Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 6

message: This entire article appears to have strayed from facts on the subject to heavy POV and slanting. A lot of the information is generic to uranium in general, some of it specific to uranium. I estimate that factual information specific to depleted uranium constitutes less than 50% of this article.
For my small part I removed the reference to toxic in the first paragraph as this property is already clearly referred to in the second paragraph "As a toxic and radioactive waste product". For some reason the superfluous reference in the first paragraph was reinstated and I have removed it again.
::Excellent catch:
::"*A study of U.K. troops said, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" The conclusion of the study was "We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers' service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers' service in the gulf." . "
::I think the best strategy to cleanup this article is to go through each source cited, one at a time, and see what it really says, instead accepting the heavily biased propaganda that claims to be backed by the source.  Anyone game?  We can just start at footnote #1, read the source, and post an unbiased summary, preferably in the form of a quote from the article.  Then do the same for footnote #2, and so forth.  Anyone game?  Give Peace A Chance 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy slant

message: I didn't agree with this "Legal Section" but when an anonymous editor deletes it without mentioning it in the note it going to cause an edit war. Nothing more irritating the working on something that just gets blasted without explanation. Also, I hope User:Give Peace A Chance isn't in charge of removing POV. His user page indicates he might be biased. --MarsRover 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pendulum swinging the other direction 

message: Currently the reference for the usage "clean" and "dirty" for uranium that has/has not passed through a reprocessing plant is the  Common Dreams Newscenter, which is about as neutral as FOX News. Besides, the assertion made in the article (that "dirty" DU contains higher concentrations of plutonium) is not even supported by that source, which merely says that the two types can be distinguished by the concentration of uranium-236. The amount of plutonium in uranium recovered from spent fuel rods is quite neglegible, the plutonium having been separated in the process of reprocessing.
Unless a reliable source that the terminology is commonly used can be provided this should be removed. Dr Zak 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pull it. It was always a red herring issue anyway. --DV8 2XL 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree.  The issue is absolutely a red herring.  But the terminology is VERY common, a google search for "dirty depleted uranium" yeilds 149,000 hits.  The reader deserves a definition.  Give Peace A Chance 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hits that come up with these keywords  are not really relevant, they are just essays to make the point that DU shouldn't be used in war. A search with the keywords "dirty", "depleted uranium" and "isotope ratio"  yields just 40 unique ghits, and our own Wikipedia comes out top. Sorry, I'm not convinced at all that this is the commonly accepted terminology. Anyone got a clue what the REAL terminology for virgin and recovered uranium is? Dr Zak 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as I can ascertain the correct terminology for both is Depleted Uranium. People add their own words to distinguish the source depending on their POV. See IAEA or WHOBRT01 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The article has just been gutted of a large amount of sourced material under the flimsy excuse that it is about uranium in general. That looks to me more like vandalism than anything else.Michael Glass 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike if you were following the events and dispute over this article you would know that most of the "sourced material" was in fact misinterpreted or misquoted. One editor, who after a long case at ArbCom, was barred from editing on these pages, was responsible for the bulk of this mess. It is now going to be cleaned up and brought in line with Wikipedia's standards. That will mean that a lot of the propaganda will go and be replaced with verifiable fact. Were I you I would take care to look carefully at the edits that are being made before tossing out charges of vandalism. At best it does not display NPOV at worse it is not assuming good faith. --DV8 2XL 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone.  I just truly felt that the specific material really fit better on the uranium page.  The highlights asserting that DU is toxic, mutigenic, etc. are all still mentioned here.  I'll be happy to put back anything that can be shown to be more applicable here than on the uranium page. Give Peace A Chance 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, the uranium page needs more info.  Much of what I see there is unsourced.  I just removed tolerable daily intake standards from this article.  I would like to put that into the other article, but it lacked a source.  Give Peace A Chance 02:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The health claims section is a mess.  Just look at it.  Something must be done.  It is a stain on Wikipedia.  Abe Froman 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Gulf War Syndrome article is in a similar state of disaray.  I nearly puked when I read it.  Give Peace A Chance 04:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is closer to being balanced than it was a week ago, but the structure is awful.  It now reads like the Unabomer Manifesto, with a few breaths of scientific reason inserted for sanity.  Give Peace A Chance 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clean" and "Dirty" DU 

message: In the current version we read:
"A report written by an Irish petro-chemical engineer and published in The Lancet stated that in Iraq, the death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993, and cases of lymphoblastic leukaemia more than quadrupled. (K. Rirchard (1998) Does Iraq's depleted uranium pose a health risk? The Lancet, Volume 351, Number 9103). I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, report a similar increase (see Table 1 here)."
So the dude in the "well respected" Lancet states that death under age 5 and leukemia skyrocketed from 1989-1993 (the Gulf War was in 1991).  The graph citing the Basrah Medical dudes shows no definitive increase in problems (birth defects) until 1998.  This obviously does not jibe, man. Should we include a graph from the "well respected" Lancet data, or the existing graph from the possibly "less respected" Medical Journal of Basrah University, or does the irreconcilable nature of these two data sets indicate that perhaps no graph is warranted at all?  Give Peace A Chance 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badagnani (talk • contribs) 
Thank you for pointing that out (and so fast!).  Give Peace A Chance 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's less straightforward than that. The article appears in the "Policy and People" section; it is not a refereed paper but editorial content of type "News and Views". It refers to the study that says that childrens' mortality due to cancer went up after the war. "He proposes (emphasis mine) that radioactive waste caused by projectiles containing depleted uranium may have played a part." An alternative theory is that the quality of medical care went down after the Gulf War and that previously curable cancer couldn't be treated any longer after the medical infrastructure collapsed. Sorry, folks, that is not a credible study, a credible epidemiological study would address such points. Dr Zak 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are difficulties with the Basrah study, too. Why would the incidence of congenital malformations rise only 1998, seven years after the Gulf War? And why was this made in Basrah, about as far away from the theater of war as it gets? The authors mentioned no other possible causes of malformations, for example maternal age. Sorry, sloppy research. Next please. Dr Zak 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Me daft. Dr Zak 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Defects

message: I have just learned of the banning of James Salsman from this and related articles.  Apparently, one of the most knowledgeable editors at this article is no longer permitted to edit here.  As the process of "getting rid" of him was not discussed here I knew nothing of it and had no opportunity to provide input.  This process, held in what I believe to be a secretive manner by approximately a half dozen editors, banning a knowledgeable and conscientious editor, is shameful and I oppose it strongly.  A scan of his edits shows that at times when editors repeatedly removed any information that might be critical of the use of DU (specifically as regards its purported health effects, which others appear to have been trying to minimize, despite the citation of scientific studies as references), he was often the only editor restoring such text, which he always backed up with carefully cited references, often in the face of abusive behavior on the part of one or more editors who did not agree with him.  As regards the allegation of "tendentious" behavior on his part, I believe those imposing this edict to be incorrect.  I think we can all agree that we need skilled, knowledgeable editors here, and insisting on the restoration of deleted factual information does not consist of "tendentiousness."
Thus, I move that editor James Salsman's editing block at this and related articles be lifted immediately, as it was imposed arbitrarily and without sufficient notice here to allow other consistent editors on this article to present their input.  Badagnani 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case was present at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for slightly over two months, most of which was time during which all users were invited to present evidence. James was made aware of the case as soon as it was initiated. You've had plenty of time and notice to respond to it if you correspond with James, but if you feel it should be reopened, go to WP:RFAR and make a motion to reopen it if you feel that there's evidence that wasn't taken into account during the original decision. --Christopher Thomas 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The details can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. By the way "...he always backed up with carefully cited references...", was part of the issue with him; often his citations did not support what he was asserting. His refusal to be corrected is what brought the charge of tendentious editing. --DV8 2XL 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a chemist who knows about actinide chemistry, and after interacting with James I came to the conclusion that he is a person who has a personal cause which motivates him to write about uranium (I think that James has tried to learn about uranium but his reading list has been too narrow, and maybe too POV. I have tried to help him out with this, I have suggested one modern undergraduate level NPOV radiochemistry text book for him to read {but I am not sure if James has tried to read such a book rather than the very POV matter which he has cited, such as Busby}). James has used wilipedia as a soap box to push his point of view on uranium related matters, I think that James should remain as a member of the wikipedia community (I have on one occasion spoken up in James's defense on another matter) but I think he should stay away from uranium as he seems to be unable to write NPOV matter on the subject. James is perfectly able to make a contribution but in some other part of wikipedia to uranium.Cadmium 19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To be blunt, I have been very aware that some editors are part of the super pro-nuclear camp. For instance DV8 2XL is very very pro-nuclear. While he might be very pro-nuclear he has still been able to write some NPOV matter on a range of subjects. If you check my editing record you will find that I do not only write things which 
are pro-nuclear.Cadmium
I do not disagree with this.  But I suppose, then, to be "pro-American" does not always mean to try to minimize or omit discussions of the failings or flaws in one's nation, lest it be seen by others in a less than perfect light.  Badagnani 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Werid ?!? What has "pro-americian" got to do with "pro-nuclear". I am not americian.Cadmium 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I understand you more now, I would say that you are incorrect in thinking that I have tried to omit discussions of the failings or flaws in one's area of interest. I would say that by trying to get James started on writing about Pu in soil that is not trying to hid any flaw of the nuclear industry. I have been guilty of trying to get the other editor to consider the subject in a balenced and NPOV rather than just using some very POV sources only.Cadmium
I didn't imply this in regard to you yourself, though you did recently say you were glad that this editor is now gone (presumably "for good").  And if he's not interested in Pu in soil, so be it.  We all have our primary interests.  Badagnani 20:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning of James Salsman

message: On reflection I believe Badagnani has a point about this section. With the exception of the historical use as trim weights in aircraft none of the other potental uses really belong here and could be moved to the Uranium or Uranium-238 topics. In particular the forklift entry (which I made several months ago) borders on speculation as this application is not yet in use and given the bureaucratic fuss that attends the use of this material in the civilian sector (a topic I know more about than I ever cared to) highly unlikely. Any thoughts? --DV8 2XL 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think applications should be restricted to noteworthy applications - ones that have been seriously considered for use, or that are currently implemented, with suitable documentation provided. The applications section grew alarmingly several months ago when someone added every application listed in a speculative paper that read like it had been written by a bureaucrat looking to _find_ uses for the stuff. Vetting its present contents would probably be a good idea. --Christopher Thomas 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoever added the extra uses missed out the use of DU a shielding for Radiation sources used in medical and industrial radiography. I also feel that the uses section is overstated, like most. My opinion, for what its worth, is that this is a feeder article for people wanting information about DU. They may be in a range from people who have heard DU referred to and want a short overview to people who already know and want in depth information. Obviously all that in depth information would overload somebody just wanting to know the basics. That is why I applaud the way the health section has been condensed with a clearlink out to the more in depth, and controversial, content which, in turn, links out to more in depth external references. The applications section should name the uses only. BRT01 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian applications 

message: To give an unsolicited suggestion:
There seems to be a strong conflict of views happening here, and the start of an edit war resulting from it. In order to revise the article while keeping things civil, how about trying something along the lines of the following?
*Make specific lists of grievances with the current article content, in your own sections, so that everyone can see where everyone's coming from. Respond in other sections, so that these lists stay readable.
*For sections that either or any of you consider in need of wholesale revision, construct a scratch page with the revised section, saved at Depleted uranium/some_unique_identifier.
*If, after making proposed new versions, and discussing each others' proposed versions, and still not finding a new version that's mutually acceptable, start a formal poll to find out what version the editing community feels is most suited to the encyclopedia.
This won't produce a _perfectly_ acceptable version, but it should give something tolerable with less hostility than is presently occurring.
--Christopher Thomas 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan Chris - I'm in --DV8 2XL 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of both side putting forwards their cases, at least we can see what people want to write and do. While we are waiting I will add a link to the new actinides in the environment to each of the elements which are mentioned in it.Cadmium 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for large-scale edits

message: Badagnani has reported me as a vandal for edits I have done on this page. Diff The charge was refused by the responding Admin. RfC anyone?. --DV8 2XL 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually lean towards mediation first, but I'm not directly involved, so I may not have a full picture of what's going on. --Christopher Thomas 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing = vandalism 

message: This article makes a broad statement of unsupported opinion. I deleted: "As a toxic and radioactive waste product that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste, depleted uranium is costly to keep but inexpensive to obtain from its keepers."
As well, a half paragraph of extremely poor and/or biased writing which appears to be non-sequitur to the "sources" subhead was deleted: "However, its corrosion properties are such that it will burn spontaneously when small particles are exposed to air.[1] Since, like all heavy metals, it is toxic and as it is also radioactive, DU processing facilities need to monitor and filter airborne particles." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 18:59, 13 May 2006.
:Badagnani and I don't agree on many subjects, but you're definitely one of them. Good work nailing this one  Badagnani --DV8 2XL 19:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the third link from the bottom in the section obscurely titled "External links" --DV8 2XL 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of unsupported opinion