Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 9

message: I have not edited Depleted uranium, and certainly not to the extent that User:71.252.225.61 recently did. Nor did
I edit as Peter Cheung when he was accused and convicted--by a single administrator--of being me while editing through an open proxy (which certainly looks to me like it was part of a DSL DHCP pool and thus would be very unlikely to host a proxy) some months ago. I note that IP address is in Dallas, Texas, which is very near Plano, where Dr. Cheung claimed to be from.
At the time I thought someone was going to absurd lengths to set me up, but now I think I had better talk to whoever did the checkuser on Peter Chung's IP address, calling it an open proxy.
TDC, you said you had an email address for Dr. Peter Cheung.  What is it? LossIsNotMore 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not any of these people 

message: Which version is the best article?  Please vote below in this format: 
#...optional text...~~~~ 
; The current version
#
; The 71.252.225.61/Black Omega version
# See table above. LossIsNotMore 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Instead of just picking one, they should be merged. I don't think there are too many references. I don't think you CAN have too many references. This is an online Encyclopedia. No limits. Anyone who would use the references would probably like more instead of less (I being one of them). This encyclopedia should say everything in the most beneficial format that it can. Also, references prove what is writen (at least to a certain degree). Thus, more is better (if they are all valid references). SadanYagci 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Them

message: We have begun the writing an article on the same subject in the Turkish Wikipedia.  As I can't edit this page without an account, can you please add it to the links availible: Zayıflatılmış uranyum
Thank you. --85.101.166.106 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I added a brief intro section from an Argonne lab study for context, and a link to a summary of that report
KonaScout 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another discussion of the small amount of radioactivity and how harmless it is, without any mention at all of the very much more significant chemical toxicity or its implications.  Doesn't the current version of the article already have enough of that? I'm sure Al Marshall and the rest of the military industrial complex are thrilled to have an Encyclopedia-of-Earth link spammer (who, ironically, doesn't disclose his or her identity or credentials) following in their footsteps. LossIsNotMore 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: This section isn't acceptable, even by its own admission. If there are no objections, it will be removed. Haizum 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "even by its own admission"?  I prefer expansion, e.g.,
Current version                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	71.252.225.61/Black Omega version
American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. The correlation has not been confirmed and the hypothesis ignores the multitide of other exposures that soldiers in a war situation are likely to receive. Visit this article for more info http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71585-0.html	American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.Williams, M. (February 9, 2004) "First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim," The Herald Online, (Edinburgh: Herald Newspapers, Ltd.)Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (Spring, 2004) "MoD Forced to Pay Pension for DU Contamination," CADU News 17 (quarterly newsletter at http://www.cadu.org.uk/ .)
The US and UK governments have been attempting to monitor Gulf War veteran uranium exposure using urine tests.Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (2006) "Summary of DUOB Activities," on www.duob.org.uk, accessed November 16, 2006. Urine assay for uranium inhalation exposure can be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake. The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days. If urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable. Exposure to teratogens may be measured by karyotype tests such as those most often provided for biopsy and amniocentesis. Soluble and most partially-soluble uranyl compounds affect gonadal chromosomes in proportion to the extent that they affect white blood cell chromosomes. Uranyl poisoning causes immune system disorders and may cause cancer.Wan, B., et al. (2006) "In vitro immune toxicity of depleted uranium: effects on murine macrophages, CD4+ T cells, and gene expression profiles," Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(1), pp. 85-91; .
LossIsNotMore 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Soldier Complaints" 

message: Uranium is not particularly strong, and it spalls when milled or bent (which has also been removed, even though I distinctly remember adding that fact before I was banned, from a uranium metallurgy reference source in Stanford Libraries' archives.)  The only properties upon which its widespread applications depend are its density and pyrophoricity.  Strength should not be mentioned in the intro because it doesn't correspond to anything in the article.  (See WP:LEAD)
Secondly, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the fact that depleted uranium is weakly radioactive is of little consequence unless it is inhaled or ingested, and even then, the hazard from its chemical toxicity is several orders of magnitude worse than its radioactivity.  So the intro shouldn't say that the controversy is because of the radioactivity.  A little bit of it is, but the primary controversy is the toxicity, which generally includes the radiological hazards of absorbed radioisotopes, anyway.  The intro should say instead that the controversy is because DU is toxic.
Finally, until the other content disputes above pertaining to the "Health considerations" section are resolved, I think article should have a  tag at the top.  Even if the changes to the intro are made, the article remains factually incorrect in several respects (the current version of "soldier complaints" being just one obvious example) and biased in the manufacturer's favor. LossIsNotMore 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The properties of pure depleted uranium are like you describe them, but addition of titanium and niob change the situation drastical.  There are other metals with poor properties like iron and titanium and they are claiemed to have a high strength.--Stone 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of the alloys not burn? LossIsNotMore 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strength and burnig are no opposit properies. Most of the magnesium alloys burn the same way pure magnesium burns, so with good luck Uranium alloy burns the same way like uranium, but is less likely to fragment or fall apart. --Stone 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro problems: "high strength", "radioactive" 

message: "There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans" By this sentence do you mean that a laboratory study where human pregnant mothers were exposed to high levels of ingested or inhaled depleted uranium has not (yet??) been done??? Come on... Massimamanno 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "No direct proof"

message: Not even I myself like the version I wrote, but I believe that there is relevant information in that paragraph: that the US armed forces are seriously thinking of replacing DU, because all or in part of its actual, potential or perceived dangers; and that they meanwhile are developing drugs capable of suppressing its carcinogenic potential, which it might show through a flesh wound or inhalation. Read the papers, and you'll agree. Possibly it's misplaced information, possibly the entire paragraph must be rewritten but I think the basic information needs to stay... somewhere.Massimamanno 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldier complaints

message: I checked the relevant old discussion and noted that Philip Baird Shearer was the only one insisting on keeping the emphasis on the emphasized passage. So I am re-opening the discussion, and looking for different views on the matter.
I would like to hear opinions and any comments which may be useful in reaching consensus about whether the added emphasis on the sentence "There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles" in section Depleted Uranium#Legal status in weapons should stay or be removed.
(for readers' understanding of the following debate: the sketch for a poll on the subject was previously here but has been removed on request from Philip Baird Shearer). 
Massimamanno 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to hold a vote over such an issue -- See wikipedia:consensus "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. ... Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." --Philip Baird Shearer 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it walks like a duck ... --Philip Baird Shearer 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." This is part of the previous discussion, so there is no need for it to have a separate heading as someone new to the conversation needs to read the conversation to know what has been said. Putting in another heading is not in my opinion the way to build a consensus --08:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The second sentence that you wrote after the section heading #Legal status etc seems to me to be addressing this issue "First of all, I checked the relevant old discussion and noted that Philip Baird Shearer was the only one insisting on keeping the emphasis on the emphasized passage." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By structuring the discourse with a poll at the top of a section, you are encouraging a poll on the issue instead of allowing for "consensus on conflicts [to be] reached via discussion on talk pages." Why not follow the guidelines on this issue? It is not that polls do not help to build a consensus when there are many contributors to a discussion, but with (if we are lucky) half a dozen contributors they do not bring any clarity and tend to polarise opinion, because they entrench positions and not help build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I will remove the poll. Update:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style clearly states to use italics when added emphasis is necessary. So, I changed the format. I still belive emphasis is unnecessary but this way is perhaps more acceptable. Waiting for external comments. Do not revert to boldface without making a convincing case on why this particular point should not conform to the manual of style. Massimamanno 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the poll. What is the problem with the title now? Massimamanno 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In a scientific way, a quote (if used) should be verbatim. Adding an emphasis (also using italics) to a quote can change the meaning intended by the author, and this is what it does here. In my opinion this is not good for the NPOV. Maybe even "(...)" at the beginning and the end or the quote are needed, to show that these sentences were taken from a paragraph. -- 84.190.192.91 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added emphasis in the article - is it necessary?

message: I think these should be added to the videos section:
* http://d3779995.u30.infinology.com/photos/NM_Dust_Damacio_II.htm
* http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/30/1411222
* http://www.planetvids.com/html/Depleted-Uranium-Problem.html
I couldn't get this one to play:
* http://www.winc.tv/cgi-bin/artman/exec/search.cgi?keyword=Coverage%20Differs%20on%20Use%20of%20Depleted%20Uranium%20in%20Warfare&cat=38&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;perpage=10&year=1999&template=search/search_results.html
A pretty wierd URL, and I think it needs Quicktime or something. 171.65.66.170 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not seem particularly authoritable or well done to me. In the video section of a wikipedia article I expect to find something interesting and professional. Let's see what other people think. Massimamanno 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More videos 

message: John Taschner got a US Navy award in the 1980s for using tungsten instead of DU.... he advised that DU would lead to so many PR problems that the advantage was not worth the cost. Prior to coming to Los Alamos National Laboratory, John was Deputy Director of the Navy’s Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, D.C., and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the U.S. Navy and the U. S. Air Force. Over the past thirty years, John has served on several Radiation Protection Standards Committees. Since 1992, John has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute’s N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. He has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. John earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.
I think that is notable enough that he should have his own article. 75.35.205.242 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then write it. But there is the chance that its get deleted. Tungsten seems to be dangerous as well, see e.g. http://www.ehponline.org/press/011505.html. Face it. There is no "clean war". -- 84.190.133.22 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Taschner 

message: Please replace the Basrah graph with this one, which combines Basrah and official US Veterans Administration epidemiology data:
James S. 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth defects graph 

message: Epidimiologist Dr. Rita Hindin has made the following statement to the NRC:  "Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk. Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded." James S. 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rita Hindin's statement to the NRC 

message: I believe this article overemphasizes the pyrophoricity of DU, especially in terms of it's importance as a projectile.  We're not talking about magnesium here.  I believe the burning is minimal, and of trivial importance to projectile effectiveness.  Penetrators come out of the far side of tanks looking almost good enough to reload and fire again.  The kinetic energy punches through the armor, the displaced armor material rattles around in the vehicle starting fires and breaking things.  Has anyone ever heard of DU counterweights being consumed or contributing to aircraft fires or fires in buildings with DU elevator counterweights?
I certainly could be wrong about this, but the evidence I've seen (photos, firsthand accounts or spent projectiles, and personal work with metallic DU) leads me to conclude that the pyrophoricity emphasis in this article is overblown.  So to speak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hidesert (talk • contribs).
:The "self sharpening" effect of uranium is actually liquefaction of the metal, which results in a shower of metallic sparks which ignite and burn immediately, along with a round which comes out looking often in about the same shape, just smaller, than it did when it went in. According to "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report," (Army Environmental Policy Institute, June, 1994) p. 78, "As much as 70 percent of a DU penetrator can be aerosolized when it strikes a tank."  The average is about 40% for the 30 mm rounds which comprise more than 100 times the amount of DU fired on the battlefield by mass. This has been confirmed by the Battelle studies of Mishima and Gilchrist. According to Henk van der Keur (February, 1994) "Uranium Pollution from the Amsterdam Plane Crash," Konfrontatie, approximately 273 kg of DU in the tail of the El Al Boeing 747 which crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam, Holland in 1992 burned and contaminated the surrounding area. It was never recovered, although the material surrounding the ballasts was. James S. 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrophoricity?