Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 9

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.

Banned user's version much better than existing article

I like the "banned user" version better: 50 more references, 12 more kilobytes, and more honest. James, Black Omega, or whoever you are, don't let them get you down. WP:IAR applies here if it applies anywhere. --Chaim in Tel Aviv 212.199.91.98 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do ya now James? You know what I love most about this? Every sockpuppet you use never forgets to mention that they are most definitely not you!. What a hoot! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC, is there anyone who has edited the article in the past week that you are not accusing of being James? Those kind of accusations are one of the reason that so many people edit this article anonymously or under seperate accounts--we don't want our reputations sullied by baseless accusations. I agree too much stuff has been cut since he's been banned. Lots of people take things out, but he was the only one who consistently added material which doesn't show DU in a purely positive light. I'm adding a POV tag. -Alex- 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm blocking your account indefinitely as a sockpuppet used to evade an arbcom ban, James. Nandesuka 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you and TDC have such a grudge about this article that you see James in anyone whoever tries to add some truth? You just banned an "unrelated" user. Are you going to go and ban Al Marshall too because he admits he did not consider and reproductive or nonradiological toxicity even though the sorry excuse for this current article implies that his study "concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics" -- how easy is that if you only look at radiation, which is a tiny fraction of the chemical risk?!? Look at the Black Omega version; look at its references; please compare them to the current version! Whoever did it has far more respect for both the truth *and* the style guidelines than the legions of censors who chop the facts out of this article and then accuse whoever dares to put them back in as being someone who they are not.

Where is the line between following the rules like a good little soldier in lockstep and supporting the obvious truth? Is this pattern not the ultimate justification of WP:IAR? If the censors want to delete the bulk of this article then make them say why.

Responsible admins need to step in here and replace the Black Omega version. And if others don't like it, then let them justify their deletions with science instead of personal attack accusation. --Chaim, glad he did not make -Alex-'s mistake of using an account to post here instead of logging out! 212.199.91.98 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am Black Omega

I am not the person who was banned from contributing to this article. I simply went in and corrected some strange punctuation after reading through it.

I suffer from a genetic disease that causes damage to my metabolism. This disease came as a result of my parents being too close to Hiroshima during the time of the blast and their exposure to the area while participating in the subsequent medical relief efforts.

Something that didn't hit the news in the United States is the amount of genetic illnesses that have resulted from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are real and some of them indeed have resulted from exposure to depleted uranium.

I invite the scholars here who frequent wikipedia to take a look at the unpopular reality presented by those two events. And the persistant consequences still at play from them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Omega (talk • contribs) 15:40, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

I am not any of these people

I have not edited Depleted uranium, and certainly not to the extent that User:71.252.225.61 recently did. Nor did I edit as Peter Cheung when he was accused and convicted--by a single administrator--of being me while editing through an open proxy (which certainly looks to me like it was part of a DSL DHCP pool and thus would be very unlikely to host a proxy) some months ago. I note that IP address is in Dallas, Texas, which is very near Plano, where Dr. Cheung claimed to be from.

At the time I thought someone was going to absurd lengths to set me up, but now I think I had better talk to whoever did the checkuser on Peter Chung's IP address, calling it an open proxy.

TDC, you said you had an email address for Dr. Peter Cheung. What is it? LossIsNotMore 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of the two versions

I hadn't realized just how much had been removed over the past several months. Here's a comparison:

Survey

Which version is the best article? Please vote below in this format: #...optional text...~~~~

The current version

The 71.252.225.61/Black Omega version

1. See table above. LossIsNotMore 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Especially, why on earth the graph with malformed child births in the Basra hospital and related discussion has been removed????? There is no excuse at all for this! P.S. I am noone else than myself and it seems to me that this discussion page has gone paranoid Massimamanno 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The 71.252.225.61 version.

1. More info, better article. DebateKid 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Them

Instead of just picking one, they should be merged. I don't think there are too many references. I don't think you CAN have too many references. This is an online Encyclopedia. No limits. Anyone who would use the references would probably like more instead of less (I being one of them). This encyclopedia should say everything in the most beneficial format that it can. Also, references prove what is writen (at least to a certain degree). Thus, more is better (if they are all valid references). SadanYagci 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• 62 footnotes is overdoing it. Why exactly are we voting on article content? It would seem that a more productive approach would be to edit the page to use the best of both versions. (Radiant) 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

During FAC they want at least one footnote per paragraph, so it's seems about right to me. Wikipedia is not paper, and the footnotes are small. I found most of those which were replaced, and they are almost all from the peer-reviewed literature.

This is a survey because those who have been removing the content from the article hauled me in front of the arbcom and got me prohibited from editing this because I told a military doctor that his denial of uranium's teratogenic properties bordered on malpractice. Since then, those who have been removing things from the article have accused at least ten people of being me, and have in at least two cases succeded in blocking people who are not me because they were adding things -- most recently as small as an {{POV}} tag, to this article. Because, according to one editor who is running for Arb Com, the guy who added the POV tag is an "obvious sockpuppet" even though checkuser says we are "unrelated." LossIsNotMore 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment from Black Omega

I did not add one word to the article I edited. I simply corrected some of the punctuation. Nothing more, nothing less. So anyone calling that version "the Black Omega version" is 100% incorrect. Because it simply was not my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Omega (talk • contribs)

Interwiki

We have begun the writing an article on the same subject in the Turkish Wikipedia. As I can't edit this page without an account, can you please add it to the links availible: Zayıflatılmış uranyum Thank you. --85.101.166.106 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

I added a brief intro section from an Argonne lab study for context, and a link to a summary of that report
KonaScout 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another discussion of the small amount of radioactivity and how harmless it is, without any mention at all of the very much more significant chemical toxicity or its implications. Doesn't the current version of the article already have enough of that? I'm sure Al Marshall and the rest of the military industrial complex are thrilled to have an Encyclopedia-of-Earth link spammer (who, ironically, doesn't disclose his or her identity or credentials) following in their footsteps. LossIsNotMore 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed my qui tam action in federal district court last Monday. I urge replacement of the article by the clearly superior 71.252.225.61/Black Omega version, per the table above. I would do it myself if I were allowed to edit this article. LossIsNotMore 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This link should be included: Determining the chronic biological health effects of depleted uranium among civilian populations

"Soldier Complaints"

This section isn't acceptable, even by its own admission. If there are no objections, it will be removed. Haizum 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "even by its own admission"? I prefer expansion, e.g.,

LossIsNotMore 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro problems: "high strength", "radioactive"

Uranium is not particularly strong, and it spalls when milled or bent (which has also been removed, even though I distinctly remember adding that fact before I was banned, from a uranium metallurgy reference source in Stanford Libraries' archives.) The only properties upon which its widespread applications depend are its density and pyrophoricity. Strength should not be mentioned in the intro because it doesn't correspond to anything in the article. (See WP:LEAD)

Secondly, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the fact that depleted uranium is weakly radioactive is of little consequence unless it is inhaled or ingested, and even then, the hazard from its chemical toxicity is several orders of magnitude worse than its radioactivity. So the intro shouldn't say that the controversy is because of the radioactivity. A little bit of it is, but the primary controversy is the toxicity, which generally includes the radiological hazards of absorbed radioisotopes, anyway. The intro should say instead that the controversy is because DU is toxic.

Finally, until the other content disputes above pertaining to the "Health considerations" section are resolved, I think article should have a {{totallydisputed}} tag at the top. Even if the changes to the intro are made, the article remains factually incorrect in several respects (the current version of "soldier complaints" being just one obvious example) and biased in the manufacturer's favor. LossIsNotMore 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The properties of pure depleted uranium are like you describe them, but addition of titanium and niob change the situation drastical. [1] There are other metals with poor properties like iron and titanium and they are claiemed to have a high strength.--Stone 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the alloys not burn? LossIsNotMore 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strength and burnig are no opposit properies. Most of the magnesium alloys burn the same way pure magnesium burns, so with good luck Uranium alloy burns the same way like uranium, but is less likely to fragment or fall apart. --Stone 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Towards A-class

This is the improved version of the health considerations section. I want to replace the existing health considerations section with this one to see if that would make A-class, but this version uses the new reference formats so we can't just drop it in without reverting to the Black Omega/IP version which is getting old and doesn't have the anonymously-suggested link. How long are we going to have partial protection for this article? Unstable articles are never featured. LossIsNotMore 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Health considerations

The health effects of DU are determined by factors such as the extent of the exposure and whether it was internal or external. Three main pathways exist by which internalization of uranium may occur: inhalation, ingestion, and embedded fragments or shrapnel contamination. Properties such as phase (e.g. particulate or gaseous), oxidation state (e.g. metallic or ceramic), and the solubility of uranium and its compounds influence their absorption, distribution, translocation, elimination and the resulting toxicity. For example, metallic uranium is relatively non-toxic compared to hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds such as uranyl nitrate.^[1]

Chemical and radiological hazards

The chemical toxicity of uranium salts is about a million times greater than their radiological toxicity.^[2] Uranium is pyrophoric when finely divided. It will corrode under the influence of air and water producing insoluble uranium(IV) and soluble uranium(VI) salts. Soluble uranium salts are toxic. Uranium accumulates in several organs, such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The World Health Organization has established a daily "tolerated intake" of soluble uranium salts for the general public of 0.5 µg/kg body weight (or 35 µg for a 70 kg adult.)

The radiological dangers of pure depleted uranium are 60% lower than those of naturally-occurring uranium due to the removal of the more radioactive isotopes, as well as due to its long half-life of 4.5 billion years. Depleted uranium differs from natural uranium in its isotopic composition, but its biochemistry is for the most part the same. Its radiological hazards are dependent on the purity of the uranium, and there has been some concern that depleted uranium produced as a by-product of nuclear reprocessing may be contaminated with more dangerous isotopes: this should not be a concern for depleted uranium produced as tailings from initial uranium enrichment. However, when alpha emitting radionuclides are taken into the body they become the most serious of all types of radiation hazards.^[3]

Birth defects and other effects

Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq, as reported by I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, (see Table 1 here). This version from data by same author(s) in Wilcock, A.R., ed. (2004) "Uranium in the Wind" (Ontario: Pandora Press.)

Children of British soldiers who fought in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used are at greater risk of suffering genetic diseases such as congenital malformations, commonly called "birth defects," passed on by their fathers. Veterans of the conflicts in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo have been found to have up to 14 times the usual level of chromosome abnormalities in their genes.^[4]

Early scientific studies usually found no link between depleted uranium and cancer, and sometimes found no link with increases in the rate of birth defects, but newer studies have and offered explanation of birth defect links. There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans, but it induces them in several other species of mammals, and human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU.^[5] Environmental groups and others have expressed concern about the health effects of depleted uranium,^[6] and there is significant debate over the matter. Some people have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions, because of its proven mutagenicity,^[7] teratogenicity,^[8][9] in animals, and neurotoxicity,^{[10][11][12][13]} and its suspected carcinogenic potential, because it remains radioactive for an exceedingly long time with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and because it is also toxic in a manner similar to lead and other heavy metals.

A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects.^[14] After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."^[15]

In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."^[16]

In 2001, doctors at the hospital in Kosovska Mitrovica reported that the number of patients suffering from malignant diseases increased by 200% since 1998.^[17] In the same year, The World Health Organization said there has been no reported increase in cancer among the civilian population in Kosovo.^[18]

By contrast, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "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," although "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."^[19]

Patterns of exposure

Approximate area and major clashes in which DU bullets and rounds were used in the Gulf War

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air^[20] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas,^[21] and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine.^[22] Burning uranium droplets violently produce a gaseous vapor comprising about half of the uranium in their original mass.^[23] Uranium trioxide is produced when uranium burns.^[24] Uranyl ion contamination in uranium oxides has been detected in the residue of DU munitions fires.^[25]

DU can disperse into the air and water.^[26] The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The munition tips recovered by the United Nations Environment Programme team had already decreased in mass by 10-15% in this way. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis.^[27]

In October, 1992, an El Al Boeing 747-F cargo aircraft crashed in a suburb of Amsterdam. After reports of local residents and rescue workers complaining of health issues related to the release of depleted uranium used as counterbalance in the plane, authorities began an epidemiological study in 2000 of those believed to be affected by the accident. The study concluded that because exposure levels were so low, it was highly improbable that exposure to depleted uranium was the cause of the reported health complaints.^{[citation needed]}

For further details see Actinides in the environment.

Gulf War syndrome

Main article: Gulf War syndrome

Increased rates of immune system disorders and other wide-ranging symptoms have been reported in combat veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. It has not always been clear whether these were related to Gulf War service, but combustion products from depleted uranium munitions is still being considered as a potential cause by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, as DU was used in tank kinetic energy penetrator and machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War.

Some 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. A two year study headed by Sandia National Laboratories' Al Marshall analyzed potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis and are not supported by veteran medical statistics. The Sandia study was not comprehensive because it considered only the radiological risks of depleted uranium exposure,^[28] but not the substantial toxicological^[29][30] and reproductive risks.^[5]

In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were found to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims.^[31][32]

Soldier complaints

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.^[33][34]

The US and UK governments have been attempting to monitor Gulf War veteran uranium exposure using urine tests.^[35] Urine assay for uranium inhalation exposure can be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake. The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days. If urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable.^[36] Exposure to teratogens may be measured by karyotype tests such as those most often provided for biopsy and amniocentesis. Soluble and most partially-soluble uranyl compounds affect gonadal chromosomes in proportion to the extent that they affect white blood cell chromosomes.^[37] Uranyl poisoning causes immune system disorders and may cause cancer.^[38]

"No direct proof"

"There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans" By this sentence do you mean that a laboratory study where human pregnant mothers were exposed to high levels of ingested or inhaled depleted uranium has not (yet??) been done??? Come on... Massimamanno 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever's sockpuppet

What is happening here?? It has never occurred to me in any other page. Really, Honestly, I am solely and only myself, with a normal and honest wikipedia history which anyone can check Massimamanno 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You showed up out of nowhere and made a bunch of highly contentious edits to an article which has had more than its fair share of polarized disagreements. Those edits were highly focused and extremely complex, which generally indicate the return of a prior combatant in sockpuppet guise. Georgewilliamherbert 08:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that I am no sockpuppet and I hope to be believed, I am ready to withstand any investigation! (this is ridiculous). More to the point I added

a)information on toxicity of uranium to mammals in the header, which has been proved by several laboratory studies. The current header is simply wrong, DU is not controversial because of its residual radioactivity but because of its toxicity.

b)referenced information about UE DU ban

c)request for a reference for an unsourced sentence in the text

and d) I reverted the section on Uranium damage to a previous version which was much better.

Furthermore, e) other editors added other minor points which have now been reverted. Now I will restore a) b) c) and e) so that we can discuss d). Note that there was a call for vote on the page for restoring the version I restored, with only one favourable vote. Why didn't you and TDC sign with contrary votes, so that anyone who arrived in this page could know the situation? Massimamanno 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't work by voting, especially within an arbitrarily short time window. We work by consensus. The information you're adding was the core of a Arbcom mediated dispute - stepping in shortly afterwards in this manner is highly suspicious activity, given the high quality (numerous references, etc) of edits you're making which mimic one of the "sides" in the dispute. You need to back off and talk about it more, or else people will conclude you're a sleeper sockpuppet account of one of the people involved in the earlier dispute. Georgewilliamherbert 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the dispute yesterday, it happened in May 2006, so hardly a "short time". Could you please specify which information exactly was the "core" of it, and more to the point the reasons why you object to it? Remember what I now restored was

a)information on toxicity of uranium to mammals in the header, which has been proved by several laboratory studies. The current header is simply wrong, DU is not controversial because of its residual radioactivity but because of its toxicity.

b)referenced information about European Union DU ban

c)request for a reference for an unsourced sentence in the text

where all three of these information, plus the paragraph on health damage (which I didn't restore now) the "core" of such dispute? Massimamanno 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppetry, my IP can be checked as to be (and always have been) from Italy!!! Was "James" from Italy? Do you think he has access to a computer account in Italy where he goes when he whishes to edit "Depleted Uranium"? Could you please discuss rationally with someone who just arrived on this page and found a sort of hallucinatory situation which he never encountered anywhere else in wikipedia? Massimamanno 09:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The use is controversial because it is said to be connected to the Golfwarsyndrom and other incidents not jet fully examined. Most studies on Uranium toxicology do not come up with something like the Golfwarsyndrom, but normal heavy metal intoxication. --Stone 10:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reason for rejecting d), that is reverting the whole section on DU damage to a previous version? OK, I accept that, I haven't restored d) at present, although I think the controversy should be mentioned (as it is) but my main point is that the section should start by discussing possible damage from intoxication, as studied in several peer-reviewed papers, and only later discuss possible radioactive damage which is relatively minor. As it is now, the article gives the false impression that radioactivity is the main problem and, since it is no big deal, that there is about no problem with DU at all, which is false. Or, "most likely", according to an elementary precutionary principle, false, which is the reason behind the repeated EU bans. Massimamanno 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the toxic effects is that most of the sudies indicate that the amount of uranium from natural sources excedes that of the depleted uranium. This makes it difficult to argue that the toxic effects of the uranylion is the problem. The oxides formed by the use of DU are not volatile and most are also not water soluable the uptake into plants is also limited which reduces the possible contamination to dust particles which can hardly cause widespread symtoms like the golfwarsyndrom. This all makes it difficult even for scientists to give a risk for the use of DU. But with the assessment that the toxicity is the bigger problem than radiation you are definitly right--Stone 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not specifically concerned with the Gulf War syndrome: although I think the issue should be mentioned, I agree that some, or most, of the symptoms reported by veterans, for example weariness, vomit and the like could be due to different reasons, maybe even simply hygienic reasons. However, there is a more unsettling issue, which concerns the facts that a) uranium oxides have been conclusively proved to be toxic to the reproductive cycle in mammals and b) there are several reports of significant increase in malformed births, abortions and miscarriages in people living near the areas where DU ammunitions have been used. Now according to models, depleted uranium used in warheads ignites and violently oxidizes upon impact creating a fine powder of toxic oxides that contaminate the area surrounding the explosion for a few, or several, kilometers according to different models. What I believe you are saying is that the levels of such oxides present in the air may not be sufficient for causing acute intoxication; which arguably may be true; and so not sufficient for causing permanent damage to people exposed to it for a limited period of time (i.e. soldiers); however they could still cause not acute, but chronic intoxication to people living in the area for longer periods of time. And evidence, such as reports of malformed births from hospitals in these areas like the one that has been removed in he current version, suggests that this is exactly what is happening, and I think such evidence should not be hidden. Massimamanno 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The uranium concentration in certain groundwater levels is several times higher than possible uptake by DU amunition, which makes a connection highly unlikely. The concentrations necessary for significant intoxication are in the same level like all other heavy metals and therefor within the detectable level of modern analytical methods. This all is for me a clear proof that a little more research in this area is necessary for claims that DU is the problem. The concentrations of uranium and cadmium in phosphat furtilizer are more problematic than some hotspots contaminated with uraniumoxides.--Stone 13:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect your personal opinion but this peer reviewed paper, already cited in the article, [2] indicates a high probability of substantial risk, and states that the "Basra registry studies are the starting point for discussion.". I am still waiting for a good reason why the graph with the Basra hospital data has been removed from the article. I am not saying that contrary points of view, such as yours that "uranium and cadmium in phosphat furtilizer" are the main cause for such increase in malformations, should be excluded; provided, of course, that thy are referenced in peer-reviewed work. Massimamanno 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and wait, in case someone hadn't time or patience to follow a ponderous scientific article, here is a powerpoint presentation on the same subject by Dr. Thomas M. Fasy, Ph.D., on the same subject [3]. Warning, however: extremely disturbing visual content (child malformations in Basra hospital).Massimamanno 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• E. S. Craft, A. W. Abu-Qare, M. M. Flaherty, M. C. Garofolo, H. L. Rincavage, M. B. Abou-Donia (2004). "Depleted Uranium and Natural Uranium Chemistry and Toxicological Effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews 7 (4): 297 - 317. doi:10.1080/10937400490452714. 
• Arfsten D.P.; Still K.R.; Ritchie G.D (2001). "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development". Toxicology and Industrial Health 17 (5-10): 180-191. doi:10.1191/0748233701th111oa. 
• R. Hindin, D. Brugge, B. Panikkar (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environ Health. 17 (4): 171. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. 
• http://www.cpt.org/iraq/documents/DU%20Review.pdf
• http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=121695&recNo=17&toc=1

Could you please expand a bit on the matter and tell me exactly which sources among those you quoted give different explanations of the Basra case, and where? Note that you re-cited one of the two sources I offered, that is

• R. Hindin, D. Brugge, B. Panikkar (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environ Health. 17 (4): 171. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. 

which actually supports my view, that is, that a connection between increase of malformations and depleted uranium bombings is plausible and likely, so I don't really see your point. Massimamanno 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the review

• http://www.cpt.org/iraq/documents/DU%20Review.pdf

also presents the data from Basra in a positive view as an important case study, though with a couple of known limitations; and the review's conclusions say "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". So I don't really understand, Are you citing articles supporting my view? Massimamanno 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This are good quotes for your case! But still they all lack the analytical proof that the people have elevated uranium concentrations in the blood or bones. The detection level is so low that it is easy to detect it and even make clear if it is from depleted or natural source, and before this proof is not written in a paper it is hard to get the definit connection of DU and what happens in Basra. The life changed there over the last decade in a way that a study of the symtomes will never lead to a proof. The studie of isotop ratios is the only thing which would satisfy me.--Stone 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point to a degree but not to the extent that I believe the discussion should be excluded from the article: I think you agree that data from Basra hospital is present in the discussion in the scientific community, since those data are evaluated in the very same papers you cited, and presented at least as possible, somewhere as likely evidence of DU contamination effect. I am not proposing to write "DU has caused a huge increase in child malformations in Basra" full stop or something like that, but rather a discussion of the case, with the reasons why such symptoms may, or may not, be related to DU contamination. This is not mathematics, and certainity of a proof is not the only concern: it is medicine and if you have good reasons to believe that something is harmful, as some papers state, this could be enough to suggest caution. I mean, sorry to make stupid examples, but would you live all your life in a room contaminated (even contaminated below those you presently think are harmful levels) by uranium oxides on the grounds that "hah, there is no 100% sure proof that this can cause malformations to my children, it's just an hypotesis that's being evaluated". Massimamanno 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem will be and will never go away that I was never against having a sentence like that in the article, but what I saw in the uranium trioxide article, if you write something like that it has a life of its own and at the end it looks total differnt to what a article should look like.--17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I never touched (nor, actually, ever read) that article. I will surely do it now, what's the problem with it? Do you believe me on this? Are you also convinced that I am "James"? Is the delusionary environment in this particular article so strong?? Help! My real name is Massimiliano, I live in Genoa, Italy; I have a Ph.D. in physics but I don't currently do research, I work in the industry. Please tell me of any proof I could offer to dissolve this illusion that I am "James"... and also I first signed to wikipedia in 2005 to edit an article about Silvio Berlusconi, so I'm not a "meatpuppet" either. Please... Massimamanno 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do it´! I never reverted anything you did! James is a long gone faint illusion now for me! You will see what happens! I will do nothing, because depleted uranium is far away from the lands of chemistry I feel familiar with! The connection is evident, but not proofen, this is enough for me, but you will see what happens on this little rolercoaster article if anybody is editing it. I also do not edit this article, I took refuge at the uranium trioxide article a long time ago!--Stone 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it. It looks rather balanced to me but I look forward to your comments and suggestions (hoping it stays till tomorrow). Massimamanno 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Soldier complaints

Not even I myself like the version I wrote, but I believe that there is relevant information in that paragraph: that the US armed forces are seriously thinking of replacing DU, because all or in part of its actual, potential or perceived dangers; and that they meanwhile are developing drugs capable of suppressing its carcinogenic potential, which it might show through a flesh wound or inhalation. Read the papers, and you'll agree. Possibly it's misplaced information, possibly the entire paragraph must be rewritten but I think the basic information needs to stay... somewhere.Massimamanno 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. give a look to this [4]. For being a not-so-dangerous material, it requires a quite involved procedure when coming in contact with it. Massimamanno 08:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal status etc

Brief points. First of all, I checked the relevant old discussion and noted that Philip Baird Shearer was the only one insisting on keeping the emphasis on the emphasized passage. So, this could be at least re-discussed. Second, I do not see how a section of a document coming from an international organization could be POV while another section of the same document could be not POV. It would be fair to say that it is not your POV. Third, I am willing to consider splitting the paragraph in two, one dealing with "current legal status" and the other with "international requests for a moratorium" if there is consensus for this solution although tendentially, my view would be to leave the two related aspects in the same passage.Massimamanno 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And you, Massimamanno, at the moment are the only one insisting on changing something which has been there for months. The section is about the current legal position not a speculation on what might be one day. As for some countries requesting a moratorium that is of no more relevance to the legal situation than saying that some countries are not asking for a moratorium. The section makes clear that those countries which have asked for a moratorium have done so because of long term health concerns, so if this is to go in anywhere it should be noted in the health paragraph not the legal section and also paragraph 166 would be more appropriate.

In my opinion the EU paragraph is not appropriate for this particular section, because as Paragraph 167 makes clear, the request for a moratorium is for health reasons. So, as I have already written, I do not think that mixing up health with the legal status is the best way to go in this article, because it confuses the two issues. If however you wish to incorporate these points into a new subsection under the health section I would have no objections.

BTW I as others have noted, it seems to me that you hold a very similar POV to others who no longer edit this page. It is not that you hold this POV on any one particular area but that you hold the same POV over large disparate areas of this article. I will assume in good faith, that what you have said on this talk page is true until such time as anyone can prove otherwise. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore insinuations of sockpuppetry because, more than anything else, I am really tired of them. If there is any wikipedia procedure that I can go through to prove that I am *not* a sockpuppet, please tell me so and I will be glad to comply, otherwise please just stop mentioning the issue. On the point, thanks for finally explaining your reasons. Now I have the following objection: do you think that, for example, chemical weapons are internationally banned for different reasons than "health issues"? the claim that requests for a general moratorium are unrelated to international legal status is totally unsubstantiable: in fact, any general moratorium will start from being asked by some countries, and finally will (maybe) end with being accepted by all. As i said, I am willing to accept the reasonable compromise of making a separate section, such as "requests for a general moratorium" following "legal status" but absolutely not as a subsection of "health issues". Of course, I invite others to express their point ov view on the matter. Finally, the argument that "stuff has been here for months" does not seem a credible point to me, especially regarding a B-rated article. Massimamanno 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article on military necessity, weapons are banned under the customary laws of war if they cause inhuman injuries which other weapons that give the same or similar military advantage do not. There is a clear military advantage to this type of munition, so it is not the traditional inhumanity of a weapon which the suggested moratorium is addressing. The moratorium is not a customary laws of war issue but a health/environmental one. It is the difference between paragraph 2 and 3 of article 35 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (APIGC). With regard to paragraph 3 of the APIGC, this is covered in the article by the Carla del Ponte quote. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the cause for such a moratorium request may be, regardless of the issue of wheter DU weapons can be considered traditionally inhumane or only non-conventionally inhumane, that is inhumane in a different sense than other banned weapons, the fact remains that, for example, any EU country using such weapons will be at best deprecated, at worst sanctioned, by the EU commission. This means that DU weapons are in some sense "illegal" within the EU, and so that the problem of a request for a general moratory and the current legal status are related. However, they are now in different, although bordering, paragraphs, which I do not like but is maybe sufficient. I am especially waiting for other people's opinions about the (in my opinion) needless added emphasis on the sentence declaring that "there is no specific ban (etc)" Emphasis changes the tone from the constatation of a fact, which is neutral, to a less neutral statement which might imply approval. In general, I see no use for adding emphasis to existing documents in Wikipedia, since this is usually done to prove a point. Massimamanno 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a source for "any EU country using such weapons will be at best deprecated, at worst sanctioned, by the EU commission." because it is a very bold statment? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but I have several references for EU member states being continuously sanctioned by the EU commission for failing to comply to the most insignificant approved resolutions, ranging from producing more than one state's assigned quota of milk to disallowing the labeling as "chocolate" of products using types of fat different from cocoa butter... Massimamanno 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are the result of treaty obligations. Defence is not part of those treaties. See the Amsterdam Treaty in which some wikipedian has written "Although the Amsterdam Treaty did not provide for a common defence, it did increase the EU's responsibilities for peacekeeping and humanitarian work, in particular by forging closer links with Western European Union.", and the European Security and Defence Policy which includes the wording from the now rejected European constitution:

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very briefly, the above is technically correct and are the kind of reasons why I wrote "deprecated or sanctioned". The legal grounds for applying a procedure of violation of a directive in military matters are uncertain; however, for example in the case of the Ottawa Treaty on landmines, the EU commission has applied a mixed strategy of political pressure and denying of financial incentives meant for the destruction of stockpiles of landmines, reconversion of their production facilities and widespread education on civilian safety in warfare. Negating incentives to member states can be in practice as effective as imposing sanctions (which in most cases consist in fines). In fact, most UE member states who didn't originally sign the treaty (Poland Latvia and others) have eventually signed it, today I believe only Finland remains out, who is under considerable political pressure and has promised to sign it in a few years. Massimamanno 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we agree not to use deprecable strategies such as trying to make opposing opinions appear as unreadable or exceedingly convoluted? I am willing to discuss the section I wrote, but not if we start by postulating that reality shoud be presented as Yeung Sik Yuen-s own elucubrations. There are of course other sources for the written statements, which are simply facts, don't make me take the pain to list all of them. Massimamanno 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

After all I think I have given proof of good faith in editing this article. Even though I found it to be terribly biased in favor of the marvelous curative properties of depleted uranium, ingested or subcutaneous (so to speak), I added some new facts reinforcing the point of view which I originally meant to weaken, when I found them, such as the statements on tungsten alloys being possibly even more harmful, or reporting that no persistent ground pollution has been found in contaminated areas. I could have hidden those finds, if all I wanted was to push a POV, but it wasn't, it was to find an equilibrium point, so I didn't. So please take a constructive attitude with me. Massimamanno 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Added emphasis in the article - is it necessary?

I checked the relevant old discussion and noted that Philip Baird Shearer was the only one insisting on keeping the emphasis on the emphasized passage. So I am re-opening the discussion, and looking for different views on the matter. I would like to hear opinions and any comments which may be useful in reaching consensus about whether the added emphasis on the sentence "There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles" in section Depleted Uranium#Legal status in weapons should stay or be removed.

(for readers' understanding of the following debate: the sketch for a poll on the subject was previously here but has been removed on request from Philip Baird Shearer). Massimamanno 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to hold a vote over such an issue -- See wikipedia:consensus "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. ... Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." --Philip Baird Shearer 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I changed the title is it ok now? Massimamanno 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck ... --Philip Baird Shearer 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the paragraph title, will you? I do not want people coming to see an interminable discussion on international law and related matters, just a precise issue on a debatable feature of the article, on which they may comment. Massimamanno 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." This is part of the previous discussion, so there is no need for it to have a separate heading as someone new to the conversation needs to read the conversation to know what has been said. Putting in another heading is not in my opinion the way to build a consensus --08:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion did not even touch the matter of the added emphasis. In fact, You haven't even repeated your arguments for keeping it, which can be found in the archives. This is the place where the emphasis is discussed. Note that continually reverting my edits to the talk page is extremely rude! It's not that they contain offensive statements, I made a talk paragraph with a legitimate title, who are you to remove it? Massimamanno 09:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence that you wrote after the section heading #Legal status etc seems to me to be addressing this issue "First of all, I checked the relevant old discussion and noted that Philip Baird Shearer was the only one insisting on keeping the emphasis on the emphasized passage." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added that sentence. The section title refers to what in my opinion is an important unresolved issue in the current article! You cannot mask this fact by removing the title, *I* decide that *I* believe that this issue should be discussed. Then I may be proved wrong on the merit, but you cannot remove the section title. This is simply not a valid way of dealing with my need of more talk and external nput about this issue. If you continue on these lines I will be forced to request for an advocate in the matter of if I have the right of creating a talk page subsection with the title I want, related to a perceived problem with the existing article. Sheeesh!Massimamanno 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By structuring the discourse with a poll at the top of a section, you are encouraging a poll on the issue instead of allowing for "consensus on conflicts [to be] reached via discussion on talk pages." Why not follow the guidelines on this issue? It is not that polls do not help to build a consensus when there are many contributors to a discussion, but with (if we are lucky) half a dozen contributors they do not bring any clarity and tend to polarise opinion, because they entrench positions and not help build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will remove the poll. Update:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style clearly states to use italics when added emphasis is necessary. So, I changed the format. I still belive emphasis is unnecessary but this way is perhaps more acceptable. Waiting for external comments. Do not revert to boldface without making a convincing case on why this particular point should not conform to the manual of style. Massimamanno 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the poll. What is the problem with the title now? Massimamanno 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In a scientific way, a quote (if used) should be verbatim. Adding an emphasis (also using italics) to a quote can change the meaning intended by the author, and this is what it does here. In my opinion this is not good for the NPOV. Maybe even "(...)" at the beginning and the end or the quote are needed, to show that these sentences were taken from a paragraph. -- 84.190.192.91 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) btw. i think the argumentations on this discussion page are not at their highest stage: ad hominem (sock puppet paranoia), not discussing the question only attacking how the questions are asked... maybe cool down a bit?

Requests for a general moratorium of military use

From the history of the article:

• 00:10, 23 January 2007 Massimamanno: (please - facts are not just Yeung Sik Yuen's opinion. He is an authoritable reference for such facts, not their origin)
• 08:15, 23 January 2007 Philip Baird Shearer: (rv: last version by PBS "Yeung Sik Yuen reviews the requests for a moratorium " does not say it is his opinion that they have asked, it says they "have asked")

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 09:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The article is not about the UN paper. It is about DU weapons and, in this section, the international community. The section should start with a referenced statement of facts, not saying what is written in some particular document about facts. This, besides being unencyclopedic, gives the impression that the one given is the only source for such facts. Please note also that you are always reverting without trying to address any of my complaints, while I am not doing the same: I am making changes in response to your objections, or at least trying to see them as in good faith and reasonable. Massimamanno 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had reverted, without making a comment then how do you explain the above? Also note that I did not revert you addition of a new section I edited it. I mearly reveted your revert of my edits ([5][6] [7]). If you want to keep the section without attributing the section to Yeung Sik Yuen, then the quote may as well go because it adds no additional information. If however it is constructed the way I have edited it then the quote can stay as the section then describes why he would make such a comment. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mine were reverts with changes to try to address your issues, yours were simply undiscriminated reverts.

What the quote adds is the informed opinion about the matter by Yeung Sik Yuen as a representative of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. What matters in the quote is precisely the positive opinion of the commission about the ban requests, not the existence of those ban requests, which is sourced in a myriad of other documents. Massimamanno 11:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To be more explicative, the fact that the UN subcommission has such a strong opinion on the necessity of the ban is, to me, relevant and informative to the matter. If you find reasonably short and authoritable quote from any institution about why the ban requests should be rejected, I have no objections that you add it. Massimamanno 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

In about ten days if no source is given I will remove or substitute the statement that "While arguably other hazardous materials released from a burning commercial aircraft overshadow the contributions made by DU" in the subparagraph "Trim weights in aircraft" because it does not seem obvious to me that the above can be argued. What obviously can be argued is that "there are other hazardous materials released from a burning commercial aircraft", which is not the same. Massimamanno 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• See:http://safetycenter.navy.mil/aviation/aeromedical/downloads/References/Composites/Onscene%20commanders%20Mishap%20HAZMAT%20pamphlet.doc

Note line: "The newest and potentially most hazardous HAM are Advanced Composite Materials (ACM). Previous ACM aircraft mishaps have shown that there is a definite need for protection from hazards at crash sites.

HAM=Hazardous Aerospace Materials

It notes also: This definition excludes hazardous material carried as cargo, fuels, petroleum oil lubricants, and compressed gases. In terms of Composite Materials, aircraft may contain amounts ranging from 176 pounds (F-16) to 33,000 pounds (B-2). 207.164.4.52 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting but I'm unsure of its relevance here because it's about military, not commercial, aircraft, which use much more sophisticated alloys and materials. Furthermore the sentence now specifically says "other hazardous materials (...) overshadow the contributions made by DU". I don't know how one generally interprets this sentence, but to someone with a scientific oriented mind this usually means "possible hazards from other sources combined are one order of magnitude or more greater than those from DU", that is, if DU risks weight 1, risks from all other possible sources combined weight at least 10. For example, "Commercial aircraft contain other hazardous materials of comparable risk" would be a different, although still unsourced, sentence. Massimamanno 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I work in aviation, ex-military, now civilian, as a structural tech in maintenance. The differences are minor in this regard. If you add the contribution of fuel and the other material specifically left out of the HAM definition in the case of a fire I think we can be confident that indeed it overshadows any contribution made by DU trim weights. Or at least agree that the subject can be argued.

I was pointed to this entry by a co-worker who is a contributor to this site but reading the arguments above I can see that this is not a technical discussion but a political one. Nobody here is interested in the truth and I suspect most wouldn't recognize it if they saw it in front of them. I will not waste any more of my time since it would seem you have already made up your mind and will only entertain input that supports your viewpoint. I also won't make the error of looking in the discussion pages of any Wikipedia article again - it's like turning over a rock on damp ground. 207.164.4.52 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely feel sorry about your reaction, whatever could be the reason why I caused it. I of course do not agree with your views. To be honest, i believe that science, and I mean all science, even fundamental physics, is a continual struggle among people who are driven, even in their research, by different, often opposite, ideological and political views; but who respect each other and can see facts, so that they often reach a consensus about the description (and, more importantly, interpretation) of such facts. Certainly you have a political and ideological view too, and probably it does not hinder you too much when you have to look at factual truth. In any case thank you for your informed technical opinion, it certainly was helpful and made me look more favourably to the idea that what the statement says at least "can be argued", although, please take no offense for this, I certainly would prefer to add to the article a verifiable source saying more explicitly so. Massimamanno 21:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify. I was not singling out you in particular. I spent some time looking through the discussions that preceded ours and dipped into the archives, and frankly the contents of this article is being driven by several political agendas, wherein interpretations of scientific fact are used as weapons, not sought after as an end in themselves.

On the general topic of DU I know little, I was asked to give input as at one time I was part of a project evaluating releases from burning aircraft, mostly the impact of smoke and fumes from burning interiors would have on egressing survivors. However I did attend the conferences, and I can recall the issue being raised on a few occasions by ESM people and they were told the hazmat potential was minimal as these weights are encased in steel which would help limit the area contaminated. No, I have not looked for references, nor (as I am rapidly loosing what little interest I had in this matter) will I.

In general the whole issue is moot anyway because current engineering practice has done away with their use on newer airframes.

Some parting observations: The article reads less as an encyclopedic entry on a material, and more as political tract; it also seems that those who oppose the use of DU in munitions cannot see the forest for the trees, as your efforts should be directed to ending the conflicts, rather than debating what metal your troops are eviscerating their enemy with. Finally, to an outsider, this entry fails to meet the minimum standards for scholarship, neutrality, and brevity, which are the hallmarks of encyclopedic writing. I will not be returning, have fun. 207.164.4.52 16:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am happy you returned to clarify, I will answer you though you probably you won't return, but I will still try to ask you one more technical opinion, in case you change your mind, which will be the last paragraph in my answer.

1) Many people, including me, agree that this article is bad, exactly for the reasons you write. However, I think it has to be expected that 90% of people looking for information about DU will actually look for informations about the controversies regarding its use. But, I believe that at the end of the day this article could be split in two, with a very technical part on "depleted uranium", which disregards any moral or political consideration; and a second article about "controversies about military use of DU" addressing all those issues. Wikipedia is a living project, and this may very well happen in the future.

2) You write about war, and how to win it. First of all, let me say that the main controversy about DU, the one even the U.S. Army is trying to address, is not what harm DU could do to your enemies, but what it could do to your own soldiers. If it wasnt't for this danger, the issue would probably never have emerged. Secondarily, as a personal comment, let me state what I think about war. I believe that the latest attempts at an aggression war, even coming from a superpower to a minor/regional power (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (both the Soviet invasion and the NATO invasion)) show that in modern warfare, in these cases, tactics, strategy and superiority of conventional materiel do not suffice, and that there is only one way of dealing with a country whose population really does not want to be occupied, or freed, by foreign forces, and is the following:

a) Bomb the place like there is no future. Use nuclear bombs for cities, napalm for forests, chemical weapons for holes in the ground (people could hide there)

b) When the country is all flat like a parking lot, park your tanks there, and have them go up and down to hunt any survivors

c) Rebuild, repopulate.

since the above is currently unthinkable and inhumane, I believe wars will finally cease because of the impossibility of winning them in any acceptable way.

3) I found this paper [8] dealing with hazard from combustion materials in a commercial plane crash. It deals mostly with carbon fibers and complex polymers, and concludes that they, according to currently available data, probably cause no significant risk. What I can't understand is whether the paper takes into account these materials because it believes they are possibly the most dangerous, or if it does not address other typers of materials at all, for different reasons. Maybe if you are more familiar with the literature, could give me hints, if you change your mind about returning. In any case, if you don't, good bye, and good luck. Massimamanno 01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More videos

I think these should be added to the videos section:

• http://d3779995.u30.infinology.com/photos/NM_Dust_Damacio_II.htm
• http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/30/1411222
• http://www.planetvids.com/html/Depleted-Uranium-Problem.html

I couldn't get this one to play:

• http://www.winc.tv/cgi-bin/artman/exec/search.cgi?keyword=Coverage%20Differs%20on%20Use%20of%20Depleted%20Uranium%20in%20Warfare&cat=38&perpage=10&year=1999&template=search/search_results.html

A pretty wierd URL, and I think it needs Quicktime or something. 171.65.66.170 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They do not seem particularly authoritable or well done to me. In the video section of a wikipedia article I expect to find something interesting and professional. Let's see what other people think. Massimamanno 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

John Taschner

John Taschner got a US Navy award in the 1980s for using tungsten instead of DU.... he advised that DU would lead to so many PR problems that the advantage was not worth the cost.[9] Prior to coming to Los Alamos National Laboratory, John was Deputy Director of the Navy’s Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, D.C., and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the U.S. Navy and the U. S. Air Force. Over the past thirty years, John has served on several Radiation Protection Standards Committees. Since 1992, John has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute’s N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. He has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. John earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.[10]

I think that is notable enough that he should have his own article. 75.35.205.242 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then write it. But there is the chance that its get deleted. Tungsten seems to be dangerous as well, see e.g. http://www.ehponline.org/press/011505.html. Face it. There is no "clean war". -- 84.190.133.22 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth defects graph

Please replace the Basrah graph with this one, which combines Basrah and official US Veterans Administration epidemiology data:

James S. 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rita Hindin's statement to the NRC

Epidimiologist Dr. Rita Hindin has made the following statement to the NRC: "Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk. Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded." James S. 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pyrophoricity?

I believe this article overemphasizes the pyrophoricity of DU, especially in terms of it's importance as a projectile. We're not talking about magnesium here. I believe the burning is minimal, and of trivial importance to projectile effectiveness. Penetrators come out of the far side of tanks looking almost good enough to reload and fire again. The kinetic energy punches through the armor, the displaced armor material rattles around in the vehicle starting fires and breaking things. Has anyone ever heard of DU counterweights being consumed or contributing to aircraft fires or fires in buildings with DU elevator counterweights?

I certainly could be wrong about this, but the evidence I've seen (photos, firsthand accounts or spent projectiles, and personal work with metallic DU) leads me to conclude that the pyrophoricity emphasis in this article is overblown. So to speak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hidesert (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The "self sharpening" effect of uranium is actually liquefaction of the metal, which results in a shower of metallic sparks which ignite and burn immediately, along with a round which comes out looking often in about the same shape, just smaller, than it did when it went in. According to "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report," (Army Environmental Policy Institute, June, 1994) p. 78, "As much as 70 percent of a DU penetrator can be aerosolized when it strikes a tank." The average is about 40% for the 30 mm rounds which comprise more than 100 times the amount of DU fired on the battlefield by mass. This has been confirmed by the Battelle studies of Mishima and Gilchrist. According to Henk van der Keur (February, 1994) "Uranium Pollution from the Amsterdam Plane Crash," Konfrontatie, approximately 273 kg of DU in the tail of the El Al Boeing 747 which crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam, Holland in 1992 burned and contaminated the surrounding area. It was never recovered, although the material surrounding the ballasts was. James S. 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points. "As much as" implies that this is an upper limit, meaning it's usually less. A lot less, from the photos I've seen and the firsthand descriptions I've heard. And aerosolization is probably primarily from the mechanical forces, not burning. The quote doesn't mean that the weapon effect has anything to do with pyrophoricity. Discussing the maximum amount of mass that might be lost doesn't say anything about what forces caused the loss, or whether pyrophoricity is significant to the destructive effects, unless I'm overlooking something. That may well be the case, since I really can't follow the sentence about 30mm rounds which comprise more than 100 times the amount of DU fired on the battlefield. That sentence just isn't making sense to me. The aircraft story is interesting

Having asked about DU weights being consumed in aircraft accidents, it occurs to me that it's not a very illuminating question, since any aircraft accident will probably have a lot of other burning material around. Interesting incident, though.

NRC Reading room information notice about pyrophoric forms of U demonstrates that U pyrophoricity can really be an issue, but thislink mentions a 1994 Dateline program on NBC for which Army commanders estimated that about 10% of the mass of a penetrator would burn up. The same web site mentions "slow combustion" of DU metal at 500 C. Compared to the kinetic effects of a slug of DU going about a mile a second, even rapid combustion of 10% of the mass isn't going to be very significant in terms of the weapon's effects on the target.

All I'm saying is that it appears that DU would be just as effective if it weren't pyrophoric at all, so anything more than a passing mention is overemphasis. I could be guilty of anything from pointless nitpicking to gross inaccuracy, but discussion produces better articles. --Hidesert 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Therapeutic Effects?

Did anyone look into this link that was posted above? http://jnumedmtg.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/suppl_1/242P-b

I'm going to quote it verbatim because it seems to address many of the controversial issues raised above.

"Purpose: Though a great body of information exists concerning Depleted Uranium (DU), there remains significant debate about its potential health effects. Most of the information available discounting the likelihood of any significant effects resulting in the use of DU in a wartime setting is based on human epidemiological studies of uranium millers/miners and workers in nuclear weapons and fuel workers between 1940-1970. However, a newer body of literature has been developed positively demonstrating the adverse effects of DU from the chromosomal level to fetal development in in-vivo and in-vitro studies. Techniques currently exist to estimate the levels of DU in both the environment and the patient. Though urine samples have traditionally been used, they may prove inaccurate as DU stores in long-term deposits in the bones. Since the detrimental effects of DU in the bones has now been well established, the use of gamma scintillation bone scans may prove most effective in identifying early bone lesions. Treatment and suppression for patients suspected of DU exposure is also rapidly developing. The means to identify, estimate, and respond to such incidents is becoming increasingly important as the proliferation of DU weapons expands beyond Western nations. Objectives: To compare the various means of DU detection and determine the effectiveness of {lambda} scintillation in detecting early bone lesions To verify the biological effects of DU in human subjects To evaluate the usefulness of various therapies proposed by literature Methods: Instrumentation: Urine samples HpGe solid state detectors Overly sensitive NaI {lambda} detectors with thick crystals Rapid detection of fragments or shards with {lambda}-ray spectrometry Oak bark, sapwood sampling Proposed Therapy: {lambda} scintillation detection of osseous metastases Phenyl Acetate (Phenyl Fatty Acid) chemoprevention through p21RAS protein pathway Chelating agents; Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, EHBP, Tiron, DTPA Fauna uptake suppression with Ca2+ competitive depression Results: The study was interrupted by the pending conflict in Iraq, which precludes the direct, continued, and uninterrupted access to civilian populations in southern Iraq. The continued conflict introduces additional DU materials, complicating estimations of DU toxicity. Conclusions: Reports dismissing the adverse effects of DU are based on erroneous assumptions and older literature. Substantial evidence currently support concerns over DU toxicity and their use in military settings. These concerns necessitate longitudinal studies that can conclusively determine their epidemiological effects in human populations when political circumstances allow it."

--DUKnow 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)