Talk:Uranium trioxide/Archive 3

message: As in the Depleted uranium article, most of what JamesS added on this topic was found to be misinterpritaions of the referenced literature. --DV8 2XL 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you didn't just answer the question I asked rather than refer to something else.  I read and re-read the citation from the U.S. military website, then the original edit, and found them to correspond closely.  Badagnani 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did answer your question . Are you refering to this ref  because it is not avalable due to a 404 error. --DV8 2XL 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to press the issue but, no, you did not answer my question because the "answer" above consists of your opinion that a certain editor misinterpreted certain data.  That doesn't answer my question.  The link is this one: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en017/mr1018_7_chap1.html  In your previous blanking of the link, you also did not provide an edit summary other than to say that the edit represented "nonsense."  Are you able to explain your deletion?  Because I'm interested to know, and not in an ad hominem manner, because I am not interested to discuss other editors, just this point.  Badagnani 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion that UO3 is a signifigant product of burning spent uranium rounds cannot be drawn from that document. Other scienctific sources, clearly say that it is a very minor byproduct. Thus the editor that put it there in fact misinterpreted the document. Thus I answered your question.  If indeed you followed the discussion in these pages this issue was hashed over many times.--DV8 2XL 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What other scientific sources say it's a minor byproduct? PaulVT 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many thanks for this.  So it is a by-product of DU combustion, then.  That is interesting.  As only three ways of producing uranium trioxide are now listed here, from what you say a fourth should thus be added: a by-product of the combustion of DU (though, as you say, produced in small amounts relative to the other by-products).  Badagnani 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting; thank you for this.  Maybe you're also not a biologist.  Very small amounts of extremely toxic materials (which the MSDS link in this article describes in detail) can be very significant to living systems.  I do not think I am incorrect about this.  This aside, the statement that there are only three modes of producing uranium trioxide, from what you have said above, is false, and thus this fourth mode of production needs to be added to make the article factual.  Badagnani 04:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't believe the 20+ ways should be listed, the "three ways" is still an incorrect statement.  Perhaps a statement saying that "there are approximately twenty other ways to produce this, including the combustion of depleted uranium projectiles."  That would seem a sensible way to phrase things without making the article too long or cumbersome.  Badagnani 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are citing is a field manual from the US army, the target of which are military personnel who must protect themselves from DU projectile dust on the battlefield. One should mention that the bioavailability (and thus toxicity) of uranium rises with increased bioavailability. There is one paper here where the authors studied the products from DU armor-breaking projectiles and found the uranyl carbonate (an U(VI) salt) is a product, but no trace of UO_3. I read army manual mentioning UO_3_ as a metaphor for U(VI) in general. Dr Zak 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this.  I've looked again at the military report and it clearly says "oxides," not "salts."  Even the most basic chemist, let alone one in charge of preparing such a report, would certainly know the difference between an "oxide" and a "salt."  Are you stating that, due to the one source you present, you believe the military report to be wrong in stating that uranium trioxide is a by-product of the combustion of depleted uranium projectiles?  Or is it possible that the uranium trioxide was produced in such a small amount that it was not noted in the study you mention, but was detected by the military scientists in their own tests?  There must be an explanation, but yours (the mistaking of a salt for an oxide) does not seem plausible.  Badagnani 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter what exactly is produced during the combustion of DU ammunition. What matters is that whatever is produced ends up in the bloodstream as uranyl carbonate and subsequently causes kidney damage. Dr Zak 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badagnani 

message: :"Review of Experimental Studies on Airborne Release From Depleted Uranium Munitions. Jette et al. (August 1989) reviewed the published information available on the characteristics of the DU particles suspended during testing (firing of kinetic energy rounds against hard targets, burn tests during hazard classification of rounds prior to deployment) of the munitions and one study on the characteristics of the aerosols from the explosive ejection of molten metal droplets. Many studies have been performed on the DU particles formed by the impact of penetrators against hard targets (Gilchrist and Nicola, January 1979; Glissmeyer and Mishima, November 1979; Chambers et al., October 1982; Sutter et al., January 1985; Wilsey and Bloore, May 1989; Parkhurst et al., April 1990; Jette, Mishima and Hadlock, August 1990). Generally, a substantial portion of the mass of DU in the penetrator becomes airborne by the impact against hard targets (armor) of sufficient thickness to expend most of the energy of the kinetic round (up to 80%). The size of the airborne material is very fine with fractions in the 10 μm AED and less range of 0.34 to 1.0. The airborne materials are predominantly U3O8. Up to 50% of the particles in the respirable fraction may be "D" class (dissolution halftime <10 days)."
:-- DOE-HDBK-3010-94 (emphasis added) page 4-40 (PDF page 130) commenting on Jette, S.J., J.A. Glissmeyer, J. Mishima, D.J. Sherwood and R.E. Williford (August 1989) Potential Aerosolization (Airborne Suspension) of Depleted Uranium During Test Firings, PNL-7137 Informal Letter Report, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.
More people who imply, against all evidence, that U3O8 is stable above 1300 °C.  There ought to be a name for such people:  wrong.  Dr. Alexander knows what is actually happening, and if you are reading this, you probably do to.  Such a disgusting travesty, not bothering to measure the gas products, and then trying to pass off urine tests.  LossIsNotMore 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple peer-reviewed statement, that says, "Uranium trioxide gas is evolved in uranium combustion. [insert cited source here]" will suffice.  No phone calls necessary.Olin 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jette et al. (1989) 

message: This is more about caluculating the parameters than giving them for uranium(VI) oxide.  Could this be condensed to "Bond valence parameters have been used to give typically uranium-oxygen bond distances in different oxidation states," and then the table given?  Can the references about bond valence parameters be moved to bond valence, which has no references?  Might it be moved to uranate, where a comparison between oxidation states is more appropriate?Olin 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond valence parameters 

message: Read it think obout it and belive it! There is a , missing between UO3 and G. There is no gas compound specified in the sceme! Sorry if you realy think that everything published in correct spelling!--Stone 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be rude, but I've spent weeks trying to figure out what you are complaining about.  Would you please replace "sceme" with an English word which means what you are trying to say?  "Sceme" is not an English word. LossIsNotMore 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??????????  Badagnani 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, um, the supposed UO3G is on the low temperature end of the scale, not anywhere near the combustion temperature.  Russian journals are notoriously bad.  And, um, they really need to explain where they got the data from.  There are no references in that article.  How can you justify it as a source, when there is no sources or explanation of the experimental data in the paper?  The reliable sources guideline for Wikipedia clearly excludes this as a source. Olin 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The red box in the sceme