Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 5

message: Badagnani, I understand your desire to replace the missing text, but much of what you are replacing is already in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium.
# Why are you reverting the article instead of replacing the passages you are concerned about?
# Do you think the four-layer section scheme (where "Uses" has nothing in it but other sections, for example) is better than the new section headings?
# Why are you replacing the  tag?
I realize that you didn't participate in the mediation discussions, but you had every opportunity to and plenty of notice if you were watching the talk page.  Please respect the consensus settlement decision to split the articles.  If you can't, them please at least explain why not. --James S. 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am replacing interwikis and links that belong in Depleted uranium, as I explained before.  You are the one who should be doing selective editing instead of reverting, not me, as I was not the one who chopped up the article in this way.  Also, the article is now bereft of even any meager description of this material's health effects/concerns and reads now essentially as advertising copy for all the uses to which it can be put; in contrast, many readers coming here "off the street" are likely to want to know about its health effects and may not find their way to the other article.  I was not invited to be part of the negotiation so I do not agree with these aspects of the new version.  Badagnani 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So where were you Badagnani when James was standing up to four of us? Your a bit late to start making demands. Anyway the new topic dumps on with much more detail that this article ever did. --DV8 2XL 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely, the compromise version we have here came about from 5 editors, and has been agrred upon by all. You had your chance. DTC 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on James, the agreement was it was ok as it is; the topic has it's own article now. --DV8 2XL 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one coming in late on this dispute I must express my surprise and concern that so many links have been cut out. The justification "We already agreed on these changes.." seems to me to be poor. I must agrree with Baghdadani that the present article reads like advertising copy for the use of depleted uranium, with its accentuation of the positive and elemination of the negative. Even if the opposition to the use of depleted uranium is misguided and wrong, or if the arguments used against the use of this substance are unproven, the concerns of people about this substance should be dealt with in this article. Michael Glass 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the "we split it because it was too big" argument quite disingenuous. One article accentuates the positive; the other one accentuates the negative. The links between the two articles are a sop to a NPOV overview, I agree, but I find something inherently fishy in splitting the positives and negatives of DU in this way. Michael Glass 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To fill you in, what happened is that pro-DU use physicists tend to congregate here, and thus control content.  Before Nrcprm2026 came on the scene a few weeks ago those who came here and made edits questioning the safety of the material would get shot down or ganged up on, always with the claim that they didn't know what they were talking about or were "not scientific," as the physicists' agenda (stated on their user pages in some cases) involves rehabilitating the image and promoting the "safety" and "efficacy" of a material they consider a very exciting one, with many wonderful properties that could be useful in various future technologies.  It was quite something to see Nrcprm2026 show them that not only was he skeptical about the safety about DU (especially as regards its teratogenicity when used as a weapon), but he could back it up with considerable scientific knowledge.  When the pro-DU physicists found, to their chagrin, that they could not accuse him of not knowing what he was talking about, as they had always done before, they tried several other tactics, essentially forcing him into something called arbitration.  In order to save the text pointing out the negative health effects of DU, he basically had to agree to cut almost everything out and move it elsewhere.  I agree with you completely; this isn't a good thing, as many people will come here looking for the health information.  But most puzzling is the refusal of all of them to address why the links and interwikis (links to DU articles in foreign languages) were also purged.  I'm glad at least someone else is disturbed by this.  Badagnani 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know what an "interwiki" was until just now (I had a vague idea they were used for translation or something.)  I've added them back.  I hope this doesn't devolve into everyone reverting into their favorite version.  That would be worse than the situation before mediation, where pieces were getting reverted out and back. --James S. 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no proof that any of the editors are actually physicians or metallurgists, and some evidence to the contrary.  If you wish to maintain the benefit of those credentials, they should be cited. --James S. 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You want my PE license number? Ten Dead Chickens 18:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No thanks, it's not you who I suspect is claiming false credentials. --James S. 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badagnani reversions duplicating [[Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium]] 

message: ;1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
;2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.
;3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, and on those seeking to remove it.
This is posted to serve notice that as per the agreement at depleted uranium I will defend this article from any attempt to remove content that is properly referenced and verifiable as such. --DV8 2XL 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not 'my show' I posted the above to remind others that may edit here that someone will be watching and reverting any attempts to remove properly sourced statements. There is much in this topic that is contentious and the old Depleted uranium suffered several edit wars as one side or the other on this issue sought to get the upper hand. We all finaly came to an agreement and keeping this article to the rules of content that are inforce was part of it. --DV8 2XL 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The policy

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the FOIA was considered original research. Ten Dead Chickens 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FOIAR abstract is published by the Navy monthly; this one ended up in their September, 2005 abstract. --James S. 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This still does not establish its relevance. Ten Dead Chickens 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of FOIA

message: Check out what GNC is selling: http://www.drugstore.com/qxp88904_333181_sespider/gnc/liquid_multi_colloidal_minerals.htm
They don't seem to be alone.  I'm sure that it has as much uranium in it as a pinch of average topsoil, but the fact that they're able to market it as a health suppliment shows that Congress and the FDA are asleep at the wheel. Dr U 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some fuel for the fire

message: I object to forking this article because:
:Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.
I also object to the absurdly long title of the fork. I will continue to merge. --James S. 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong: but you were the one that came up with it as I recall. --DV8 2XL 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected a misspelling, but you proposed the title. In the future, when I correct you when you are wrong, please do not revert my corrections. --James S. 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Content forking]] 

message: As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, there are now scans of new source articles in:
  http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/
--James S. 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scans up 

message: I moved nuclear energy and nuclear weapons applications out to uranium 238 since it is the isotopic properities of the material that are relevant to these uses, not the source. --DV8 2XL 04:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to ask for mediation on U-238, too. --James S. 07:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm looking at it, and will comment on the mediation talk page; feel free to raise the matter there if you wish. Physchim62 (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections moved 

message: I have data from 95 and 2000.  This suggests that there should be data from 2005.  Dr. Margaret A. K. Ryan would rather we look at lengthy tables showing no effect of marriage on congenital malformation rates. So, if the arbitrators say we have to get verification from those Iraqi doctors with the gross-out photos, then don't say I didn't warn you. --James S. 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patterns of congenital malformations 

message: From the section on nuclear weapons: "The use of U-235 in nuclear weapons has been superseded by plutonium fueled devices. However the production of plutonium itself requires enriched uranium as a feedstock."
Is this true of all reactors, or merely of light-water reactors? The CANDU heavy-water design can produce power commercially using unenriched uranium; presumably some amount of plutonium would be present as a byproduct of the fission reaction? --carlb 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. "Reactor grade" plutonium" is much more difficult to work with, as the isotope mix is far from ideal (particually with CANDUs). The overwhelming bulk of weapons grade Pu comes from breeder reactors operated with the specific intention of creating plutonium for thermonuclear devices. This is not to say that with enough desire you couldn't squeeze enough material out of used NU fuel - it's just that there are easier ways to go about making a bomb. Both Pakistan and India who have CANDUs made their bombs with reprocessed fuel from "research" reactors running HEU. --DV8 2XL 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is enriched uranium needed to make plutonium? 

message: UO3 vapor; Total inhalation exposure; Teratogenicity; Neurotoxicity; Carcinogenicity; and other questions from "Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?" to "Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?" (history.) --James S. 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Wilson (1961) shows the reaction in the context of a combustion temperature and pressure study, and the Cotton (1991) book agrees: there are no uranyl oxides other than UO3 (although U3O8 will slowly dissolve to some uranyl ions.) The use of vacuum spectroscopy partial pressure exrapolation, based on sublimation from micron-scale particles is inappropriate for combustion from the maximal surface area of plasma combustion above 2000 K. At no point in the preparation of uranium fuel is combustion involved.  Gmelin specifically sttes that the reaction is "not infrequently ignored," so why jump on the bandwagon?  UF6 wouldn't be so much of a problem if those in charge of the thousands of tons of the byproduct would remember to keep the storage tanks painted, but still, I'd prefer to see it all converted to dioxide. --James S. 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solide is sometimes ignored and the gas as combustion product is nowhere mentioned. So pink elephants are nowhere mentioned in the literature! So they have to exist! One question : When is the Decision on the Petition?  So we gan end the fight? Its gets boring!--Stone 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion from mediation

message: How many different kinds of possible spills are there?  What are the top three ways to secure each kind of a spill site? --James S. 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cordoning off contaminated areas 

message: The Uranium trioxid GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product!--Stone 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium

message: I spent some time cleaning the article up.  It is now more concise and removed a large portion of the POV and diputed info [].
The article is much better now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD (talk • contribs)  08:28, 17 April 2006  (UTC)
:please explain how you think that the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium/Workshop justifies the edits that you made and have reverted. In particular the complete removal of the section "Incendiary projectile munitions: History: Legal status" which is one I have contributed. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is now balanced. the legal status is  too long.  Likewise, if somebody wrote 5 paragraphs on civilian uses for a crane that would be excessive. Narrow legal status down to one paragraph. ER MD 09:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you say that the "the article is now balanced" and at the same time say that the legal status should be narrowed down to one paragraph when you have completly removed it. Either the legal status is needed or it is not. You have not addressed the question "please explain how you think that the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium/Workshop justifies the edits that you made and have reverted". Also please explain in detail the other change you are making. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the entire page? It explains it in there. ER MD 09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not a detailed answer. For example which section in that page deals with the legal section  in this article? Further you have not answered my other questions about balance or given detailed reasons for the other sections you have removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the history of the article you wrote "Health section moved to back of article please re-add legality, i accidentally deleted it", But above you wrote "the article is now balanced. [I deleted it because] the legal status is  too long" which statment is correct? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up article 

message: As facts are added, or checked, please alter the inline URL notes into Wikipedia:footnotes. This aids long term maintainance of the article because when a URL is changed it is much easier to find a replacement if the Author, Title and Date is included between in the  than just the inline URLs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Anyone interested can see what an MD/PHD and other professionals have said about these alleged and exagerated health problems:
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/library?source=*&library=PRM_2026_public&file=*&st=petitions-a
I found Dr. Nancy Standler, MD/PHD's perspective particulary insightful.  Some of these respondents included original documents from research refuting these claims, so save a trip to the library, and read these documents first.   
Comrade Lenin 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was certainly worthwhile to read Dr Nancy Standler's comments. Not only is her comment a model of clarity, it is also a model of good manners in dealing with someone who has a concern about the toxicity of uranium but limited technical knowledge. Michael Glass 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you all enjoy my response just as much.  Some of the most important comments in support of my position were made by Dr. Standler herself. --James S. 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treasure Trove Of Information To Refute Tenuous Claims