Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 4

message: The increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis may be due to depleted uranium inhalation exposure,.
:Original research again, reports cited do not claim that birth defects in gulf War Vets linked to DU.
::http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11738513&dopt=Abstract Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation periods.
::http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2366813&dopt=Abstract  Cytogenetic damage induced by a wide range of concentrations of uranyl fluoride injected into mouse testes was evaluated by determining the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations in spermatogonia and primary spermatocytes. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are making the jump from a study of mice, to its implication on people: original research. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any sources suggesting that any substance teratogenic in mice is not in humans? --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not up to me to prove your case. If there is any informatio that DU is teratogenic in humans, because it is teratogenic in mice, then please provide it. Other wise, we cannot make that link independently and expect it to be in the article. DTC 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reproductive systems of mammals are very similar.  I can name dozens of human teratogens which are also reproductive toxicants in mice.  You can clearly not name a single mouse teratogen which is not a human teratogen.  Your inability to do so has proven the point. --James S. 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources suggesting that any substance teratogenic in mice is not in humans  You got to be kidding.  If everything that was true in mice was true in humans cancer would be cured and we would be living to the age of 200.  You are inferring to much.  Your claims are unspported despite what you claim. The research simply does not say what you say it does.  Lcolson 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: saccharine is carcinogenic in mice, but has been proven not to be in humans.  Notice that Sweet-and-Lo no longer has a cancer warning. That being said, most things that harm mice also harm people. However, the ammounts of test substances administered to mice are usually ridiculously high, and rarely reflect levels likely to be encountered by people.  The main issue is this: Uranium is proven harmful to mice in large doses.  To make a case for human illness, you have to show that human exposure levels were comparable to those that harmed mice.  There are no studies that have proven that anybody in the Persian Gulf received such exposures.Dr U 07:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-reviewed evidence of teratogenicity

message: 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. 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".
:Once again, information in links does not cite DU. Original research. Plus the sample was extremely large, 15000, there were not 15000 Gulf War Vets exposed to DU in any significant quantity. 
::Is your calculation of "any significant quantity" based on your knowledge of uranium trioxide gas dispersion patterns?  If so, please share it. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study does not link spontaneous miscaiages with DU, that is your assertion and is original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a stomping ground for your anti nuclear crusade. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement provides peer-reviewed, published research showing the number of excess birth defects observed in Gulf War veterans. The link to DU's teratogenicity is shown in other passages cited above. The fact that you would claim that this research originates with me undermines your position, and is telling about your motives. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Link between the research and DU's teratogenicity is one that  you  are making and as such it  original research . Perhaps the infomation belongs on the Gulf War Syndrome article, but any attempts by an editor to tie the tow together, without a notable outside source still falls into the  original research  category. DTC 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph you are referring to only reports the birth defects in the veteran population.  The other peer-reviewed research above proves the link to DU. Your claims are unfounded. --James S. 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James, this is a case of drawing too much from research.  I believe it is called a "Red Herring" in legal speak.  These claims you make are not supported by the research.  The sources you are using say there are birth deffects in specific populations, they do not say why. You draw too much when you say it is from DU.  It could have been from virtually anything.  Lcolson 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if studies can prove beyond a doubt that there is an increased rate of birth defects in Gulf War veterans, it does not prove that DU was the cause.  The veterans of that war were exposed to anthrax vaccine and other vaccines not usually given to Americans and Brits, antimalarial drugs, smoke from burning oil wells, pesticides applied directly to their uniforms, and unusually high levels of stress, amongst other things.  Many vetrans got nowhere near DU sources.  I am open to the possibility that DU is potentially harmful, but you are a LONG way from proving it.  This work suffers from Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). Dr U 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, studies have proven the correlation, and that human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects from uranium poisoning, and that the effect was found in combat-deployed veterans but not in cohorts away from combat.  From those and other studies, there is no evidence that anthrax vaccines, chemical wrfare agents,  antimalarial, other drugs, smoke, pesticides, stress, or local diseases are teratogenic.  Only one possibility remains. The previous paragraph suffers from the fallacy of argument from ignorance. --James S. 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it! The above paragraph cites the RAND corporation to prove that other factors couldn't be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.  IT VERY CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDS CITING THE RAND CORPORATION FOR DU.  Well here it is:  
Seems that the same source discounting other factors, also DISAGREES that DU is causing harm.  THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT DU, IN CONCENTRATIONS ENCOUNTERED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, CAUSES HARM: 
"In summary, to the extent that reproductive health issues related to uranium have been investigated to date, there have not been findings that would suggest a relationship between levels of exposures that could have occurred in the Persian Gulf and those that are associated with adverse outcomes in animal experiments. Further studies are currently under way, particularly with respect to evaluating the impact of uranium on male reproductive health."
Dr U 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth defects in Gulf War vets

message: In 2005, a Freedom of Information Act request for the electronic schemata and records from the Naval Health Research Center's Birth and Infant Health Registry was filed with the United States Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.  The request is file number FOIA 2006-01 at the NHRC. Questions should be directed to Ms. Linda Tiller at the Office of the Surgeon General. The time series of birth defects observed (as described above) will show whether the trend is increasing or decreasing.
:You cannot link to your own FOIA request which has not even been approved. 
::Oh yes it has been approved, by the Navy Office of the Surgeon General, and the NRC is waiting to learn the trend. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is still original research, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with the policy. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reporting the existance of a FOIAR, which is a matter of public record, is not original research.  If I had claimed that I was planning to file a FOIAR, that would be.  After it is filed, an abstract of the request is published by the governmental agency in reciept of the request on a monthly basis.  Simply repeating the information available in that abstract and linking to the original text of the request is neither original, because the stated facts are already published, nor research, because the questions posed haven't been answered yet. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, your FOIA request has not even gone through, it is not noable enough to make it into the article. DTC 21:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  The injury involved affects tens of thousands of people.  There are no other FOIARs like it. It has been stalled for half a year; that alone is notable. --James S. 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with DTC here.  Your FOIA should count as original research and doesn't belong in the article.  I could easily do the same thing you did but for any number of topics and pollute any article the same way.  Lcolson 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:N at best. The policies at Wikipedia discourage reporting on yourself DV8 2XL 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOIA request

message: Information from Sandia study also missing:
Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.
:Marshall failed to account for reproductive, developmental, immunological, or neurological toxicity.  He is funded by the organization which sells the 30 mm guns which fire DU rounds, paid for by our tax dollars. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A few things on this. Do you have any sources for this, his funding? Was his study funded by these allged groups? Has anyone raised this issue in relationship to Marshall’s work? If not than it is your opinion and there is no reason to leave his study out of the article. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The funding for Sandia National Laboratory is solely from Lockheed Martin and has been since it was Martin Marietta. The relationship has been discussed at length on the internet mailing list RADSAFE. Marshall has not replied to several emails raising questions about his work, which you can also find in the RADSAFE archives. There is no question that Marshall explicitly avoids any discussion of reproductive, developmental, immunological, and neuro-toxicities in Section 5.2 on p. 72, "Other Heavy Metal Effects," of his report. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandia National Laboratory is not solely funded from Lockheed, and I dont know where you pulled that from. And because Marshall wont respond to  your  emails means nothing. Seriously, what in God's name are your qualifications that he would even take time to answer you? DTC 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Lockheed Martin manages Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration." Marshall hasn't responded to anyone's questions about his report, as far as I know. If you want proof that the report is a whitewash, just read the disclaimer that says the report isn't to be interpreted as contradicting Sandia's radiological weapons studies.  It must be hard to whitewash DU combustion product inhalation risks when your colleague down the hall has been reporting on them as part of their dirty bomb research. --James S. 23:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  James, quit claiming government conspiracy, no serious peer reviewed journal out there would back you up on this.  You are completey wrong here. And your requirements for sources only seem to exist when they are against your beliefs about DU.  Lcolson 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandia's Marshall study was not peer reviewed, and it shows. --James S. 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandia's Marshall study

message: Would we be better off moving most of the engineering sections over to Uranium-238 and leaving this article to discuss the heath/safety and politics of DU? The two topics seem to be in some tension here to the determent of both. Particularly as the history of the debate over the use of DU munitions is not being given complete coverage and the article is already getting rather long and meandering. 207.164.4.52 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposition 

message: Listen, as you can see from the debate here, you are in violation of the rules and standards of Wikipedia, and clearly out of the consensus. Now, either work with us to find a version that is acceptable to everyone or let a mediator do this. DTC 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, dont accuse anyone here of making a personal attack on you, no one has. Secondly all of your time researching the subject is good, but not applicable here in the manner in which you believe it to be. If you want you 150 hours of research to be recognized here, write a paper, get it peer reviewed and publish it, then you can cite it. DTC 17:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! 150 hours. Tell me DTC how many hours did you spend on your Master's theses? DV8 2XL 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not as many as you might think, perhaps 500-600 hours, I incorporated a project from work I was doing so there was alot of overlay. DTC 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think mediation is a good idea.  I believe any person who is trained in finding reliable sources and interpreting them will agree with the recent retractions from the article (many of the "sources" were either: baised, not credible, many times the wrong conclusions were drawn from limited research (i.e. Red Herrings), unaccessable, or original research).  I strongly suggest anyone commenting on the retractions in question to actually take the time to look at the sources to see if they are reliable, accepted in the scientific community, and see what they actually say and compare this to what it is claimed that they say.  If we have a mediator, I suggest they be an author from a good medical article on health issues that knows which sources are reliable and what conclusions can be drawn from what.  On a side note, my masters thesis (MSNE) took alot more time than 150 hours (~ 1.5 years of research, about 8 hours 2 times a week doing experimentation and a little less time doing analysis), not to mention that my first few editions were shredded apart by my advisors for many of the same issues that are brought up here (it takes time to learn how to write good papers that stand up to criticism, it is not my intention to personally attack you James, its just your citation methods seem a litle ameturish at this stage).  The amount of time I've spent on my masters degree is being pailed by the amount I'm currently spending on my PhD though.  Lcolson 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have replied. --James S. 21:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will agree to any of these five moderators: Andrevan, Asbestos, Improv, Redwolf24, or Sasquatch, based on my perception of the likelihood that they will be able to understand the technical issues involved. I will agree to private email, IRC, or OnWiki mediation, at the agreed-upon mediator's preference. --James S. 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation (was A proposal to James S.)

message: Pakaran has agreed to act as my advocate.  I asked him because he has a clear interest in related topics, and I was worried about the 3-against-1 numbers of the mediation request, and because I will be involved with about 100 hours of new client work over the next couple weeks.  I thank him for his kind help. --James S. 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nrcprm2026|James S. represented by advocate

message: I am finding a lot of trouble locating information on the physics and chemistry of this phase of UO3. On the occasions I have worked with this material, it was in the form of an orange solid with a rather elevated latent heat of vaporization. --DV8 2XL 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the articles cited and the explanation in the UO3(g) section of the talk archive.  To make a long story short, the solid form decomposes around 150-300 deg.C, but individual molecules don't, because UO(1) doesn't exist, and so it won't part with an O2. UO3(s), on the other hand, can release as many O2 as it takes until it becomes UO2(s). --James S. 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and this is from my perspective as a chemist and a metalergist, an extraordinary claim. However as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, thus despite the fact that I have many misgivings about the existence of this gas, or if indeed it can form, just how large a contribution it makes to this issue, I have to support its inclusion. --DV8 2XL 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am glad that at least one of us remembers his inorganic chemistry. DTC 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uranium trioxide]] gas 

message: I have a feeling that each edit to the mediation request has bumped the date by which the mediators respond to their requests in order.  So please don't add anything more there.  I've inadvertently done this a few times with explanatory notes; sorry. --James S. 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I got a feeling that hell will freeze over before anyone will pick up on this. The backlog there is already rather grim. --DV8 2XL 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They say it's still five days, but some of the requests have disappeared after just a few days.  Ours is still not the oldest, though. --James S. 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't edit the mediation request any further 

message: :Most of the depleted uranium produced to date is being stored as UF6 in steel cylinders in the open air in so-called cylinder yards located adjacent to the enrichment plants.
:Is UF6 uranium hexafluoride gas? If so, it should be spelled UF6 and properly linked. Spelling it out in full once wouldn't hurt either. 82.92.119.11 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#Safety and environmental issues the issue is dealt with in detail there, --DV8 2XL 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. So if I understand correctly, this sentence is to be removed on unprotection, so its formatting doesn't matter? In any case, ignore what I said, it was silly. Obviously nobody cares about wikification of a disputed article while it's protected; this is easily fixed afterwards. 82.92.119.11 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UF6