that issue is available? Alternatively, the information in the newspaper article could be added as claims, such as: "in a newpaper article Parrish claims that, based on a study to be published, X is Y". Then it could be rewritten as scientific facts once the study has been published. Labongo (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many epidemiological studies from occupational exposure to uranium that runs counter to the portrayal of the study in the Guardian. I would agree that until the full study is published, the newspaper article is worthless and impossible to evaluate what material in the article comes the study’s findings and what comes from the authors bias. Furthermore, the study would only seem to indicate (according to the paper) that there is leftover urnaium. There is no information presented on health impacts, or how significant the additional trace ammounts were relative to a control group. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Having spoken with the study's author and the citizens groups involved in the Colonie site, I would suggest that this will make a very useful addition to the page. You will find that this is the first clear link between civilian DU exposure and ill health. However two caveats are that the sample size is fairly small and the initial exposure is rather high. Some of the workers were exposed to up to 1gm of powdered DU. The pathway in all cases was inhalational. The researchers are currently seeking more ex-workers from the plant in an effort to expand their sample size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICBUW (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if this is "...the first clear link between civilian DU exposure and ill health" then the implication is that there are zero other studies showing a clear link between civilian DU exposure and ill health. It also implies that if this study does not actually provide this connection then, by your own words, there are a total of zero studies that show this connection. Starkrm (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this RFC should be closed because the original paper is now available: PMID 17976690 --

Sci Total Environ. 2007 Oct 30

Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after approximately 20 years: Implications for human health assessment.

Parrish RR, Horstwood M, Arnason JG, Chenery S, Brewer T, Lloyd NS, Carpenter DO.

Inhaled depleted uranium (DU) aerosols are recognised as a distinct human health hazard and DU has been suggested to be responsible in part for illness in both military and civilian populations that may have been exposed. This study aimed to develop and use a testing procedure capable of detecting an individual's historic milligram-quantity aerosol exposure to DU up to 20 years after the event. This method was applied to individuals associated with or living proximal to a DU munitions plant in Colonie New York that were likely to have had a significant DU aerosol inhalation exposure, in order to improve DU-exposure screening reliability and gain insight into the residence time of DU in humans. We show using sensitive mass spectrometric techniques that when exposure to aerosol has been unambiguous and in sufficient quantity, urinary excretion of DU can be detected more than 20 years after primary DU inhalation contamination ceased, even when DU constitutes only approximately 1% of the total excreted uranium. It seems reasonable to conclude that a chronically DU-exposed population exists within the contamination 'footprint' of the munitions plant in Colonie, New York. The method allows even a modest DU exposure to be identified where other less sensitive methods would have failed entirely. This should allow better assessment of historical exposure incidence than currently exists.

-- that is the same one, right? I am not sure this is so interesting, because if you type "depleted uranium" into PubMed, you get some more substantial stuff on the first page than just detection after 20 years. 71.49.139.196 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

disputes

Here is why, as requested, this is totally disputed:

  • Danesi and Robertson quoted in introductory third paragraph both spoke at a press conference!
  • why are quotes about DU in the introduction? Isn't introduction supposed to be a summary?
  • any reference to the teratogenicity is removed from the introduction
  • in the end of "Chemical Toxicity" the 2005 quote is answered with 2001 material
  • "exposure to either Depleted or Natural Uranium has never been proven to have resulted in a human cancer of any type" - worse than false because there is never any proof for cancer, and who says it? the military
  • "there has been no definite link between possible health effects in laboratory animals and humans" - is a lie, because other parts of the article admit that there is a relation, for example the kidney

OK? AStolarz (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The historical and ongoing POV-pushing in this article has been disheartening to say the least. As I mention above, there is in reality a debate about the health risks of DU and that debate is not adequately described in the article in a NPOV manner. But absent a willingness on the part of the involved to work towards consensus, the prospects of a good article are dim. Dlabtot (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article is poorly written. It is indeed disheartening to see science ignored. I agree that quotes in the introduction are poor. I moved them to the health section. I tried to summarize what DU material is. Shouldn't statements about the health effects of DU be moved or debated in the article about Uranium instead of this one? After all the atoms in the body react to the body in primarially a chemical way. DU is a chemical hazard just like regular U. Starkrm (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that all discussion of the health effects of DU should be removed from the article would be laughable if I were still able to see any humor in this situation. I mean - you can't be serious ... that was some kind of joke, right? Dlabtot (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you interested in improving the article or in being insulting? The body reacts to substances on a chemical level. Any ill health effects from DU are the same as health effects from Uranium. I ASKED A QUESTION - Shouldn't statements about the health effects of DU be moved or debated in the article about Uranium instead of this one? Depleted Uranium is Uranium. Depleted Uranium acts in the body as does Uranium. Starkrm (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If a controversy over the health effects of uranium existed, than it would be appropriate for the uranium article to address that controversy. But that is not the case. In the world we live in, there is a controversy over the health effects of DU, as reflected by the many discussions of and reports about this controversy in reliable sources.
At any rate, this discussion makes absolutely clear that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is indeed in dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that Depleted Uranium is Uranium. The body cannot differentiate DU from Natural U. Point me to a study that shows otherwise. Starkrm (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the the Uranium article needs work, I encourage you to fix it. This is the talk page for discussion of the Depleted uranium article. I don't agree with your suggestion to excise all information relating to the health risks of DU from the article. For the reasons that I have already given. Dlabtot (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You are clearly showing a lack of scientific knowledge about Uranium. Depleted Uranium is Uranium with one isotope removed but it is still Uranium. The human body processess this material as it would Uranium because it is Uranium. Please look into the real science behind these studies. Educate yourself about it. This is a valid point about Depleted Uranium that needs to be addressed in order to make the Depleted Uranium article factual and encyclopedic. Shouldn't that be our goal?Starkrm (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not a talk page for discussion of depleted uranium. It is a talk page for discussion of the depleted uranium article. It is appropriate on this page to discuss edits to the depleted uranium article. One thing that certainly is not an appropriate topic for this talk page is your negative opinions of other editors. I'd respectfully ask that you stay on topic in the future. Do you have any edits, either past edits or suggested future edits, that you wish to discuss? For instance, you could attempt to justify this edit. Do you really believe it improved the article? It does not seem to me to be in accordance with WP:LEAD. Why do you feel that the ongoing and extensively documented controversy over the use of DU should not be mentioned in the lead? I'm also curious as to why you would simply re-write in such a way that you must have known would be controversial. Why didn't you pursue a discussion here in an attempt to reach WP:consensus? Dlabtot (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you suggest discussing the depleted uranium article and not discuss depleted uranium? You are clearly avoiding any discussion of my question about how Uranium acts in the body. As for having a negative opinion about other editiors - that simply isn't true. Where have I been negative towards another editor? I did not rewrite the article in a way I knew would be controversial, I was trying to improve the article by giving emphasis to material in the lead that roughly reflects its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Again, please do some research and learn that Uranium is Uranium, depleted or not, and the way it acts in the body is determined chemically. The % of isotropic abundance in the material is irrelevant to the body. I'm trying to help someone who knows, and I quote, "diddley-squat" about depleted uranium, to come to some scientific understanding. Please, sincerely please, look it up. The goal for both of us here should be an accurate, factual, encyclopedic article. Wouldn't you agree? Starkrm (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you feel that the ongoing and extensively documented controversy over the use of DU should not be mentioned in the lead? Dlabtot (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Because it is politically motivated. I've not read, and I read A LOT, a purely scientific source that shows that Uranium can cause the effects that are claimed. It truly is an exceptional claim and exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources. There just aren't any. Starkrm (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether your assertion that it 'is politically motivated' is correct or not, it is irrelevant, unless you can find a relevant section of WP:NPOV that talks about excluding or minimizing viewpoints based on the perceived motivations of those expressing their viewpoints. I'm not sure what this claim is that you are saying is exceptional. There is indeed an ongoing controversy; there are numerous and voluminous sources that describe this controversy; the controversy over the use of DU is actually probably the motivation for most people who visit this article to come here (purely speculation on my part). I understand that you have a very strong opinion about this controversy and that you in fact are quite sure which 'side' is 'right'. You may be correct. I certainly don't care one way or another whether you are correct or not. I do believe that your view, when it can be cited to reliable sources, should be included in the article. As should the views of those who disagree with you, when those views can be cited to reliable sources.
I expect to be working on this article for a long, long time. It is very far from being WP:NPOV in its current state. And the ongoing discussions here do not seem to be moving even slightly towards consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't twist my words. You asked me why it should not be mentioned in the lead. Don't twist my answer to represent exclusion. In my edits I have not excluded material. I think these discussions are helpful and I'm sorry you don't see that. Starkrm (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about twisting your words, frankly, I think we should avoid making such accusations towards each other and simply stick to discussing the article. You said the reason moving the reference to the controversy was "Because it is politically motivated." I'm pretty sure that there is no Wikipedia policy that supports removing this from the lead based on your assertion that it is politically motivated. But I'm open to hearing about this policy. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a great example of what I mean by word twisting - I didn't say it was a Wikipedia policy. I was answering your question of "Why do you feel..."Starkrm (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said that you said it was Wikipedia policy. Rather, I am saying that it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, now that we are clear on who is saying what, I'll rephrase my question and ask again: How does your opinion about the supposed motivations of participants in one side of the debate justify burying the existence of the debate in the middle of the article? In what Wikipedia policy do you find justification for such an edit? Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


"The goal for both of us here should be an accurate, factual, encyclopedic article. Wouldn't you agree?" No, I completely disagree.
I believe the goal should be an article that represents fairly and, as much as possible, without bias, all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). ... Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you are talking about. I stated what I believe should be the goal for people editing articles on Wikipedia, that's all. I certainly never said that I don't think this discussion is helpful - it is helpful and quite illuminating. However, I don't see any evidence in this discussion of an emerging consensus. Do you? Dlabtot (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No consensus yet but I hope I have made some headway into explaining how Uranium is Uranium, depleted or not and that DU acts in the body exactly like U does. I tried to communicate with you about your scientific background on your talk page in order to get an idea of your level of scientific understanding but you didn't want to talk there. Consensus is essentially a group of people coming to an agreement. It means examining, fairly, all sides of an issue. Please believe me when I say I have extensively examined the side of the issue that states that DU is harmful in ways that U is not. There just is no hard evidence to show it. There is lots and lots of speculation and hearsay. Again, exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources. I would appreciate it if you would examine the scientific point of view on Uranium. I would prefer to see this article written from a scientific point of view. I'm not sure that it is possible, in the end, because so many poorly informed people are purely politically motivated by this subject. Starkrm (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that your viewpoint should be represented in the article along with the views of those who disagree with you. This seems to be the fundamental disagreement that we have. Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Again - A point of view is not science. Again - Wikipedia policy is that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially for scientific or medical articles. Please, truly please, inform yourself about Uranium. Starkrm (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement over the meanings of core Wikipedia policies that I do not believe will be resolved through our discussion here. Which is not to say that this discussion is 'not helpful'. It is simply to say - what I said. And nothing else. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Please believe me when I say I have extensively examined the side of the issue that states that DU is harmful in ways that U is not." I'm pretty sure I have never heard the idea that "DU is harmful in ways that U is not" expressed by anyone, anywhere, in any context, before you said it. It certainly doesn't appear in this article, does it? What the article says is that the use of DU is controversial because of its release into the environment. (paraphrasing from memory, here) I'm guessing that if uranium were being spread indiscriminately in the environment in the manner that DU is, that would be controversial, too. Just speculation, of course. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Think about what you just wrote. Where is DU being spread indiscriminately in the environment? "Indiscriminately" means randomly, haphazardly, willy-nilly, arbitrarily, at random, every which way. This is a great example of the politically motivated reasoning behind those who oppose DU use. It is not a claim based on science. Once again - Wikipedia policy is that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially for scientific or medical articles. Starkrm (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase. If uranium were being released into the environment through use in munitions, I'm guessing that would be controversial, too.
Your projection of viewpoints onto me that I have not expressed is irrelevant to the discussion. I respectfully ask that you refrain from making further personal comments about me, what you believe to be my motivations, or what you believe to be my shortcomings. Dlabtot (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First, its good that Starkrm is working on this, based on what I know about him, he seems to be a credible expert in this field, and the article could use more of us (considering that several good ones were chased off), and fewer activist. Secondly, an excellent point is brought up with respect to the parent uranium article. No one denies that uranium and depleted uranium are identical, chemically and physically. Now, uranium is a featured article, meaning that it is some of the finest work that Wikipedia has to offer. How large a section does that article devote to the rantings of 9/11 conspiracy theorist like Rokke and Moret? How much space is given to the uranium Medical Research Centre? Oh, that’s right, none, because why there is significant political debate over these subjects, there is little scientific debate. No epidemiological studies have shown that occupational exposure to uranium among soldiers, workers, and civilians, or any of its isotopes, has had a measurable and detrimental effect on their health. Those are the indisputable facts. Now we twist the material that’s out there to say what it doesn’t, or we can squeeze a grain of deciet out of sea of truth till the buffalo shits, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence to back the minority POV here, because no one credible is willing to sign their name to such nonsense. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will simply repeat what I told you earlier, if you think the Uranium article needs editing, I encourage you to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think its in a pretty good shape where it is, but from you comments, perhaps you should go over there and "fix" the uranium article like you are trying to do on this article ... tell me how that goes BTW. We should work to bring this article up to that level. First things first, get rid of all the activist's garbage and fill it in with reliable sources, and I guarantee you no one will recognize this article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If I had expressed some dissatisfaction with the uranium article, your suggestion might make some sense. Of course, I have expressed no such dissatisfaction. Rather, another editor suggested that some of the material in this article more properly belonged in that article, a suggestion with which I disagreed (see above).
As far as the Depleted uranium article, I'm looking at this from the long view. I doubt that much will be achieved in the short term, but perhaps in a few years this may turn out to be a good article. I'm not really in any hurry. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you really believe that depleted uranium and uranium are 'identical', you could propose a merge. That might result in an interesting discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Isotopes behave identically chemically, but have different properties (hydrogen deuterium. I didn’t know I was not being clear enough or how I could have made this more simple or make this more simple, but I will try not to talk over your head again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only are they different isotopes, but they are also used differently. Interestingly, uranium has no associated controversy. Which is why discussion of this controversy belongs in this article, not the uranium article. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Just in case there is any doubt as to why I replaced the deleted tag on this article: I believe the article does not live up to the core WP:NPOV policy. This controversial article was the scene of massive edit warring in the past. It looks to me like I am the first editor in a long time who has worked on the article who does not have a strong opinion as to one side or the other in the debate being 'right'. One of the parties to the edit warring was banned, which the other party seemed to have taken as vindication and carte blanche to assume ownership of the article. In my opinion, the article in its current form places undue weight on the military's assertions about the safety of DU munitions, and other viewpoints have been excised from the article, often with justifications that those viewpoints are 'political', 'activist', or 'minority' - however Wikipedia policy does not recognize these as reasons to disqualify viewpoints from being represented in an article. Assertions of what is 'factual' or 'scientific' are irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there is an open RfC, which clearly demonstrates that there is in fact an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the article. Once this RfC has closed, there are many other disputed issues in the article which haven't achieved any resolution through discussion on this talk page. Many of which may need RfCs of their own. Dlabtot (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

the article in its current form places undue weight on the military's assertions about the safety of DU munitions

That is because these "assertions" are currently the only ones backed by dozens of high quality peer reviewed epidemiological studies and literature reviews, and the viewpoints from 'political', 'activist', and 'minority' sources are not.
The WP:WEIGHT portion of WP:NPOV states very clearly that:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

the article as it currently exists gives more than adequate room to the minoirty viewpoint and two whole sections are devoted to it [13], [14]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I've responded to pretty much these exact arguments repeatedly, it may be redundant for me to once again say that I disagree. Nevertheless, I will engage in the exercise: I disagree.
This disagreement we have about the neutrality of the article is what is known as a dispute. Which is why I replaced the tag that you twice deleted from the article. Given time, I trust that this dispute will be resolved through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to propose one specific change to the article or actually make an edit to the article to deal with these issues you keep raising. Simply quoting policy is not a solution. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
One specific change I suggest is the inclusion of the material in dispute in the RfC. Another would be the rewrite of the lead to conform to WP:LEAD which would include mention of the ongoing controversy, as I discussed above. I would also appreciate it if you could tell me on what page of the Rostker report is the controversy described as more political than scientific? Additionally, could you clarify this edit? What do you mean by your edit summary 'No longer there'? These are not the only issues but they are a start. I'm ready to discuss these issues to see if we can work towards consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, what the article needs most is the involvement of more disinterested editors. In time, it will happen. Dlabtot (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Depleted uranium is NOT a separate substance from Uranium. Depleted uranium IS uranium. You won't find any scientist, or even a knowledgable activist, who would disagree. Natural Uranium is composed of primarially the isotope uranium-238 (99.275%), uranium-235 (0.711%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0058%). Depleted uranium is the SAME material but with the .711% of uranium-235 removed to some smaller percentage but not zero. Please, please, please inform yourself about what uranium is and what an isotope is. Why does this matter? Because the body treats uranium on a chemical level. The body cannot distinguish a uranium atom of U217 from U218 or U219 or U222 or U223 or U224 or U225 or U226 or U227 or U228 or U229 or U230 or U231 or U232 or U233 or U234 or U235 or U236 or U237 or U238 or U239 or U240 or U242. ALL of those are uranium. There is nothing special about the effect that depleted uranium would have on the body that any other uranium would have on the body. THAT is a solid, verifiable, tested over and over and over again fact. If you could show any smidgen of evidence that it is not true you could revolutionize bio-chemistry and probably win a nobel prize. But it is politically important for some to depict depleted uranium as something it is not. That is being VERY NPOV. That is also what I mean by this POV being politically motivated. These claims are, without any doubt, Exceptional claims and quoting from WP:ATT "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics." This policy keeps wikipedia from becoming a sounding board for every dumb idea that comes along and helps keep it encyclopedic. Also consider the Leicester University study headed by Randall Parrish that you wanted to keep in the article before it was published. It's interesting to read the quote by ICBUW who said "Having spoken with the study's author and the citizens groups involved in the Colonie site, I would suggest that this will make a very useful addition to the page. You will find that this is the first clear link between civilian DU exposure and ill health." I added the emphasis. First clear link?? Interesting that I emailed one of the study's authors as well and they are going to be very careful to indicate that this study only shows the presence of uranium in the body in people around the old plant. The study says NOTHING conclusive about a link between ill health and the presence of uranium, as was claimed by ICBUW. Also, when you make a statement like "I'm guessing that if uranium were being spread indiscriminately in the environment in the manner that DU is, that would be controversial, too." then no one here will find credible your claim that you are a disinterested editor or that you have a neutral point of view with no interest in one side or the other. Starkrm (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I must again respectfully request that you refrain from making further personal comments about me, what you believe to be my motivations, or what you believe to be my shortcomings. Please keep the discussion focused on the article, not your opinion of other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - I will abide by your request for you to play a victim rather than engage in an adult conversation about a tough topic. Starkrm (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

note to Starkrm: in fact, the different isotopes of uranium accumulate in and translocate from bone tissue at very different rates. See: Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305, Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate," from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp. 379-380 (1978.) Pbt54 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice try James. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. There is a tendency to paint in broad strokes when expressing a basic idea or when debating an obviously flawed position. I don't have access to that information to confirm but am I correct in assuming that the process is the same for each similar molecule associated with the U, and that it is the rate only that is affected by the isotropic differences? I should also point out here that U is an established carcinogen. It's not safe to eat for breakfast. ;) But the claim that it causes the diseases that are attributed to DU is an exceptional claim and exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially for scientific or medical articles. Starkrm (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You keep talking about an 'exceptional claim'. Could you please identify where this claim appears in the article or on this talk page and could you please provide a diff that could help us identify the editor who is inserting this exceptional claim into the article or onto this talk page. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The unsubstantiated claims in this article [15] are a clear example of exceptional health claims being attributed to Uranium without any sort of reliable evidence. The article relys on hearsay and innuendo. The study itself is about the presence of Uranium in the urine over time and does not conclusively say anything about ill health effects, yet the article implies that there is a connection, without evidence of such. Starkrm (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is Wikipedia that we are editing, not The Guardian. If you believe that exceptional claims have appeared in The Guardian, perhaps that should be pointed out to the editors of The Guardian. I'm still not sure where in the Depleted uranium article the 'exceptional claim' to which you object appears, nor am I clear as to what exactly is being 'claimed'. Could you please identify where in the Depleted uranium article or on this talk page this exceptional claim appears? Could you please provide a diff that will identify the editor who has inserted this exceptional claim into the Depleted uranium article or on this talk page? Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been more than clear here and I don't appreciate my words being twisted, again. I didn't suggest editing The Guardian, I didn't suggest pointing anything out to them. You asked me for an example from the article or talk page of an exceptional claim that would need to be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially for a scientific article. I gave it to you, and rather than discuss the claim, you choose instead to mis-represent what I wrote. And you accuse me of incivility?!? Starkrm (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that I am having some trouble expressing myself clearly. Let me try again. I understand that you believe the Guardian article contains exceptional claims. Do you also believe that the Depleted uranium article here on Wikipedia contains exceptional claims? Do you believe some editor or editors are trying to insert exceptional claims into the article? If the answers to those preliminary questions are no, then the whole thing is my mistake for misunderstanding your repeated references to 'exceptional claims'. If the answers are yes, then what I am trying to determine is where exceptional claims appear in the Depleted uranium article. I asked for a diff of the exceptional claim being inserted into the article, so that we would know which editor was responsible. I'm sorry my questions were not clear previously but I hope that this makes more sense. Dlabtot (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The "exceptional claim" is that occupational and causal exposure to DU is responsible for the variety of ill health effects that were reported in the article, when nearly a dozen epidemiological studies, all cited in the main article disagree with that. What’s a more reliable source for environmental and toxicological claims, the Guardian or the IAEA, WHO, CDC, new England Journal of Medicine, Sandia National Labs, journal of toxicology etcetera?

A second recent review of health effects of uranium authored by the US National Academy of Sciences Institutes of Medicine evaluated existing epidemiological studies more rigorously and gave relative weight to the studies' strengths and weaknesses in their assessments. Regarding the lung cancer risk, "the Committee concludes that there is limited/suggestive evidence of no association between exposure to uranium and lung cancer at cumulative internal dose levels lower than 200 mSv or 25 cGy." This roughly corresponds to the burden occurring from a full year's exposure to a dusty indoor uranium workshop environment. British Medical Journal, Jan 20, 2001

My question is, does this exceptional claim appear in the Depleted uranium article here on Wikipedia? And if so, where? And which Wikipedia editor put it in? Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
When Parrish's research is reviewed and published it can be evaluated and relevant material cited in the article, until such time its fluff from a notoriously unreliable left wing British newspaper. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
TDC, since you are here discussing the validity and reliability of sources and citations, I would appreciate it if you could tell me on what page of the Rostker report is the controversy described as more political than scientific? Additionally, could you clarify this edit? What do you mean by your edit summary 'No longer there'?
As far as including the Leicester University study, if you feel that the response you've already made to the RfC was insufficient, and you have additional reasons as to why it should not be included, you should probably place it up there so that folks can more easily follow your reasoning. Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Dlabtot, since you essentially stopped arguing the validity of the NPOV tag, and now gone off topic onto edits I made over a month ago, there appears to be little reason to keep the tag up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What actually happened is that you asked me for specific changes that I thought should be made to the article. And I answered with specific changes that I think should be made to the article. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you don't agree with my suggestions. I'm pretty sure that is what is known as a dispute. Once there is a consensus that the article is factually accurate and NPOV, it would be appropriate to remove the tag. Dlabtot (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There was no WP:CONCENSUS to add the Guardian piece to the article, you should respect that decision and drop it. Secondly, why don’t you make an edit to the article or proposes some wording instead of just regurgitating policy like its going to fix things here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only respond by saying that in my opinion, you are mischaracterizing my actions and the ongoing discussion - although I can only assume that you are doing so in good faith. Dlabtot (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TDC and Sarkrm, would it help if the UN First Committee had concluded that there are health concerns over the use of DU that need investigating? The first vote on just such a resolution on Nov 1st 2007 ended up with 122 in favour and 6 against (with 35 abstentions). UN Resolution Passed By Landslide. The second Plenary vote (the General Assembly) takes place on Dec 5th and looks like it'll pass again. I should hold my hands up at this stage and say that I am an activist. However, my job has been made an awful lot harder by the likes of Moret et al and their incessant exaggerations - DU causes global diabetes epidemic anyone? Quite. I appreciate that this page has seen some pretty extravagant claims over the last couple of years which folk like you have been justified in vigorously refuting but we are now getting to the stage where new peer reviewed data is indicating that uranium is more hazardous than previously thought and this page needs to reflect that. I'll point you in the direction of this Baverstock paper again: [16] You may also be interested in his views on the independence of the WHO: BBC Today Programme Interview ICBUW (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things, the UN First Committee is not a scientific body and there is already a lengthy section in the article addressing the legality of the use of DU. Baverstock would seem to be a notable individual, and not much of a crank (hard to find in this debate) but by his own admission, he is taking a position that runs counter to scientific consensus. Still, I am sure there is some room in the article for his views. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? There is no consensus. You deleted my change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depleted_uranium&diff=176044435&oldid=176033774

What I put in was the most recent review by US Army scientists. What you put in starts saying that uranium is like arsenic, citing this CDC report: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html

Look at that report! The only times it mentions arsenic is to say that DU is NOT like it. Yoiu clearly didn't even read it. It is hard to believe that you are interested in the science. CKCortez (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome interview

I just want to say that BBC interview was the most interesting thing I've read about depleted uranium. These are my favorite parts:

DR REPACHOLI: We want a comprehensive report - we want to include everything that we can - but we don't want fairytale stuff - it wasn't collaborated by other reports - that was felt to the level that science would say this was established.
ANGUS STICKLER: My understanding is that at the time that there were eight published peer reviewed research studies - attesting to the genotoxic nature of uranium - all of which could have been included in the monograph?
REPACHOLI: Yep - these - er - papers were speculative at the time and W.H.O. will only publish data that they know is established.
STICKLER: Shouldn't the World Health Organisation err on the side of caution?
REPACHOLI: W.H.O is a conservative organisation there's no doubt - it's not a leader in this sort of thing - it's not out there saying wow we should be concerned about this, this and this - it's not there to do that.
...
DR REPACHOLI: The problem that W.H.O had and it went right up to the Director General's office that it was finally disapproved at that level was that on the basis of the evidence that we have - we can't conclude that it is harmful - and to have a paper from another W.H.O staff member that says we absolutely think it's harmful - makes W.H.O look a bit odd.
STICKLER: With the greatest respect - that's going to have very little truck with someone who may get seriously ill because of depleted uranium the fact that the W.H.O. may look a bit odd?
REPACHOLI: No the odd part is that it looks like W.H.O. is not in control of its shop.
...
“I’ve been to several international conferences where I’ve heard Iraqi medical physicians summarise health statistics on the occurrence of birth defects and non Hodgkin’s Lymphomas and the rise in incidents in these kind of effects especially in the area of southern Iraq and the Basra area appears quite alarming on the basis of the figures that I’ve seen – significant data – that would suggest that we should be erring on the side of caution here – and it ought to be investigated” Professor Parrish told us.
Professor Parrish has recently completed another research study – as yet unpublished – but it shows that if inhaled – depleted uranium remains in high concentrations in the body - a potential hazard - for decades. The priority now, he says, is to ascertain whether it poses a real risk to humans – the people of Iraq.
...
Depleted Uranium according to a growing body of scientists is carcinogenic – a health hazard not just to Saddam Husain’s republican guard – but Iraqi civilians for generations to come. It’s been used in other theatres of conflict too – Afghanistan and Lebanon – and calls for action are now gaining ground. Not just with fervent campaigners – but eminent scientists, academics, and lawyers too - depleted uranium munitions they say should be banned under international law as potential weapons of indiscriminate effect.

Now that should be in the controversy section.

Why doesn't this article have a controversy section? 87.182.44.125 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were to add one, you would quickly learn why it doesn't have one right now. Dlabtot 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)



Regarding Afghanistan, we know from leaked transport documents leaked US army transport letterthat DU weapons were transported into theatre but we don't as yet know whether they have been used. Both the US and UK deny using them there. The most likely time when they would have been used is from A10s A10 Thunderbolt Wikibut this is by no means assured and not as yet backed up by documentary evidence. As for Lebanon, we also have no evidence that DU was used there. UK researchers believed that they had found traces of low-enriched uranium in a crater but couldn't think of any reason why it might have been there. Israel was sold 110mm DU shells by the US some years ago but their state arms company IMI chiefly manufactures shells from tungsten. In the Lebanon conflict there were few armoured targets that would have justified the use of kinetic penetrators of either a DU or tungsten nature. ICBUW 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness - US Army Training Video

The video is viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93PBZIyqBs however, I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is on YouTube links. If YouTube is no good perhaps one of the many sources referenced on google would work. Dlabtot (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you have spent so much time pouring over this article in an effort to improve it, I will just assume that you missed the fact that the video is already in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Chart

In the chart with the heading "World Depleted Uranium Inventory", it gives the estimated tonnage of depleted uranium in possession of a number of countries. If you go to the source site, however, some of the numbers are listed as estimates. This is not reflected within the article: it's given as fact. Could someone please add some sort of footnote to the chart reflecting this [in]accuracy? --Mukk 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - good catch & thanks for repairing the references. Starkrm 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic

To whomever keeps putting in the article that uranium is similar to arsenic: #1, it is not supported by the very source you have in, as I explained above, and #2, I invite you to ingest 100 mg of DU on one day and 100 mg As the next, and see if you notice any toxicological difference. Do not delay.

My replacement text is from the most recent review of the literature performed by the US Army scientists: the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Click PMID 17508699 to see for yourself. CKCortez (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to ingest 100 mg of DU on one day and 100 mg As the next, and see if you notice any toxicological difference. a little more humor and lot less passion and self-importance is just what these discussions need. Welcome. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted on Talk:TDC about this and will continue to monitor the article. CKCortez (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have included the relevant portion from the ATSDR in the article as part of the inline citation, and it reads:

The available data on both the more important soluble and insoluble uranium compounds are sufficient to conclude that uranium has a low order of metallotoxicity in humans. This low toxicity results from the high exposures to which animals in these studies were exposed, without adverse effects in some cases. Many of the nonradioactive heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury would produce very severe, perhaps fatal, injury to animals at the levels of human exposures to uranium reported in the literature.

If the ATSDR makes a comparison, there is no reason for the article to not cite that comparison as well. Especially when it makes clear that DU toxicity is an order of magnitude less than other heavy metals.
Marshall released two papers recently, one in 2005, and another was published on February 14, 2007, which if my math adds up, is more recent than the Environ Health article which was published in January, and as mentioned above, only an abstract is available for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Here is what your insertion says:

depleted uranium has toxic characteristics similar to but much less than other heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, and lead

But there is nothing in the CDC ATSDR report, including that passage, which supports, "similar to." Moreover the CDC report is about uranium in general and not depleted uranium. What motivation would you have for saying it is "similar to" arsenic? Read your passage again, there is nothing like "similar to" in it.

Nothing similar to it? From above Many of the nonradioactive heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury would produce very severe, perhaps fatal, injury to animals at the levels of human exposures to uranium reported in the literature.

Now as for Marshall, I see he does have a report this year, but you aren't citing it. This article is about depleted uranium used in munitions and that is exactly what the US Army review, covering dozens of papers, not just original work based on postulations like Marshall's is. You can easily find a copy of the paper in your university library.

Once again, the paper you are citing is only available as an "abstract" and Marshall new report is on the exact same topic. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would first like to note that shouting does not make your arguments more persuasive. But more to the point, the sentence that you are shouting does not in fact illustrate a similarity between depleted uranium and arsenic but a difference. Dlabtot (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly, saying "neither depleted nor natural uranium have been proven to have resulted in a human cancer of any type" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because firstly it has been proven in vitro and in vivo in laboratory animals, again and again. Secondly, how can anyone prove where human cancers come from? Thirdly, as the US Army work shows, there is reason to believe that it HAS caused cancers from environmental exposures in the Basra region.

Its not extremely misleading, and your argument reeks or original research. All kinds of things can be shown in lab animals, and these same effects are not always, or even often, transferable to human population. This subject is covered in the body of the article, and Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Not only is it misleading, it has the appearance of being an intentional attempt to mislead. I note that you have not actually addressed any of the points raised by CKCortez. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, here is what you cite for the "proven" statement: http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp Do you think osd.mil is a neutral source, when their own Army scientists say that it does cause cancer in lab animals? There is not even a date on that page, and it cites nothing more recent than 1999 that I can see. Also it is saying something different than your sentence -- nothing about "proven," just "seen" and the like. CKCortez (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The OSD is plenty neutral website, and the material on the OSD’s site does not conflict with any of the findings of any individuals doing research on behalf of the DOD with regard to DU. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

a handful of non-scientific activists vigorously dispute these findings

TDC, since you keep reverting(diff diff) back to this version that you wrote , are you prepared to say who are these 'handful' of activists? And in what reliable source do they dispute the assertion that: neither depleted or natural uranium have been proven to have resulted in a human cancer of any type? Thanks. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to cite anything from morons, so I will be more than happy to take that sentence out in my next edit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the statement is false, which is why you can't cite it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

It seems this edit war is still ongoing. Can this be worked out peaceably here on the talk page or is page protection needed again? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is little if any discussion taking place with the edits, and they are most likely from Nrcprm2026. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected for one month. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

parenthetical comments

Would someone please remove the User:68.183.237.208 parenthetical comments within the article body?

(I will later if nobody else gets to it, but I can't right now).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting the help of someone who knows about Depleted Uranium

Hi, I wonder if someone can help me please. Let me give a little background first...

In the U.K., there's a peace protestor who lives in Parliament Square called Brian Haw, part of his protest was a long line of banners and photos along the street. It was removed by the police, however it was recreated by Mark Wallinger (an artist) in an exhibit called State Britain.

I saw State Britain on the news the other day, and in it there's a very striking picture of what is supposedly a baby killed in Kabul by Depleted Uranium. However the picture remindinded me more of a baby with a skin disease called Harlequin type ichthyosis. I have since been trying to collect more information about this, I was wondering if someone could look at the photo and tell me if Depleted Uranium could do anything like this please?

Be Warned contains graphic images

  • Here is a photo of Brian Haw with the afforementioned picture [17]
  • And here is a case study of a so-called "Harlequin Baby" (contains pictures) [18] -- Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the picture, that is a baby with Harlequin, which is a genetic disease in which both parents must be carriers of the altered gene. It is very, very unlikely that Depleted Uranium would be the cause. I would guess that Mr. Haw is deceptively trying to use a scare or shock tactic to influence public perception. Starkrm (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems the case, although in his defence I have heard that the photos (don't know if this one in particular) were added by public (I don't have a source for this, although I haven't actually looked yet). However the 2nd photo down here certainly shows him parading it around lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Be advised, this is not a forum for the discussion of Depleted Uranium, it is the talk page for discussion of improvements to the Depleted Uranium article. Please refrain from posting further 'questions' unrelated to the editing of this article. If you want to make political points with rhetorical questions, this is not the place to do it. See WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if anyone can help me, send me a message on my (talk) page cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.