Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia is not a soap box

The way things are going now with the additions I see that we are going down the same path that caused earlier argument in the main article; it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again.

This encyclopedia's founder has made it clear that it was not to serve as a platform for projecting a certain point-of-view. Almost all of the content rules are geared to stop this place from becoming a battleground for opinion. Yet it is becoming abundantly clear to me that at least one editor has no intention of presenting this topic in a neutral manner. He is active off-wiki in this issue, and makes no effort to hide his bias.

I am not going to get into a sterile edit war on this page unless there is some sign that we are trying to create a Wikipedia article instead of a polemic against the nuclear industry in general and the U.S Government in particular. --DV8 2XL 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to specific edits, or is this just a general personal attack? If you have specific concerns, I invite you to voice them. --James S. 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We adressed many specific issues on the DU talk page, none of them were incorporated into the first edition of this article. DTC 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

None? I suggest you need to look again. --James S. 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"...it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again." Let be ask you outright: James S, will you agree to work NPOV or are you going to continue to try and use this article to forward your personal stand on this topic.? --DV8 2XL 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have explained on your talk page that I have refrained from placing my personal opinions, which involve questions of gross negligence and/or malice, anywhere near the article. My edits have been from a NPOV, and I have made them because they are notable. All of them have been sourced and are verifiable. If you have objective reasons that they are not NPOV, then please state your reasons. If you merely dislike them, please do not accuse me of POV-pushing. --James S. 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

DV8, we all have biases, and many of us are involved in issues off-wiki. The issue is that we work together to write articles from an NPOV. Can you give an explicit example of a case in which you feel that James has engaged in original research, or advanced his POV to the exclusion of others? He has provided plenty of peer-reviewed citations. Perhaps if you have citations that support the safety of DU, preferably (as he suggests below) recent ones, you might want to add those as well. Removal of content will not get anyone anywhere. -- Pakaran 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you gone to Talk:Depleted_uranium? Most of the specifics about original research is mentioned there, but for a recap:

Although James uses a great deal of Peer Reviewed research, he uses the results of the studies to support different conclusions:

1. DU is tetrogenic in Mice (conclusion of study) DU is tetrogenic in Humans, not backed by study OR [1]
2. The citation of a FOIA he filed, clearly OR.
3. The definitive conclusion that DU has caused birth defects in humans, when studies show this to not be supported
4. DU is responsible for Gulf War Syndrome, when studies show this to not be supported
5. The exclusion of materials that do not fit with his POV

DTC 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to each point:

1. "CONCLUSION: ...human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects"[2]
2. The FOIAR is discussed below.
3. See (1).
4. See Gulf war syndrome
5. If you are referring to pre-2000 studies showing no link, that is addressed at Talk:Depleted uranium#Pre-2000 research

--James S. 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the mouse issue, of course mice and humans respond differently in some regards. What if we include the moust tetragency, and state that its effects on humans are unknown/not researched/whatever the case may be? About the FOIA, experts are allowed to cite their own works (and cerrtainly a work they suggested). WP:NOR explicitly allows this. The birth defects in humans are dicy... I don't want to make statements there, but if it indeed hasn't been analyzed, it might be possible to say it hasn't. If a large group of advocates links Gulf War Syndrome with DU or anything else, we can represent that as their POV. Ideally, nobody would be excluding materials from either side. The important thing is to attribute views to their holders. Let me know what you think. -- Pakaran 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

James is not an expert on the subject, and his FOIA has been denied. DTC 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I may not be an expert, but the Navy Office of the Surgeon General is, and they have decided to expidite the request[3].

Well, once the FOIA is approved and you recive information on the subject, then it can become part of the article, until then it is meaningless. DTC 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That James S has refrained from placing his personal opinions in this article is not laudable as it is strictly forbidden by the rules of this place; that he continues to bias this entry to support those opinions is blatantly obvious. If that is not abundantly clear, than we are on the road to arbitration. --DV8 2XL 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That DU doesn't cause plantar warts has also not been established; that it causes lower yield in carrot fields has not been established; and on and on. This is not scientific reporting it is suggesting a connection that has not been established. When the FOIA results come in they may be applicable, before that they should not be mentioned. --DV8 2XL 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But if a significant activist group claims it, we can say that they claim it. Likewise, we can say in our article on PETA that:

One of the most controversial PETA campaigns was their Holocaust on Your Plate campaign. In it PETA claimed that: "like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."

We are not saying as a statement of fact that factory farming is equivalent to genocide. We are saying that a significant group believes it. -- Pakaran 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How, for the sake of this article do we define significant, and how much weight should they be given when compared to the NJOM and Sandia? DTC 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well that's the argument in a nutshell, isn't it? --DV8 2XL 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

that and we cannot paste together seperate pieces of data to form an indpendent conlcusion. DTC 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m sure your client enjoys seeing his advocate comparing his stand to that of PETA; an association I am in complete agreement with and thus in the same sprit, I submit a passage that could replace the ‘Health concern’ section of the original article:

(Pakaran interrupts) I was making an analogy, and suggesting an alternate phrasing. If he sees the analogy as unfair, he should of course contact me. I feel that attempting to reach common ground is the best way to ensure that my client's concerns are incorporated in the article. My personal feeling is that statements which can be sourced as statements of fact should be portrayed as such, and opinions held by broad groups should be represented as the opinions of those groups. For example, I am unaware of a study showing that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, but we represent this as the stance of a number of large groups. Again, I'd point out that my client has cited sources for many of his statements. -- Pakaran 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Pakaran, I was pulling your hose. Don't take it too literally. --DV8 2XL 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, as a very new advocate I tend to be very concerned over these issues. -- Pakaran 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(DV8 continues) A small but vocal minority claims that DU causes cancer and birth defects in humans exposed to uranium oxides, claims based more on assertion than proof. These activists, including some with science backgrounds, started to exploit the scientific uncertainties and decry DU as a “crime against God and humanity.” Without any credible health or environmental studies in post-war Iraq on DU, activists have stated the effects are comparable to those of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. Some prominent activists have asserted that not only has the use of DU already caused genocidal effects in Iraq, but that the US uses DU munitions to intentionally inflict genocide on populations. A typical claim was uttered by activist Leuren Moret who works closely with Doug Rokke and other anti-DU extremists; in February 2004 she stated: 'Anyone within 1,000 miles of Iraq; anyone within 1,000 miles of Afghanistan is potentially contaminated now. It’s not just the people [living] in the country. Anyone going to Iraq or Afghanistan now will become contaminated. There’s no way to escape it.'' --DV8 2XL 13:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, this is what the article needs to make extremely clear: DU is toxic (as all heavy metals are), it has known health effect, there is a strong possibility that routine occupational exposure to DU in excedence of OSHA limits most likely causes negative heath impacts, but there is not pathological evidence that exposure to DU causes birth defects in humans or DU exposure from ordinance has been shown to cause acute or chronic health effects as the New England Journal of Medicine, RAND, IAEA, and DOD studies have shown. Individuals who state otherwise are in the minority of scientifiic concensus. DTC 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My only objection to including that paragraph is that is has no sources supporting it. --James S. 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • If you mean what I wrote I will attend to references ASOP. --DV8 2XL 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So you have no problem if the information is sourced?DTC 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I hate to see the effect that some of Moret and Rokke's more off-the-wall statements have had in the debate. It's one of the reasons that I often get accused of being a kook. If you can support the statements with citations, which I think should be pretty easy, then please do include the paragraph. (I do not agree with replacing the entire section with that one paragraph, of course, which on closer inspection seems to be suggested by DV8 above.) --James S. 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That was hyperbole. Never-the-less the fact remains that this issue has suffered from a great deal of poorly founded statements, but that yours are several orders of magnitude better than those cranks doesn't make them free of error. I don't think this issue will be helped by the inclusion of rubbish from those sources, referenced or not. However as much as we must not minimise the dangers of DU we are required not to overstate them and this is at the core of or argument with you. --DV8 2XL 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So your main concern is that you feel that James is engaging in original research? From WP:NOR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. DV8, is it your view that the activists you named are too biased for their views to be included at all? -- Pakaran 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It becomes original research when it crosses this line: In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments This is where I have an issue, after reading the sources (you may look on the old talk page for a list) I see new interpretations of the data. James insisting that the data is well sourced is not an answer to this complaint; demanding other sourced data to rebut his statements is not an answer to this complaint; asserting his sources are newer is not an answer to this complaint. *** The quote I posted is one of her more lucid ones. This type of 'activist' (who I suspect are more interested in donations than doing anything constructive) brings nothing to this topic and despite our differences I do not lump James in with them. --DV8 2XL 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

James is taking primary and secondary sources and making his own conclusions that those sources do not make. Like the tetrogenic nature of DU in mice means it is also tetrogenic in humans. Making leaps that the sources do not argue violates WP:NOR. DTC 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll read your list of concerns tonight. -- Pakaran 01:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, "CONCLUSION: ...human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" [4], which was and is the first cited source for the human teratogenicity claim in the frozen main article. If I'm guilty of anything, it's that I forgot that source when I changed your TotallyDisputed template to the DisputeAbout info box. --James S. 08:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(back left) James, I wish you would stop citing that report, because thats all it is, a report. The authors, juding by their sources, have an obvious and critical bias which make thier conlcusions highly suspect. Their main conlcusion "human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" was not backed by one study they cited. All of the comparision work done on Gulf War Vets, and nondeployed vets found no difference between the tow's offspring. All of thier critical conlcusions were based on anecdotal evidence, and the use of sources like the International Action Center's DU Education Project, which one of the reports contributors writes for, is another reason to consider this suspect at best. DTC 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The report is a review of over 70 references, most of them peer-reviewed. How do you make a judgement by those kind of sources? The authors no not cite "one" study backing of their conclusions, but develop the conclusion in reference to 21 seperate sources. There are plenty of studies from uranium contamination having nothing to with the Gulf War, including miner exposure and animal studies. Your universal quantifiers are flat wrong. The authors are affiliated with U. Mass. and Tufts. --James S. 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the authors, Brugge, is an anti-DU activist with the IAC, another on is an undergrad. Much of what the authors cite directly contradicts their conclusion, i.e. the studies on Gulf War vets and their offspring. DTC 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"CONCLUSION: ...human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" [5]. The authors' conclusion is ridiculous. It suffers from Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). All but one of the human studies cited are based many different studies of Gulf War veterans children and children of locals in the Persian Gulf. The only marginally decent human study that they cite is on uranium workers' children in New Mexico. THEY ADMIT THAT THIS STUDY SHOWED NO INCREASE IN BIRTH DEFECTS. So then they tell us that they reworked the statistics on the raw data so that it does, without giving hard figures or exact methods!! I am highly surprised that this crap even made it to print. EH Journal is not exactly the New England Journal of medicine, though. Dr U 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that you or Lcolson read the entire review. However, this is just one source. I have also cited the Arfsten paper which looked at male uranium miners from Namibia, Africa and found increased levels of sister chromosome exchanges in white blood cells (a marker for potential genetic abnormalities in sperm) and decreased testosterone levels as compared to control subjects who did not work in the uranium industry. Another paper cited by the Arfsten paper reported a statistical association between maternal exposure to mine tailings and unfavorable birth outcomes in Navajo Indians living near Shiprock, New Mexico. --James S. 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Occupation exposure to DU is an entirely different scenario than what one might be exposed to from weapons. DTC 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also cited the Arfsten paper Yes, you did original research. --hitssquad 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What? Citing two different peer-reviewed literature reviews on the human reproductive toxicity of uranium is not original research. It is citing sources. Please understand the difference. --James S. 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Section

This section clearly relates to u-238, not DU, therefore I removed. it. DTC 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Groves memo? Are you kidding? U-238 is DU. Replacing. --James S. 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Info Missing

Where are the RAND, DOD, NEJOM and Sandia studies. DTC 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

DUF6 is 95% of all DU

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)

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)

Most uranium is stored and shipped as Uranium hexafluoride prior to use. --DV8 2XL 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On novel research

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have assumed good faith, thats why we are here instead of a long unproductive edit war. DTC 05:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

UO3

Just out of curiosity James, you wouldn't happen to be confusing the term "aerosol" with the term "gas" or "vapor"? DTC 05:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, gaseous form UO₃(g) is monomolecular (or "monomeric" in the words of the Ackermann (1960) source), whereas "aerosol" is a particulate form. "Vapor" is a gaseous substance below its boiling point, and is therefore also correct and more specific for UO₃(g). "Fume" covers gas and aerosol both, and is often used to refer to dangerous substances. --James S. 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the vapor pressure of UO3 at 2000K? DTC 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to figure it out from the Gibbs free energy; see the graph in Nakajima, K. and Y. Arai (2001) "Mass-spectrometric investigation of UO{sub 3}(g)," J Nucl Mater, 294, 250-255. --James S. 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the formation enthalpies in pure O₂ can be multipled by 20% for air, but a more serious problem is that we have no way to know the surface area of the U₃O₈ combustion product particles, so the quantity produced must be determined empirically. --James S. 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness James, what makes you think that you understand this stuff? Please try and see it from our perspective for a moment; we have the technical background to understand what's going on here and the last two entries you made to us, clearly demonstrate that you do not. --DV8 2XL 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you taking issue with something specific that I wrote above, or is this a personal attack? What "demonstrates" my lack of technical background? The NRC hasn't been complaining; in fact on this particular topic I have proof that I was the first to bring the issue of UO₃(g) to the NRC, and that they are requiring additional reports on the subject from the licensees. What is your technical background on the subject? --James S. 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not an attack James, we just don’t know if you know what you are talking about. DTC 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you will not answer this simple and legitimate question tells me that you do not have any qualifications to speak in these matters and that you are acutely aware of that lack. But I'm not surprised. From the beginning you have made some glaring mistakes both in your arguments and their defence that clearly shows that you have only a limited idea of how scientific discourse is carried out and a limited grasp of the fundamentals of the fields we are dealing with or the subjects in question. The others are relatively young, but I have over thirty years industrial experience as chemist and a metallurgist, and I have dealt with all types, and you are not unique.

You are not a crank. You most likely have some standing in another intelectual field and fallen into the trap of believing that your skills are transferable to any other domain you choose. No doubt you are committed and research the topics thoroughly, but your statements here have displayed all the typical mistakes of the autodidact that enters a subject horizontally without the foundation to properly weigh and integrate the information they are taking in. Your errors have been pointed out to you ad nauseum here and in Talk:Depleted uranium - your responses have only further indicated your unfamiliarity with the general conventions of scientific debate; your demand that we provide counter arguments by citation when the criticism was on your interpretations; or attempting to justify misapplication of a reference by asserting it was peer-reviewed.

The only person you are fooling is yourself. I suspect that you will find yourself sometime in the next few months in arbitration if you don't stop believing that you are an expert in this matter, and realise you have much yet to learn of the basics. --DV8 2XL 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have confirmed theough an associate of mine who does quite a bit of work with EB-PVD systems that that only state that UO3 could possible exist in a gaseous form under 2500K is in a vacume under 10 millitorr. I think it is safe to say that this material can be removed. DTC 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"An associate" of yours is not a verifiable source, such as the eight peer reviewed sources you removed from Uranium trioxide, which all support the formation of the gas at 1 atm. Please edit the /Alternate version as you please in preparation for mediation. --James S. 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that makes two people whose knowledge on the subject I consider to be definative. My "associate" and DV8 2XL, who have about 50 years of industrial metalurgy between them. DTC 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL said: "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and this is from my perspective as a chemist and a metalergist, an extraordinary claim. However as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, thus despite the fact that I have many misgivings about the existence of this gas, or if indeed it can form, just how large a contribution it makes to this issue, I have to support its inclusion." --James S. 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The debate is silly to begin with. As nobody has ever been proven to have been exposed to the stuff, let alone develop health problems from the stuff, it is a moot point.

• 1. The article contends that the military didn't take the stuff into account when they did their studies. Says who? Who says they didn't think of it and discount it because it is utterly insignificant because it is produced in such minute quantities? Who says it was even worth their time to mention?
• 2. Who has ever proven that a single human being has ever been harmed by this stuff?
• 3. Who has ever proven that a single mouse has developed clinically significant problems from this stuff? Its not enough to prove that this enters tissue easier than particulates. To be relevant you have to show that it does so in ammounts likely to cause clinical harm.
• 4. It is possible that exotic uranium oxides are a beacon that space aliens use to decide which planets to attack. No reports mention that possibility. What if the aliens are homing in on our planet right now because of this oversight?

Dr U 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Army and Air Force have both admitted missing it until the NRC brought it to their attention after my petition. I can get the original source documents on NRC's ADAMS system if you want to see them. Plenty of people recognize the harm from UO₃, e.g., Stuart et al. (1979) "Solubility and Hemolytic Activity of Uranium Trioxide." Environmental Research 18, 385-396 and Morrow et al. (1972) "Inhalation studies of uranium trioxide." Health Physics 23, 273-280. Your absurd personal attacks regarding space aliens show the weakness of your position. --James S. 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, my absurd statement is just as absurd, and basically follows the same logic as the claims about UO3. 1, 2, and 3 haven't been answered. Those studies allegedly prove absorbtion. Proving absorbtion doesn't prove it happened in sufficient amounts to cause harm.Dr U 04:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but James is the only individual who is claiming that UO3 gas can form at ISO or anywhere near it. Read your source again James: it only forms in a near vacume at high temp, and as Dr U said, the claim that UO3 gas is harmfull is no ones claim but yours.DTC 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You take another look at the source -- the pressure is clearly 1 atmosphere. If you or your associate doesn't believe Ackermann (1960) then have a look at the Gmelin Handbook volume U-C2, page 118, which answers your partial pressure question: In pure O₂, it's -1.8e4/T+6.8; in air it's -1.9e4/T+6.9. --James S. 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked into this we have now determined that indeed it is not verified. The material referenced does not support James' interpretation which now must be seen as novel and thus in violation of WP:NOR --DV8 2XL 03:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop grasping at straws and read the literature. The fact of UO₃(g) formation is supported by no less than eight peer reviewed references. --James S. 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page 98, states that, "The taking up of oxygen by U₃O₈ is not infrequently ignored." --James S. 06:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, uranium sometimes forms different oxides under different conditions. That doesn't prove that the products are gaseous. It doesn't prove that they form in quantities that are anything but trivial. Even if it did happen in substantial quantities, it doesn't prove DU battlefield impacts produce it. Even if DU battlefield impacts produce it, it doesn't prove that it does so in sufficient quantities to significantly affect human exposure. Even if it does affect human exposure, it doesn't prove that it does so in quantities sufficient to cause clinically relevant pathology. Dr U 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any credible aternative hypotheses (the anthrax vaccine is certainly nasty in at least 1% of subjects, but it doesn't cause reproductive harm; the chemical weapons cause far more cancers per birth defect rate increase than were observed) Occam's razor applies. --James S. 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

James, uranium oxides are ceramics, and ceramics by their nature do not form vapors or gasses (except in extreme conditions like some EB-PVD applications). That is why they are converted into UF for gaseous diffusion. I realize you have done a substantial amount of research into this topic, but just because you have spent many hours researching this does not mean that it is true. You have clearly misread your sources, and/or you lack the education/training to properly use them. You have clearly demonstrated this by citing negative partial pressures for UO3 (-1.8e4/T+6.8; in air it's -1.9e4/T+6.9 what units?!?) which are physically impossible. DTC 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A ceramic is a solid, so a monomeric vapor isn't a ceramic. UO₃(g) does in fact plate out on contact with surfaces, like any ceramic used for thin-film deposition, and that is exactly what has been detected: UO₃ plated out on the inside of tanks and armories after fires. If you believe I have misread sources, then please explain why in particular instead of making personal attacks. You have demonstrated that you don't understand scientific notation if you think -1.9e4/T+6.9 is negative (for T>1.) The units are atm and Kelvin; see Gmelin Handbook vol. U-C2, p. 118, or the Ackermann (1960) source from which Gmelin converted those figures (Ackermann uses mmHg.) However, this isn't going to help you because to get the reaction rate and production volume you need to know the surface area and you can't just assume that some fraction of the U₃O₈(s) combustion product is exposed to air. Also, the combustion temperature of uranium varies from ~3300 to ~2000 K depending the particle sizes, see Mouradian and Baker (1963) "Burning Temperatures of Uranium and Zirconium in Air," Nuclear Science and Engineering, 15, 388-394, in particular Fig. 6 on page 392, and Fig. 3. --James S. 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

James said:"Please stop grasping at straws and read the literature." James we have taken the time to read the references, and they simply do not support your interprtation. You are way over your head here. Find someone away from Wikipedia with a solid backgroung in chemisty - show them the text of your eight peer reviewed references - and ask them if they support your ideas. Don't do this for us, we know what is going on here; do it for yourself, because you're only embarrassing yourself now. --DV8 2XL 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you specifically claiming that Ackermann (1960) and the seven supporting peer-reviewed sources are wrong, and that "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U3O8 with oxygen" is false? If so, on what grounds? If not, then what in particular are you claiming? Is your line of thought described by the Gmelin handbook which notes that the reaction "is not infrequently ignored"? Please keep your personal attacks about who is embarrassing themself to yourself. --James S. 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I an asserting that your sources do not support the formation of this species in concentrations that would survive for a significant amount of time outside the laboratory. The onus is on you to show that they do. --DV8 2XL 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is evidence that UO₃ plates out on the inside of tanks and armories after munitions fires insufficient proof? How else would a film be deposited? Certainly not by particulates. My position is that if you think UO₃(g) decomposes at STP, that you need to show a means by which it can. --James S. 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that only tell me that it is there. There are other mechanisms that will place a ceramic coating on a metal substrate, the temperatures that a hot particle will adhere to a cold substrate are well below temperatures that would render it a gas. There is an entire class of industrial ceramic coatings the exploit that fact. James said: My position is that if you think UO₃(g) decomposes at STP, that you need to show a means by which it can Nonsense, you are the one that must prove assertions to us. You are the one that is misinterpreting the data

New Changes

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)

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)

What do you all think?

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)

Any other responses to this idea? --DV8 2XL 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am not in favor of splitting the article, at least not at its current aggregate size. I am also opposed to splitting out controversial issues -- the general practice, and the specific history of this article, is to include an analysis of the controversy. I am ambivalent about merging the general description and nuclear industry uses into U-238. I am also ambivalent about the seperate health concerns article (in any case, it at present isn't named according to convention -- Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium would be better than the parenthetical form suggesting a hierarchy.) I hope that when a mediator takes this up that we will be able to discuss issues of content before issues of presentation. --James S. 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ::I have moved Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) to Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium as per James' suggestion. --DV8 2XL 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uranium Hexafluoride

1st: I think its a good idea that the health effects of DU be broken off from the rest of the DU article. At most, I think the DU article should have one or two paragraphs focused on the health effects. Have the rest go of the health effect info go to an article like Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) for the time being, or something like it once we figure a way out of this impass.

2nd: Leaks in UF₆ storage canisters under normal storage conditions aren't as seriouse as they would be if UF₆ were a gas when the leaks occured. UF₆ is not a gas until it reaches 134° F, 57°C 1. It must be heated in order to exract from canisters.

I wouldn't be surprised if UF₆ was chemically active in air at STP, but I doubt is would be to bad, it would probably oxidize fast (not nearly as bad as the alkali metals). I don't think its to dangerous unless its heated to its gaseuos form, at which point I've heard (hear-say) that it can strip off flesh "very" quickly.

3rd: Nice pictures, who did you have to petition to get them? I've emailed national labs for permision to use pictures that I find on their websites and I haven't recieved one email back yet.

Lcolson 07:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1st:The page Depleted uranium/Alternate has what I hope are the uncontaversal parts of the topic I would like to see go into Depleted uranium; as you see it's got your two paragraph link-out to here.

2nd:To my mind keeping those containers in such a discraseful condition is inexcusable. If the public is ever going to trust the nuclear industry, they cannot be treated to spectacles like this.

3rd: I got them from Depleted uranium/Staging, I assumed that James had cleared them before he put them up there.

--DV8 2XL 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The photos are from ANL which has a blanket permission in return for attribution, which is on the Image pages. --James S. 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that I had added some changes that I mentioned above to the alternate page, but it appears that they may have been added to the original staging page by mistake. Sorry James, feel free to revert the changes if you like, I'll move them to the alternate page. Lcolson 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

DU is bad. New evidence.

After thoroughly reading the evidence on this page, and consulting other resources, I have concluded that DU is worse than any of us thought. I have posted the evidence in the article. If this new evidence doesn't scare you, then you obviously didn't take the time to read it. Dr U 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and don't even think about deleting it, as it is all well-documented and properly referenced. Dr U 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this edit:

Furthermore, early studies by the Centers for Disease Control ignored the possibility that uranium trioxide gas could be the real cause of a number of mysterious illnesses and deaths in the southwestern United States. [6] Their questionable conclusion that these illnesses were due to a virus was made without considering the obvious fact that they most frequently occur in areas with unusually high levels of uranium in the soil.[7][8] Lightning strikes are known to heat soils to over 2000 degrees Celsius. [9]. When lightning strikes these uranium-rich soils, it clearly creates conditions where uranium trioxide can form (R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355). Because the gas remains dissolved in the atmosphere for weeks, and it is absorbed immediately upon inhalation, anybody unlucky enough to wander into a pocket of it can experience dire health consequences. This is because uranium causes hydroxyl radicals to form. [10]. Hydroxyl radicals damage DNA and other cellular structures, including lung-tissue, muscle tissue, and intestinal tissue. Victims experience muscle aches, fever, and diarrhea, followed by pulmonary failure and sometimes death. [11] It is possible that these effects are initially more severe than those experienced from depleted uranium weapons, because the incredibly high energy of the lighting strike converts a greater quantity of uranium into the notorious uranium trioxide form, leading to a drastically higher exposure. [12]

Please see WP:POINT. If you really think I'm making errors in judgement or interpretation of sources, you might want to be less sarcastic in preparation for mediation. --James S. 13:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Groves Memo

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)

The memo refers to radioactive weapons. Please review WP:CIVIL. --James S. 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Final Plea

James, your continual insertion of disputed material in this and related article is getting tiresome. The following has been pointed to you repeatedly:

1. You continue to reference material that you clearly do not understand
2. 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.
3. You continue to use material from your website, a violation of WP:RS, and WP:OR
4. 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)

Replied at Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Final Plea --James S. 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)