Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 3

message: This section clearly relates to u-238, not DU, therefore I removed. it. DTC 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Groves memo? Are you kidding?  U-238 is DU.  Replacing. --James S. 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Section 

message: Where are the RAND, DOD, NEJOM and Sandia studies. DTC 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add such studies.  I hope you will also include their dates, and the significance of their dates. --James S. 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Missing

message: This edit's comment claims that "UF6 is not DU."  On the contrary, more than 95% of all DU is UF6.  Please read the sources before jumping to conclusions. --James S. 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be more accurate to say that DU is "stored in the form of" UF6?  Just a thought. -- Pakaran 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most uranium is stored and shipped as Uranium hexafluoride prior to use. --DV8 2XL 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUF6 is 95% of all DU 

message: Much is being made here out of how current some research is, and it has being implied (or stated outright) that newer research is somehow more valid that old. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
 
New results generate a great deal of excitement in the popular press; less so in scientific circles. That is because a very high percentage of new results turn out to be simply wrong. Like wine, scientific theories get better with age, because they have been constantly challenged and survived. And they are not unseated by a single contrary result from a single study – it takes a concerted attack on an established paradigm to topple it. Thus the longer a body of research survives, the more valid the results are presumed. That is not to imply that the newer studies done on this particular issue are necessarily invalid; only like the concept of peer-research, it is no indication of veracity. --DV8 2XL 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that (for example) a strict reading of NOR would have prevented physicians in the 1950s from adding their concerns about a link between obesity and heart disease.  -- Pakaran 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not relevant to this discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal. The rules for inclusion have been established by others, and this particular one has withstood several attempt to change it. --DV8 2XL 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  James is in no way shape or form a qualified expert. Once he gets something published and reviewed, then mabey he will have some leway, but for now he is a layman who does not understand the infromation that he is using, or worse, he is a partisan who is deliberately cherrypicking to make his case. DTC 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would either of you be happier if James found a source for his claims, and particularly the human teratogenicity claim?  -- Pakaran 01:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Happy has got nothing to do with it, he has to if he wants it in the article, but since there are no studies on it, he has been inventing conclusions. DTC 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please try to assume good faith.  And since it's late at night in the US, please give James some time to reply to that remark.  -- Pakaran 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have assumed good faith, thats why we are here instead of a long unproductive edit war. DTC 05:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, please read the conclusion statement on this peer-reviewed 2005 source. I have not been inventing anything. --James S. 07:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, as shown by the graph at Talk:Depleted uranium#Pre-2000 research, there is a reason that the results of studies have been changing over time. The effect had the same several-year delay both in U.S. and U.K. troops and Iraqi civilians. These kinds of problems are not entirely uncommon in epidemiology. This isn't physics where the properties of matter stay constant over time. --James S. 07:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On novel research 

message: I broke the health portion up into three sections. Since it is going to get crowded fast, please lets only cite: conclusions of any study. Notable opinions may warrant more space, but lets keep it as short as possible so the size does not explode. DTC 06:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied your version with the copyright violations you mentioned to Depleted uranium/Alternate so that we may work on parallel versions, avoiding edit wars, during mediation. The alternate version's talk page redirects to this one, which should help, somewhat. --James S. 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Changes

message: In an effort to bring this discussion to a interim solution, I have created Depleted uranium/basicto include the non-contentious items of this topic (essentially the properties and use of the material) and linked out to a fork Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) which I am beginning to add to with topics like history and later politics of DU. Can we agree to replace the locked page with Depleted uranium/basic, and try and grow Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues)in a pro/con format giving our readers (remember them) both side of the issue and allowing them to weight the evidence? --DV8 2XL 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other responses to this idea? --DV8 2XL 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea.  I'm starting to get confused on where to modify what.  Lcolson 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you all think? 

message: I have already posted anti-DU info in this article.  Clearly I am an anti-DU activist now.  I am entitled to edit this version.  I believe that the Groves memo weakens our cause, because it doesn't mention URANIUM.  Dr U 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The memo refers to radioactive weapons. Please review WP:CIVIL. --James S. 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because depleted uranium is mildly radioactive it is a radioactive weapon?  That doesn't ring true.  As there is no intent to harm others with the radioactivity, and there is no evidence within this article that the radioactivity of the uranium is causing any harm, I just don't see the connection. Dr U 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Groves memo is not germaine to this topic or this article. The item would be better placed in Radiological weapons as that article lacks an historical section. --DV8 2XL 16:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it.  It may lack historical accuracy, though.  I believe there is a clear historic case for earlier weapons launching projectiles that contained deadly radioisotopes.Dr U 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The above comment reflects my warped sense of humor, and wasn't intended to offend, but to amuse. Dr U 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Groves Memo

message: James, your continual insertion of disputed material in this and related article is getting tiresome. The following has been pointed to you repeatedly:
# You continue to reference material that you clearly do not understand 
# You have little if any expertise/training on the subject and have been repeatedly rebuffed by more knowledgeable editors, including a doctor, metallurgist/chemist and an engineer. 
# You continue to use material from your website, a violation of WP:RS, and WP:OR
# You constantly remove information that runs contrary to your POV and replace it with material that has been deliberately distorted. 
Either abide by the consensus of the other editors, or this will lead to a RfArb. I really hope you seriously reconsider your actions. DTC 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Final Plea --James S. 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Plea