Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

message: ; General (partial list; see below)
Salbu, B.; Janssens, K.; Lind, O.C.; Proost, K.; Gijsels, L., Danesic, P.R. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125–135:  http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf
Abstract:  "Environmental or health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...."
Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222, p. 213.
Hoekstra, H.R. and Siegel, S. (1970) "Uranium-Oxygen System at high pressure," Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 32, 3237-3248.
Abstract of Mishima, et al. late 1970s work: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm
Search for "75 percent"; observe only particulate measurements. (Excerpts of the original are now scanned; see below.)
Mitsakou, C.; Eleftheriadis, K.; Housiadas, C.; and Lazaridis, M. (2003) "Modeling of the Dispersion of Depleted Uranium Aerosol." Health Physics 84, 538-44: http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf
Please note that the study is of particulate -- not gas -- dispersion patterns only, as evidenced by the micrometer particle measurements.
; Reproductive toxicity
Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91:  http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf
Summary contains:  "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...."
Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
"Conclusion:  In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is
consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of
persons exposed to DU."
Kang H, Magee C, Mahan C, Lee K, Murphy F, Jackson L, Matanoski G. (2001) "Pregnancy outcomes among U.S. Gulf War veterans: a population-based survey of 30,000 veterans." Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 11, pp. 504-11: http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract
Abstract:  "Both men and women deployed to the Gulf theater reported significant excesses of birth defects among their liveborn infants. These excess rates also extended to the subset of 'moderate to severe' birth defects [males: OR= 1.78 (CI = 1.19-2.66); females: OR = 2.80 (CI = 1.26-6.25)]."  Note that the effect in females is larger.  citation search
; Developmental toxicity
Domingo, J.L. (2001) "Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium: a review," Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 15, pp. 603-9.  Abstract:  "Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation periods."
Durakovic A. (1999) "Medical effects of internal contamination with uranium," Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 40, pp. 49-66:  http://www.bovik.org/du/asaf_99.htm
Abstract: "well documented evidence of reproductive and developmental toxicity...."
; Immunological toxicity
McDiarmid, M.A., et al. (2006) "Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium," International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 79, pp. 11-21.  Abstract:  "genotoxicity measures continue to show subtle, mixed results...."
Schröder, H.; A. Heimers; R. Frentzel-Beyme; A. Schott; W. Hoffmann (2003) "Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf war and Balkans war veterans," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 103, pp. 211-220: http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf
Abstract:  "there was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of dicentric chromosomes (dic) and centric ring chromosomes (cR) in the veterans. group...."
Miller, A.C.; M. Stewart; K. Brooks; L. Shi; N. Page (2003) "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 91, pp. 246-252: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf
Abstract: "chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one million-fold...."
; Neurotoxicity
Briner, W. and J. Murray (2005) "Effects of short-term and long-term depleted uranium exposure on open-field behavior and brain lipid oxidation in rats," Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 27, pp. 135-44:  http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf
Abstract: "DU is a toxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, producing behavioral changes in male rats and lipid oxidation regardless of gender in as little as 2 weeks...."
Monleau, M.; C. Bussy; P. Lestaevel; P. Houpert; F. Paquet; V. Chazel (2005) "Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations," Neuroscience Letters, vol. 390, pp. 31-6.  Abstract:  "depleted uranium is able to enter the brain after exposure to repeated inhalation, producing behavioral changes."
; Others scanned
As-yet uncropped scans from articles such as Ackermann et al. (1960) in full, Mouradian and Baker (1963) first page and graphs, Gmelin Handbook excerpts, Morrow et al. (1972) first page, and excerpts from the "Characteristics of Particles and Particle Dispersoids" page from the CRC Handbook. may now be found at:
  http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/
They are placed there temporarily for eductional, scientific, and petition purposes, and I can not provide certain assurance that I won't edit them and/or change filenames soon.
If anyone would like to crop and upload the fair-use portions they would like to include in the articles, please be my guest.
I will not be making a decision on whether to withdraw from mediation until the mediator has provided an opinion on the scanned articles, and two more pages to be provided in the next few weeks the future.  These excerpts speak for themselves, and address the questions raised directly.  I do not need to defend my actions, because I have done nothing wrong.  I note that the plaintiffs are hard-pressed to come up with a single recent peer-reviewed article in support of their position, relying instead on conflicted sources.
I will continue to try to see that Depleted uranium and related articles remain accurate, whether or not that involves "mercilessly" editing contributions, including those of the mediator.  We have agreed that there will be no moratorium on editing articles while mediation is in progress.  As far as I can tell, that does not exclude convicted edit warriors from violating the conditions of their ArbCom parole. --James S. 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position has been, and remains that you are misinterpreting the information in those sources, and then using those misinterpretations to come to a novel conclusion of your own. I don't have to provide any other sources than the ones you are using. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, if you are unable to verify the sources, then you have no standing to challenge their veracity. --James S. 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References from James S. 

message: ===General===
*Wikipedia Policy: No Original Research
*RAND Report, complete text online
*International Atomic Energy Agency information on depleted uranium
*Sandia (Marshall) Report, complete text online
*World Health Organization - several complete reports online
*[http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d010108e.htm Background Material on Depleted Uranium (DU) 
prepared by Dr. Michael H. Repacholi of the World Health Organization, Geneva]
*Depleted Uranium: Opinion of the group of experts established according to article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (European Commission Report)
*European Parliament Directorate General for Research DU Health Effects, Gulf War, Balkans and Kosovo
*After the Dust Settles - Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
*AC Laboratoriam Spiez report on Depleted Uranium
*Environmental Exposure Report Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (DOD)
*World Information Service on Energy - Uranium Project
*Weapons with Depleted Uranium: Public Risks and Perceptions
*Pathological science
*Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)
===Balkans Syndrome===
*Could Stress Be the Underlying Cause of the "Balkan Syndrome"? - University of Zagreb, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, January 2001 
Enough for now.  I'll add later. Dr U 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References from Dr U 

message: *Could Stress Be the Underlying Cause of the "Balkan Syndrome"? - University of Zagreb, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, January 2001 
Enough for now.  I'll add later. Dr U 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balkans Syndrome

message: (sorry, James I'm not trying to displace you here)
As a sign of Good Faith and to ease the editing process that must occur in the articles in question as points are decided upon I propose the following: The lock is removed from Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium and the material that was imported into Depleted uranium from there is removed and that article returned to the state it was in before the first agreement between us broke-down. Frankly I don't think that the first one needed locking in the first place, and the material forked over is a duplication, which some other editor may notice and decide to remove anyway, and we don't need that complication from a new party now. --DV8 2XL 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove the protection on Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium and signal to the admin who protected it that I'm taking responsabilty (admin-wise) for the page while mediation is in progress. As for removing the material from depleted uranium, I'll take a few hours to have a think about it and to let James comment here. The forking of material from Health and environmental effects... is inappropriate and must be contrary to a WikiPolicy somewhere (WP:SENSE, for example): however, I wouldn't want depleted uranium to be left with any hazards section at all. I will try to put a couple of paragraphs together along the lines of what we use in other chemicals articles, on the understanding that this is a stopgap solution while mediation continues. Physchim62 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the settlement version you will see that there was a health section and links throughout the article to the other page James was happy about that before. I would rather you not put material in right now until we start discussions. --DV8 2XL 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the last unforked version  --DV8 2XL 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I object because the voluntary compromise settlement failed because of inaccuracy.  I am restoring the accurate version. --James S. 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good faith James --DV8 2XL 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  I have faith that you will agree that the expanded version is more accurate; please wait for the scanned documents. --James S. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Faith

message: I propose Gulf War Syndrome be included because of substantial overlap. Dr U 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be no moratorium on editing articles during mediation, and no longer oppose including Gulf war syndrome in the mediation. --James S. 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles included in the dispute

message: Before anyone complains, I had better set things straight here. Yes, parties are allowed to edit anonymously so long as those edits are in good faith. CheckUser exists to police this type of activity. Physchim62 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous editing 

message: Physchim62:
You have repeatedly referred to personal attacks without providing any examples.  Which statements do you consider personal attacks, and why?
You have been editing the articles under mediation, for example you have claimed that teratogenic uranium poses the greatest danger to the kidneys.  Yet you have provided no sources for this and other assertions.  Can the parties expect that you will hold yourself to the principle of verifiability?  Will you expect the same adherence from the parties to this mediation?
Since you have already tried and convicted me of making personal attacks, and you have been editing with an obvious bias, is there any reason that anyone could consider you a neutral mediator?
Will you agree to recuse yourself and join a request for a mediator capable of mediating from a neutral point of view?
What weight should those charged with determining credibility place in claimed credentials of those who refuse to allow their credentials to be verified?
What impact does refusing to allow one's name to be associated with one's statement have on credibility? --James S. 09:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither side is innocent on the personal attack front, as I have made amply clear. I have edited depleted uranium in an attempt to provide a stop-gap solution whilst the concerns about some of the claims in your edits are addressed: instead of discussing the matter, you are attempting to pass by force. You yourself frequently edit without logging in, so you are in no position to criticize those who prefer not to reveal their real name. If you wish to withdraw from this mediation, that is your right: please indicate your choice. Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Depleted uranium has been reverted by James with, (revert: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier#Parole violations) as a reason. I wonder what exactly that ArbCom case has to do with this mediation? --DV8 2XL 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per a recent Arbcom, I may only make one content Rv every 24 hours, and not without explaining it in talk. Ten Dead Chickens 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for mediatior 

message: Yes of course it does. I have no idea who removed it from there or why. --DV8 2XL 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does DU belong in Category:Uranium?  

message: I have looked at the entry for Morrow, P.E et. al. Health Phys. 1972, 23, 273-80 at  and this appears to be a paper on the retention of UO3 in the lungs of dogs (the UO3 is retained in the lungs suggesting that it is a solid). I know that actinide oxides are much worse when inhaled as powder than they are when taken by mouth. It is important to understand that something does not have to be a gas for you to inhale it. Silica powder and coal dust cause lung damage, but neither are gases. I have looked in yahoo for "uranium trioxide gas" and I have found nothing other than James Salsman's petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and wikipedia.
Cadmium 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abstract and first page is here. --James S. 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the surface area of a particle is inversely related to the cube of its diameter.  I will endeavor to scan the remainder of the Morrow paper. --James S. 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ... as file names isut*.jpg.  Please see the UO3 molecular size diagram I penciled in on page 280. --James S. 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My view is that if we don't get some consensus on the "gaseous uranium trioxide" issue it will continue to poison the other debates. This is why I have not yet opened the other questions for discussion. There are obviously plenty of studies which both sides of the debate can use to defend their point of view on, for example, the teratogenicity of uranium: I would rather we had some agreement on basic uranium chemistry before discussing these. I'll take this opportunity to ask the parties to make a distinction between the acute or semi-acute exposure of Gulf War veterans and the chronic exposure of Iraqi and Kuwaiti residents: my reading of the literature makes me think that the two cases have different toxicological and epidemiological criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a consensus.  Consensus doesn't mean unanimous.  Proof by assertion is all we're seeing now. Dr U 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the sample is unbiased (in the statistical sense), statistical inference can approximate proof to the level of confidence of the appropriate tail of a Gaussian distribution: most statistical samples, however, have some bias, and so the appropriate level of confidence is somewhat lower. One example is the level of kidney cancer in uranium workers, which is significantly lower than in the general population (Royal Society report): this doesn't mean that handling uranium is good for the kidneys! It is an example of a well-known systematic bias in occupational health studies, known as the "healthy worker effect": the general population contains individuals who are too sick to hold down a steady job, so any sample of workers would be expected to be healthier than the general population (by what proportion is controversial). Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An examination of the literature cited by James S. 

message: Factual disputes remains!!
As seen on Talk:Uranium trioxide.
First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standard conditions. Only at temperatures above 1000° (Ackermann) and at low pressure (all MS studies)Intrinsic stability is never a good creteria for the real world chemistry during combustion reactions. There is no other studie showing it. The linarity of the log pressure to 1000/T diagramm gives the pest hint for the UO3 I can see, but at standard conditions this would make a U03 pressure of 10 -56 atm (nothing would fit best for this number). 
Mixing the Ackermann paper wich has no experimental data for 2500°C (ending with 1600°C) with the burning temperatur of Uranium from another paper above 2500°is primary research and has no place in Wikipedia. The phase diagramm for Oxygen and Uranium is discribed as complicated and chalenging but well researched ( U02 and the other oxides have high importance in the nuclear fuell cycle!)in most literature (Gmelin), so why are you so sure that they overlook something so important than a U03 gas which would be a better oportunity for enrichment than the toxix chalenging dangerous waterinstable UF6.
Factual disputes remains!!--Stone 08:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be answering the above at Talk:Gulf War syndrome and Talk:Depleted uranium, where it was also posted. --James S. 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual dispute remains

message: I grant that Cadmium, did emphasize another of the many supported statements which I have been asked to prove has support, and I agree to support it with this citation which can be found on most any high school chemistry reference shelf.  However, this is the first I have heard any complaints about that particular emphasized statement, and Cadmium should have contacted me directly and asked me to support it before complaining to the ArbCom. --James S. 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Cadmium's comments

message: We are both ambivalent about the article and the journal, and I agree that Americium 241 is a neutron activation product, not a fission product.  However, the data displayed in the article is sourced to the U.K. government, through their new Freedom of Information Act.  Shouldn't we wait for an official response before passing judgement?  --James S. 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ====Response by James S.==