Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 10

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually DU is U with the U-235 isotope removed.  And it isn't simple.  Starkrm 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The U-235 isotope will not be entirely removed in practice. Man with two legs 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Depleted Uranium" is simply Uranium-238 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Density 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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  template? I can't because I don't have an account. Thanks. --78.0.67.6 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiation dose 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The prevailing scientific view

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No longer there? 

message: Does this statement really need six sources? Starkrm (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title: Its use in ammunition is controversial because of its release into the environment.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comment: DU - Leicester University study 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why it Should

message: 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)
thread_title: Why it Should Not

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments from uninvolved editors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Awesome interview 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness - US Army Training Video 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   Of course, the statement is false, which is why you can't cite it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   a handful of non-scientific activists vigorously dispute these findings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Semi-protected for one month. — Rlevse • Talk •  01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing edit war

message: 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)
thread_title:  parenthetical comments 

message: 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 
*And here is a case study of a so-called "Harlequin Baby" (contains pictures)  -- Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Ok, if anyone can help me, send me a message on my (talk) page cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting the help of someone who knows about Depleted Uranium