Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Apache helicopters

", and AH-64 Apache helicopters" was removed after the A-10 listing, as was "U.S. Army." I'm sure that the Apaches fire 30 mm DU rounds. —James S. 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Other subtle changes were made in the same edit pair. I don't have the background to sanity-check them. --Christopher Thomas 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The other changes check out via FAS and GlobalSecurity (Army doesn't fly fixed wing, and the T-62 does have a 115mm gun). The Apache does fire DU, according to FAS. Changes will be made.

--Mmx1 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The apache does fire DU rounds and to the best of my knowledge the army air corp does have some fixed wing aircraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.132 (talk • contribs)

The apache does NOT fire DU rounds. 30mm DU round are of the 30x173mm calibre used by the A-10 for example. The 30mm canon on the apache fires low velocity 30x113mm rounds. Al of those are high explosive or HEAT types. Because of the low velocity using DU kinetic rounds would be pointless. Check the US army site (http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/apm230.htm).Plus FAS is not exactly a reputable source, a lot of their material is copied of other (producer) sites. Tim Stiers 17.30, 12 may 2006

Heavy slant

This entire article appears to have strayed from facts on the subject to heavy POV and slanting. A lot of the information is generic to uranium in general, some of it specific to uranium. I estimate that factual information specific to depleted uranium constitutes less than 50% of this article.

For my small part I removed the reference to toxic in the first paragraph as this property is already clearly referred to in the second paragraph "As a toxic and radioactive waste product". For some reason the superfluous reference in the first paragraph was reinstated and I have removed it again.

Excellent catch:

"*A study of U.K. troops said, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" The conclusion of the study was "We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers' service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers' service in the gulf." [1]. "

I think the best strategy to cleanup this article is to go through each source cited, one at a time, and see what it really says, instead accepting the heavily biased propaganda that claims to be backed by the source. Anyone game? We can just start at footnote #1, read the source, and post an unbiased summary, preferably in the form of a quote from the article. Then do the same for footnote #2, and so forth. Anyone game? Give Peace A Chance 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Starting in the first section I note that approximately half of the section is referring to "clean" and "dirty" DU. The sources cited are heavily biased (Commondreams/Gulflink/WISE) and the terms "clean" and "dirty" are deliberately emotive words which they choose to differentiate between DU and contaminated DU. The reference to the use of dirty DU 'in the field' is deliberately misrepresentative as the Swiss laboratories referred to in the articles quoted refer to DU used in Kosovo where only ten tons were used and not other theatres. In any event I feel that the references to contaminated DU, which by definition is DU with additives, do not belong in the first section but should be moved to another section, possibly other investigations and findings

I agree in principle that the terms are emotive, and perhaps overused here. However, as the usage is common, the reader should at least be introduced to the terms. After explaining once what some people call "clean" and "dirty", further references could then be substituted as uncontaminated/contaminated. As for all of this appearing in the introduction, there are a few options. We could move it as you suggest. Or in the beginning where it is explained that DU is a byproduct of enrichment, we could explain that DU can also be a product of refined spent reactor fuel. Give Peace A Chance 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It would be beneficial to point out that DU can also be obtained as a byproduct of reprocessing/re-enrichment. It could be pointed out that this DU would be contaminated with small amounts of the fissile materials. I still feel however that the amount of space, when compared to the total in that section, is out of proportion to its relevence so would suggest that the majority be moved. I will have to get myself an account so I can sign in.

Pendulum swinging the other direction

I didn't agree with this "Legal Section" but when an anonymous editor deletes it without mentioning it in the note it going to cause an edit war. Nothing more irritating the working on something that just gets blasted without explanation. Also, I hope User:Give Peace A Chance isn't in charge of removing POV. His user page indicates he might be biased. --MarsRover 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be no pendulum to swing. I object to nearly all of this article on the grounds of innacuracy and misrepresentation. There is a case to be made regarding the health effects of DU but Wikipedia should allow the user to reference studies and form their own POV. A lot (majority?) of the articles cited misquote what the articles referenced to actually say. (e.g. The quote attributed to the the UNEP study in the inhalation exposure risks section does not actually appear in the study quoted.) It is as if the authors have referenced the studies after having read an interpretation of the content from another source without having actually read the article themselves. If we are going to cite sources let us be sure that what the article is saying and what the source says actually tally up. If we are going to edit then let it be fact based rather than deleting/adding according to POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.167 (talk • contribs)

I'll drink to that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Give Peace A Chance (talk • contribs)

"Clean" and "Dirty" DU

Currently the reference for the usage "clean" and "dirty" for uranium that has/has not passed through a reprocessing plant is the Common Dreams Newscenter, which is about as neutral as FOX News. Besides, the assertion made in the article (that "dirty" DU contains higher concentrations of plutonium) is not even supported by that source, which merely says that the two types can be distinguished by the concentration of uranium-236. The amount of plutonium in uranium recovered from spent fuel rods is quite neglegible, the plutonium having been separated in the process of reprocessing.

Unless a reliable source that the terminology is commonly used can be provided this should be removed. Dr Zak 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pull it. It was always a red herring issue anyway. --DV8 2XL 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The issue is absolutely a red herring. But the terminology is VERY common, a google search for "dirty depleted uranium" yeilds 149,000 hits. The reader deserves a definition. Give Peace A Chance 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The hits that come up with these keywords [2] are not really relevant, they are just essays to make the point that DU shouldn't be used in war. A search with the keywords "dirty", "depleted uranium" and "isotope ratio" [3] yields just 40 unique ghits, and our own Wikipedia comes out top. Sorry, I'm not convinced at all that this is the commonly accepted terminology. Anyone got a clue what the REAL terminology for virgin and recovered uranium is? Dr Zak 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain the correct terminology for both is Depleted Uranium. People add their own words to distinguish the source depending on their POV. See IAEA or WHOBRT01 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Health Effects section of the DU article is a mess of untied spaghetti claims and counterclaims. It needs a rewrite. Abe Froman 18:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has just been gutted of a large amount of sourced material under the flimsy excuse that it is about uranium in general. That looks to me more like vandalism than anything else.Michael Glass 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike if you were following the events and dispute over this article you would know that most of the "sourced material" was in fact misinterpreted or misquoted. One editor, who after a long case at ArbCom, was barred from editing on these pages, was responsible for the bulk of this mess. It is now going to be cleaned up and brought in line with Wikipedia's standards. That will mean that a lot of the propaganda will go and be replaced with verifiable fact. Were I you I would take care to look carefully at the edits that are being made before tossing out charges of vandalism. At best it does not display NPOV at worse it is not assuming good faith. --DV8 2XL 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I just truly felt that the specific material really fit better on the uranium page. The highlights asserting that DU is toxic, mutigenic, etc. are all still mentioned here. I'll be happy to put back anything that can be shown to be more applicable here than on the uranium page. Give Peace A Chance 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, the uranium page needs more info. Much of what I see there is unsourced. I just removed tolerable daily intake standards from this article. I would like to put that into the other article, but it lacked a source. Give Peace A Chance 02:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The health claims section is a mess. Just look at it. Something must be done. It is a stain on Wikipedia. Abe Froman 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gulf War Syndrome article is in a similar state of disaray. I nearly puked when I read it. Give Peace A Chance 04:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is closer to being balanced than it was a week ago, but the structure is awful. It now reads like the Unabomer Manifesto, with a few breaths of scientific reason inserted for sanity. Give Peace A Chance 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Birth Defects

In the current version we read:

"A report written by an Irish petro-chemical engineer and published in The Lancet stated that in Iraq, the death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993, and cases of lymphoblastic leukaemia more than quadrupled. (K. Rirchard (1998) Does Iraq's depleted uranium pose a health risk? The Lancet, Volume 351, Number 9103). I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, report a similar increase (see Table 1 here)."

So the dude in the "well respected" Lancet states that death under age 5 and leukemia skyrocketed from 1989-1993 (the Gulf War was in 1991). The graph citing the Basrah Medical dudes shows no definitive increase in problems (birth defects) until 1998. This obviously does not jibe, man. Should we include a graph from the "well respected" Lancet data, or the existing graph from the possibly "less respected" Medical Journal of Basrah University, or does the irreconcilable nature of these two data sets indicate that perhaps no graph is warranted at all? Give Peace A Chance 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badagnani (talk • contribs)

Thank you for pointing that out (and so fast!). Give Peace A Chance 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's less straightforward than that. The article appears in the "Policy and People" section; it is not a refereed paper but editorial content of type "News and Views". It refers to the study that says that childrens' mortality due to cancer went up after the war. "He proposes (emphasis mine) that radioactive waste caused by projectiles containing depleted uranium may have played a part." An alternative theory is that the quality of medical care went down after the Gulf War and that previously curable cancer couldn't be treated any longer after the medical infrastructure collapsed. Sorry, folks, that is not a credible study, a credible epidemiological study would address such points. Dr Zak 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are difficulties with the Basrah study, too. Why would the incidence of congenital malformations rise only 1998, seven years after the Gulf War? And why was this made in Basrah, about as far away from the theater of war as it gets? The authors mentioned no other possible causes of malformations, for example maternal age. Sorry, sloppy research. Next please. Dr Zak 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Basara was about as in the middle of the war as it gets. It's Iraq only major port, and its damn close to Kuwait. But all the more reason problems should have shown up before 1998. Give Peace A Chance 03:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Me daft. Dr Zak 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ammunition Alternatives

Uh oh. Ancedotal reports show lead and tungsten in ammo are bad, too. There is nothing politically correct to kill people with anymore. Guess the military will have to disband. :

• http://www.rense.com/general63/cancder.htm
• http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=65

Give Peace A Chance 05:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The snide remark is misplaced. War is conducted for resources, and there is little point in conquering something that can't be used afterwards. Can we now all band together and continue the War un Rubbish? Dulce et decorum and all that. Dr Zak 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that lead and DU are both of similar toxicity, tungsten is considerably lower. Would the article benefit from comparisons of the relative toxicity of munitions? BRT01 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No. This is an article on depleted uranium, not on metal toxicity. --DV8 2XL 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the principal uses of DU is in munitions so a comparison of DU's toxicity (and other relative advantages and disadvantages) versus other metals that could be used for munitions instead of DU is entirely appropriate here.

Atlant 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Atlant. We already have an article on Kinetic energy penetrators. That is the natural home for the relative advantages of the materials that they are made out of. Dr Zak 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your average person looking for the relative effects of lead versus DU would think to look there first.

Atlant 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlant, let me quickly disabuse you of the notion that the entries at wikipedia are platforms for any sort of POV pushing. Just in the last week an editor was bared from these pages for this sort of thing. Second. the whole purpose of interlinking between topics and articles is part of the underling structure of Wikipedea and gives you or any other editor the power to link out to a subtopic at will. Finally the general argument that 'the average reader' will do, or expect this or that is, groundless without being supported by proof (like any declarative statement in Wikipedia must be.) --DV8 2XL 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful! As I recall, you were cautioned about your own behavior in the matter, and an uncharitable reading of what you just wrote might be construed as a threat to bring Arbcom action against me.

Atlant 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you believe I was issuing a threat, I suggest you notify an Administrator. --DV8 2XL 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

DV8 You state "This is an article on depleted uranium, not on metal toxicity" however a lot of this article concerns teh toxicity of DU and its possible health implications. Are you saying that there is too much reference to the toxicity of DU in the article? or would a comparison with the toxicity of other metals used in munitions not fit your POV? BRT01 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote what I meant. You can link out to the other topic - or do you wish to turn this article back into a platform for anti-DU sentiments. --DV8 2XL 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I should like to see the article with some consistancy. Already comparisons are made throughout to other metals in relation to the density. Why not a comparison on the toxicity? BRT01 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no extensive discussion on the relative merits of tungsten and uranium in armor-breaking ammunition. In this article it would be out of place anyway. Dr Zak 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue Dr Zak. Comparisons allow the reader to assess the properties of a new substance against those of one they are familiar with. The article is peppered with comparisons with other substances when covering some of its properties. DU is compared with lead when covering radiation shielding and density. However when it comes to its toxic properties, a major part of the article, there is no comparison. BRT01 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that lead is a material that people are familiar with and that it is routinely used in applications where a material of high density is needed. Feel free to add to the "Health concerns" section but be aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda vehicle. Just a week ago someone got banned from this for tendentious editing. Dr Zak 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question time: Why not just have a one-sentence statement that, as DU is an actinide, heavy metal poisoning is a concern, and put any comparative information there, where people would actually look for it? --Christopher Thomas 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Feel free to add to the "Health concerns" section but be aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda vehicle. Just a week ago someone got banned from this for tendentious editing." Which is why I brought the subject up on the discussion pages. What propoganda is a legitimate comparison? I must say I am not anamoured of the "touch the article and be banned" undertones floating around here lately. BRT01 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been following that dispute since it started, thank you very much. He was banned for pushing statements about UO3 gas forming and remaining stable, which was unsupported by evidence, along with claims that UO3 gas was responsible for Gulf War syndrome, which was unsupported by evidence. It is _not_ questioned that DU, like any other heavy metal, is chemically toxic, and that this at minimum causes handling concerns, and has been cited as a potential health hazard where substantial ground contamination of UO2 from weapons rounds has occurred. By all means limit statements in the health section to those that are actually supported by references, but implying that I'm trying to spread propaganda by wanting heavy metal toxicity mentioned is over the line. --Christopher Thomas 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are Chris, those of use that have been around the article for awhile know that you are a competent NPOV editor. --DV8 2XL 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. With BRT's statement "I believe that lead and DU are both of similar toxicity, tungsten is considerably lower" I was afraid of yet another round of poorly supported statements coming up. Everyone knows that the chemical toxicity of uranium salts is non-neglegible, but the fact that tungsten oxide dust isn't exactly harmless has yet to make the rounds. Dr Zak 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning of James Salsman

I have just learned of the banning of James Salsman from this and related articles. Apparently, one of the most knowledgeable editors at this article is no longer permitted to edit here. As the process of "getting rid" of him was not discussed here I knew nothing of it and had no opportunity to provide input. This process, held in what I believe to be a secretive manner by approximately a half dozen editors, banning a knowledgeable and conscientious editor, is shameful and I oppose it strongly. A scan of his edits shows that at times when editors repeatedly removed any information that might be critical of the use of DU (specifically as regards its purported health effects, which others appear to have been trying to minimize, despite the citation of scientific studies as references), he was often the only editor restoring such text, which he always backed up with carefully cited references, often in the face of abusive behavior on the part of one or more editors who did not agree with him. As regards the allegation of "tendentious" behavior on his part, I believe those imposing this edict to be incorrect. I think we can all agree that we need skilled, knowledgeable editors here, and insisting on the restoration of deleted factual information does not consist of "tendentiousness."

Thus, I move that editor James Salsman's editing block at this and related articles be lifted immediately, as it was imposed arbitrarily and without sufficient notice here to allow other consistent editors on this article to present their input. Badagnani 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The case was present at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for slightly over two months, most of which was time during which all users were invited to present evidence. James was made aware of the case as soon as it was initiated. You've had plenty of time and notice to respond to it if you correspond with James, but if you feel it should be reopened, go to WP:RFAR and make a motion to reopen it if you feel that there's evidence that wasn't taken into account during the original decision. --Christopher Thomas 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The details can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. By the way "...he always backed up with carefully cited references...", was part of the issue with him; often his citations did not support what he was asserting. His refusal to be corrected is what brought the charge of tendentious editing. --DV8 2XL 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a chemist who knows about actinide chemistry, and after interacting with James I came to the conclusion that he is a person who has a personal cause which motivates him to write about uranium (I think that James has tried to learn about uranium but his reading list has been too narrow, and maybe too POV. I have tried to help him out with this, I have suggested one modern undergraduate level NPOV radiochemistry text book for him to read {but I am not sure if James has tried to read such a book rather than the very POV matter which he has cited, such as Busby}). James has used wilipedia as a soap box to push his point of view on uranium related matters, I think that James should remain as a member of the wikipedia community (I have on one occasion spoken up in James's defense on another matter) but I think he should stay away from uranium as he seems to be unable to write NPOV matter on the subject. James is perfectly able to make a contribution but in some other part of wikipedia to uranium.Cadmium 19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is amusing for the reason that Cadmium perhaps fails to realize that those on the other side from James, at the time he came on the scene and since, have been pushing their POV (often by eliminating properly sourced text he added; most of his edits did not concern uranium trioxide), which is the promotion of a material they (because of their training or profession) believe to be a quite interesting and exciting one, and any criticism of the health effects of its combustion or faulty storage were attempted (on many occasions) to move completely out of the article for this reason. Do not call the kettle black, please. Badagnani 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, I have been very aware that some editors are part of the super pro-nuclear camp. For instance DV8 2XL is very very pro-nuclear. While he might be very pro-nuclear he has still been able to write some NPOV matter on a range of subjects. If you check my editing record you will find that I do not only write things which

are pro-nuclear.Cadmium

I do not disagree with this. But I suppose, then, to be "pro-American" does not always mean to try to minimize or omit discussions of the failings or flaws in one's nation, lest it be seen by others in a less than perfect light. Badagnani 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Werid ?!? What has "pro-americian" got to do with "pro-nuclear". I am not americian.Cadmium 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Werid? It is an analogy. If you cannot make analogies easily (and I did not imply that you are from the U.S.), I will rephrase it; the meaning is fairly similar. But I suppose, then, to be "pro-nuclear" does not always mean to try to minimize or omit discussions of the failings or flaws in one's industry, lest it be seen by others in a less than perfect light. Badagnani 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand you more now, I would say that you are incorrect in thinking that I have tried to omit discussions of the failings or flaws in one's area of interest. I would say that by trying to get James started on writing about Pu in soil that is not trying to hid any flaw of the nuclear industry. I have been guilty of trying to get the other editor to consider the subject in a balenced and NPOV rather than just using some very POV sources only.Cadmium

I didn't imply this in regard to you yourself, though you did recently say you were glad that this editor is now gone (presumably "for good"). And if he's not interested in Pu in soil, so be it. We all have our primary interests. Badagnani 20:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Health concerns

This section contains the paragraph ...

• DU can disperse into the air and water, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study [4] says in part:

"The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The munition tips recovered by the UNEP team had already decreased in mass by 10-15% in this way. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis."

... I have run searches for key words on the article cited and can find no reference to the quote at all. Could someone else cast their eyes over the report to see if I am missing something. BRT01 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the clean up. This is what the editor that was tossed was doing. He would write whatever he wanted in the article and provided a reference that he claimed supported it - but in fact did not. Any attempt to call him out on this were stonewalled. Take the passage out. --DV8 2XL 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that text was added by User:Korpo in May, 2003 [5] --71.132.130.23 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete in haste, especially when the source does exist and takes just a few seconds to find. http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=241&ArticleID=3036 Badagnani 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have scanned the UNEP PDF cited above (http://www.unep.org/pdf/iraq_ds_lowres.pdf). The quote about corroding penetrators and groundwater appears exactly as quoted by BRT01 in p. 81 of the PDF. I am sorry to say, but the "Welcome to the clean up...Take the passage out" remarks of DV8 2XL reflect very poorly on him/her and appear to show that s/he has an incentive to remove properly sourced and cited text from this article without checking first. This is very disturbing to me. Is it to others as well? It seems to suggest other deletions of his/hers may have been conducted with equal haste, and without considering the source documents. In this case, my analysis of the source shows that the quote is indeed there. Why the claim that it is not? Let's please put a stop to this sort of thing, all right? Badagnani 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"It also sheds doubt on the veracity of the criticisms of editor James Salsman, who was accused of quoting improperly from sources." So ArbCom and all the editors that gave evidence there are wrong. Why don't you go and try to get the case reopened there? Keep in mind that ArbCom also handed down a sanction on TDC, one of the accusers for edit warring, and I got a warning, it cuts both ways over there. --DV8 2XL 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addl. info. Correction: I checked the PDF again and the quote isn't exactly the same (though it's similar). The quote does appear here, however: http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=241&ArticleID=3036 Badagnani 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: "Possible migration of DU into ground water (and from there into drinking water supplies), through corrosion and dissolution of penetrators and penetratr fragments." page 81 of the pdf --GangofOne 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The words on page 81 of the report are similar but they are not the words attributed to the report in the article. If something is quoted as coming from a report then the words quoted should actually be in that report. The words quoted do indeed appear in the UNEP press release which refers to a completely different report to the one referenced. Therefore the reference does not back up the quote attributed to it. This leaves a dilemma. Do I change the quote, and stand accused of playing down the concerns, or do I change the reference and stand accused of removing an important report? decisions, decisions. BRT01 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. Change the citation to match the existing quote. Note that the previous citation is now mentioned a few paragraphs up, currently #22. No matter what you do , or do nothing, be accused of something. GangofOne 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the thinking that the words meant more to the original author than where they came from, that being the reason they were put on the page, I will change the citation. BRT01 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the article, I propose that the health and enviromental matters for DU shouldbe moved to a new page where they will be conisdered alongside the other actindies.Cadmium

How many of the "other actinides" do we turn into munitions and spread around enemy turf by the ton? No, DU is clearly in a separate class.

Atlant 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we concentrate on munitions only ? If you read about sites such as Rocky flats and hanford then you will see that Pu in soil has a lot of stuff to write about.Cadmium 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlant, we are not saying not to cover it here, but that we want to start a broader topic to address the issue in detail DV8 2XL 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Health section

I have replaced the health section with a vanilla version, This is not how it needs to stay, but the older edit had become rambling and incoherent. This version will serve as an armature to rebuild the section DV8 2XL 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that DV8 2XLs section should be made shorter still, I have copied the long POV health section to the new page which I have made. I think that we should concentrate on editing this new page.Cadmium 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Object to huge deletion of information. Please restore. People will come to this article expecting to find some semblance of detailed explanation of the health effects of depleted uranium combustion (an issue of interest to many around the world), and the deletions will mean that they will find little. The "new article" on actinides has a title that is deliberatly obfuscatory and few readers will think to look there for the information that should be here. The disingenuity shown here is just as bad as that shown before James Salsman began editing here, and seems to show a "jumping" by editors to again purge the article of detailed information about the dangers of combusted DU projectiles, as was consistently done before he began editing here. This is not a proper way to behave here at Wikipedia. Badagnani 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, get over yourself. We have gone to lengths to explain what is going on and I am tired of your accusations. If you think the rules are being broken, take it through channels, or get lost. --DV8 2XL 22:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the quick overview is fine. Radioactive pollution of the environment is not at all confined to the use of DU, it's better to see sources and impact in context. Someone mentioned the Hanford site already, there are other storage and production sites that are heavily contaminated, mine tailings from workup of uranium ore are a big problem, and some people fear problems with plutonium-driven thermoelectric generators in spacecraft. Dr Zak 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article is about depleted uranium, not other forms of uranium or plutonium. Why bring those up here? Badagnani 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it always helps to see things in context. The chemistry of the actinides is similar, and DU projectiles are not the only source of actinides in the environment. Dr Zak 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The health effects specifically of DU, specifically as regards its use in a military context, is of sufficient interest worldwide to merit its own comprehensive section here. In this context, "burying" it in an article about various other radioactive metals the "environment" does not make sense (other than within the logic of "burying" such information to make it more inaccessible to the general reader). Badagnani 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Get lost"? Is this the way for a Wikipedian to speak to another? Were you not warned recently by some sort of official Wikipedia committee for being abusive to other editors? I perceive this phrase to be abusive. I have brought up legitimate issues and they have not been addressed. You did not address the fact that many readers will come to this article looking for detailed, factual information about the health effects of the combustion of DU ammunition/projectiles -- now mostly excised, most likely for POV (i.e. "pro-DU right or wrong") reasons. We've seen it before and we're seeing it again. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. You are trying to "bury" the issue and facts in some other article with an obfuscatory title that no general reader will think to look in. Badagnani 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it to dispute resolution if you think something is wrong. You continuing accusations are not "Wikipedian" ether and if they don't stop I will be reporting you. --DV8 2XL 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to set fears of POV to rest, then please restore the huge amount of factual information discussed above promptly, allowing all points of view to be represented through factual information. Badagnani 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read DV8 2XL's edit summary to his reversion of my restoration of the huge section of factual information about DU's health effects. It says "please take to 'discussion'." I did so, and the only response was "get over yourself" and "get lost." There was no discussion. Why, then, was I advised to take it to "discussion," if that was the type of non-response I would get? Perhaps you should report yourself for saying "get over yourself" and "get lost." I did not threaten to report anyone, though I do believe the deletion of huge amounts of factual information to be incorrect. I thought that appealing to editors' sense of balance, fairness, and facts would be enough but maybe this was not a correct perception. Badagnani 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion. It's just not going your way. Dr Zak 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the "discussion" I read consisted of "get over yourself" and "get lost." Would you like to be spoken to with such words, and do you think those were proper words to use, in place of a clear explanation of the removal of this huge amount of text (and the reasons behind such removal)? Badagnani 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

At the top of this section I wrote: "I have replaced the health section with a vanilla version, This is not how it needs to stay, but the older edit had become rambling and incoherent. This version will serve as an armature to rebuild the section DV8 2XL 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)" You have responded by accusations of bias, suppression and conspiracy. Your right, it's not a discussion because you want to indulge in histrionics.--DV8 2XL 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My preference in Wikipedia (and I think this is true for other editors as well) is to build or remove information from articles in a subtle manner, building on the contributions of other skilled editors over time. Not for a single individual to delete huge sections and rewrite them unilaterally (for whatever motivation), then revert when someone objects. That is not a collaborative, pluralistic mode of editing which makes Wikipedia such an excellent project. Besides, the "new version" leaves out much important, verifiable information (for whatever motivation). Badagnani 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you on this issue, however it was just this sort of piecemeal editing that rendered the section unreadable. The information has not been lost and much of it can be reintroduced in a manner that will be clearer to readers that are not as familiar with the contents as we are.--DV8 2XL 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the new version is exactly what a section in wikipedia article should be. It covers all the relevent points in one screen full but not in so much detail as to make it unreadable and has a link out to an article covering the wider arguments. Well done DV8. A few references wouldn't go amiss but compare it to the legal section below it which is about as bad as a section can get with blatent POV highlighting, reports covered in such detail that the link out is almost superfluous and is formatted and written so poorly it is difficult to read and digest. BRT01 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal section is next. --DV8 2XL 05:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• ...all the relevent points..." Is this a joke? Where, for example, is U-238's half life? This information has been removed almost a half dozen times in the last few days. The unilaterally rewritten section does not cover all the relevant points, not even "some" of the relevant points. If this is your standard, then I wonder why you support the lack of such information in the article. It's quite selective, in that industrial and other applications are discussed in many, many, many paragraphs but health effects (particularly of combustion in military applications, an issue that is of great interest around the world) gets cut, cut, cut. I wish I could understand what is the motivation behind this cutting, then applauding, cutting, applauding. You will note that I do not attempt to cut the paragraphs about industrial (and speculative proposed future) applications. Badagnani 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that the motivation behind all this cutting is to provide a balanced, easily read and factual article for the reader to gain a basic insight into the possible health implications of the use of DU. If you care to look you will find that in the first paragraph of the first section there is a link to Uranium-238 where the half life is covered, again in the first paragraph of the first section. The information is there if you look for it. Remember this is an article not a definitive work. BRT01 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You know and I know that this article is not balanced at this moment, for the previously stated reason that there are many, many, many paragraphs about the various industrial (and speculative future industrial) uses of the material, while the section on health effects has been cut almost to nothing, with the half life removed repeatedly. I have not endeavored to cut the many sections on these applications, yet you applaud cut after cut (including many references to various studies) to the health section. Yes, there is a motivation because the cuts are selective. I have watched it again and again over the period of several months, always cuts to the same section, often accompanied by strongly abusive language. If you truly wish for balance, please restore the text in the health section; it's never too late to do so. Badagnani 08:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is not the majority of the text in the Actinides in the environment section which is clearly referenced at the very beginning of the health section under for further details see? BRT01 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the subject does not bolster your position (whatever that is). Further, the title further "buries" the information, as none but the extreme specialist reader would ever think to look for information about health effects of the combustion of DU projectiles under such a title. This situation needs to be rectified and, lamentably, you do not respond to any points I have raised. Badagnani 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the gall to presume on the intelligence of our readers? --DV8 2XL 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try, again, to control your tone here; perhaps a cup of tea might help. Nothing to do with intelligence, but the title is clearly not one that most non-extreme-specialist readers would think to look for this information. A more logical title would be "Health effects of Depleted Uranium," though the most logical thing would be to have the information should be included in the Depleted Uranium article (as it was before you purged it to a separate article with an obfuscatory title). Badagnani 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Actinides in the environment" isn't terribly obfuscating, though I still think it would be better as a subsection of a "heavy metals in the environment" article than as an article on its own. Most people who have been through a high school chemistry course know what "actinides" are, and under heavy metals they're explicitly noted.

When, and if, I get free time after the current work crunch, I'll try to sanify the heavy-metals-related material (looking up all of the relevant MSDSs and so forth), but for now, how about _all_ of you take a cup of tea? --Christopher Thomas 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to differ, but yes, purging all the properly sourced material out of this article and into the new article (to which you do not object, for whatever reason) does have the effect of "burying" the material. Further, the use of DU in a military context is a very specific use of this very specific material, not in the "environment" but on the battlefield. The health effects of the combustion of DU rounds of various types is a common, nearly everyday occurrence in at least two nations at this time. This should not be grouped with all other "actinides" (most people are actually not familiar with this term), and "in the environment" confuses the issue with naturally occurring radioactive metals. I continue to object strongly to the blanking of properly sourced material regarding DU's military use and effects of combustion on human systems via massive blanking, something which has not been addressed other than a mild direction to that editor to try not do so in the future; the current, unilateral blanking of both "health" and "legal issues" section should be reversed immediately. Badagnani 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, you state that "none but the extreme specialist reader would ever think to look for information about health effects of the combustion of DU projectiles under such a title" and you are correct. They would look under Depleted uranium in the health section ... and would be clearly directed to the section containing the information they require.BRT01 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who had the idea of the actinides in the enviroment article, I would like to speak in defense of the article. While I know that a person whose education in radiochemistry is only by the greenpeace or some other NGO website, is less likely to search for actinides than a person with a chemistry/physics degree the important point is that a link exists from the DU page to the new page which considers all the actinides in turn. If you want to make an addition to U (or another actinide) in the enviroment then please do it at the new page.Cadmium

Object. The combustion products of depleted uranium as used in a military context is a very specific subject and does not belong in an article about the "environment" (which implies that such combustion products are be found in the soil, trees, stones, etc.). The subject requires clear, comprehensive treatment here (beginning with the restoration of the properly sourced section blanked yesterday in order to "bury" the information). Due to the high degree of interest around the globe in the subject (especially from the United Nations, all mention of which has been blanked by another editor in the past day, for whatever reason), a separate, comprehensive article about the health effects of the combustion of depleted uranium, under a title comprehensible to the general public, would be a good adjunct to this. But I'm guessing (maybe I am wrong) that you would never create such an article yourself, for whatever reason. Badagnani 08:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I made the article was not to bury any information but to make it more easy to find. If you check the Pu section you will that I have put brought several more things to the page which make it more useful than having the data scattered around the wilipedia.

You wrote "which implies that such combustion products are be found in the soil, trees, stones, etc.", these things you mentioned are no more/no less part of a person's enviroment than the air they have. I have seen one paper about Sr-90 in the trees in Japan which were close to where the atomic bombs were used. Does the fact that Sr-90 is in a tree rather than the air make it any less enviromental. I am thinking that if trees with radioactivity in the wood were chopped down and used for either making houses or for fuel then it could result in the human exposure changing as the activity would be relocated.Cadmium

Civilian applications

On reflection I believe Badagnani has a point about this section. With the exception of the historical use as trim weights in aircraft none of the other potental uses really belong here and could be moved to the Uranium or Uranium-238 topics. In particular the forklift entry (which I made several months ago) borders on speculation as this application is not yet in use and given the bureaucratic fuss that attends the use of this material in the civilian sector (a topic I know more about than I ever cared to) highly unlikely. Any thoughts? --DV8 2XL 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think applications should be restricted to noteworthy applications - ones that have been seriously considered for use, or that are currently implemented, with suitable documentation provided. The applications section grew alarmingly several months ago when someone added every application listed in a speculative paper that read like it had been written by a bureaucrat looking to _find_ uses for the stuff. Vetting its present contents would probably be a good idea. --Christopher Thomas 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the extra uses missed out the use of DU a shielding for Radiation sources used in medical and industrial radiography. I also feel that the uses section is overstated, like most. My opinion, for what its worth, is that this is a feeder article for people wanting information about DU. They may be in a range from people who have heard DU referred to and want a short overview to people who already know and want in depth information. Obviously all that in depth information would overload somebody just wanting to know the basics. That is why I applaud the way the health section has been condensed with a clearlink out to the more in depth, and controversial, content which, in turn, links out to more in depth external references. The applications section should name the uses only. BRT01 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved most of it out to Uranium oxide as these applications in fact used the oxide rather than the metallic form and reduced the pigment section and incorporated it into the main paragraph. Trim weights on aircraft I left, as this was/is a major application and is cause for some concern in certain circles, (although as I said in the section; if an aircraft crashes in your neighbourhood, the DU is a minor issue) --DV8 2XL 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal status in weapons

The "rewrite" of the legal status section (removing all quotes and citations) now reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article, backed up with sources. Badagnani 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have imported a passage from another site (under the terms of the Creative Commons licence) that sums up the legal issues in International law nicely. Again this is not carved in stone but will provide a starting point in making the section more readable. --DV8 2XL 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we generally build on one another's edits here at Wikipedia, not delete huge sections, then rewrite them. This is the beauty of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia; skilled editors build on the work of other skilled editors. Let's proceed in that way from now on, a pluralistic rather than unilateral way. You've done the same "hatchet job" to a previous section you apparently objected to; please do not continue in this manner to blank huge amounts of properly sourced information. In this case, the "undesirable" information has not been "buried," as before, but simply blanked. Isn't that considered vandalism? Badagnani 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but weren't you warned about this sort of behavior (not to mention the abusive language)? I wasn't there so I actually don't know exactly what it was that you were warned for. Badagnani 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record I was not warrned about how I edit, nor was I warred specifically but only in general along with all parties thusly: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users and avoid personal attacks."

This type of editing is not in violation of the rules, irregardless of your opinions. The passage as it stood was incoherent and by in large irrelevant; none of the sources quoted found anything illegal with DU munitions. This new passage explains the legal issues and where they stand clearly. Keep in mind that our purpose here is to provide a clear NPOV treatment of the subject. --DV8 2XL 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani placed the comment "unsourced personal editorializing of this sort doesn't belong in article; please restore actual sourced UN findings and statements which you blanked unilaterally yesterday" in the body of the article, right above the reference for the passage he was complaining about. --DV8 2XL 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for large-scale edits

To give an unsolicited suggestion:

There seems to be a strong conflict of views happening here, and the start of an edit war resulting from it. In order to revise the article while keeping things civil, how about trying something along the lines of the following?

• Make specific lists of grievances with the current article content, in your own sections, so that everyone can see where everyone's coming from. Respond in other sections, so that these lists stay readable.
• For sections that either or any of you consider in need of wholesale revision, construct a scratch page with the revised section, saved at Depleted uranium/some_unique_identifier.
• If, after making proposed new versions, and discussing each others' proposed versions, and still not finding a new version that's mutually acceptable, start a formal poll to find out what version the editing community feels is most suited to the encyclopedia.

This won't produce a _perfectly_ acceptable version, but it should give something tolerable with less hostility than is presently occurring. --Christopher Thomas 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan Chris - I'm in --DV8 2XL 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of both side putting forwards their cases, at least we can see what people want to write and do. While we are waiting I will add a link to the new actinides in the environment to each of the elements which are mentioned in it.Cadmium 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing = vandalism

Badagnani has reported me as a vandal for edits I have done on this page. Diff The charge was refused by the responding Admin. RfC anyone?. --DV8 2XL 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually lean towards mediation first, but I'm not directly involved, so I may not have a full picture of what's going on. --Christopher Thomas 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unsupported opinion

This article makes a broad statement of unsupported opinion. I deleted: "As a toxic and radioactive waste product that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste, depleted uranium is costly to keep but inexpensive to obtain from its keepers."

As well, a half paragraph of extremely poor and/or biased writing which appears to be non-sequitur to the "sources" subhead was deleted: "However, its corrosion properties are such that it will burn spontaneously when small particles are exposed to air.[1] Since, like all heavy metals, it is toxic and as it is also radioactive, DU processing facilities need to monitor and filter airborne particles." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 18:59, 13 May 2006.

Badagnani and I don't agree on many subjects, but you're definitely one of them. Good work nailing this one Badagnani --DV8 2XL 19:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like Badagnani to defend this statement: "As a toxic and radioactive waste product that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste, depleted uranium is costly to keep but inexpensive to obtain from its keepers."

I would think that most would concede that storage of waste fissile material is expensive, but he should at least cite a source for his unsupported statement that it is "inexpensive to obtain from its keepers." What exactly is he suggesting with that unsupported statement? Illegal trade in DU? Black market? Buying it on eBay? What are his sources for making such a broad statement of opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 19:21, 13 May 2006.

Try the third link from the bottom in the section obscurely titled "External links" --DV8 2XL 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The link you point to states, in fact: "none of the potential uses are sufficiently well developed to permit a rigorous economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of DU reuse."

This conflicts directly with the statement Badagnani makes. His OP-ED article states the exact opposite. Indeed, according to his article, it is settled fact: DU "is inexpensive to obtain from it's keepers." Such a broad statement of fact must be supported, and not in a vague directive for the reader to do one's own research to find it....if indeed it does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 20:10, 13 May 2006.

Sources DO NOT Support Conclusions

Badagnani states as settled fact: DU "is inexpensive to obtain from it's keepers."

The source he cites to support that statement ACTUALLY says that such a conclusion is not supportable: "none of the potential uses are sufficiently well developed to permit a rigorous economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of DU reuse."

He is clearly stating his opinion as fact in the article, and the sources he cites do not support him; they in fact refute his conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 20:10, 13 May 2006.

If you look in the last link on the page you will read in part: "In the early 1970s, the US Army began researching the use of depleted uranium metal in kinetic energy penetrators and tank armor. High-density materials such as tungsten (density 19.3 g/cm3) and DU (density 19 g/cm3) were considered. DU was ultimately selected due to its availability, price and pyrophoricity..." Which meets the minimum to support the statment. --DV8 2XL 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the market price of USD 20 per kg in 2004 wouldn't strike one as outrageouse. For comparison: Nickel sells at USD 20 per kg and copper at USD 10.

Citing DU's relative cost to Nickel (same) and copper (twice as expensive) is NOT prima facie proof of the statment that DU is "inexpensive to obtain from it's keepers." I would challenge any person to walk into the Sandia Laboratories and ask to buy a ton of depleted uranium. The associated regulatory and licensing costs must be astounding, and any sane person would honestly admit that they would add considerably to the cost of DU, making it FAR from "inexpensive to obtain."

I believe that the author's statement in the article stands uncorroberated, and is motivated by a political agenda - as much of his writing is.

And further, as to the reference cited: It indicates a preference for DU in the arena of ammunition, considering many factors - one of which is it's RELATIVE expense. GOLD is less expensive than titanium, so citing DU's RELATIVE cost as compared to titanium is not an honest examination of the subject of it's cost. Because it is favored when MANY FACTORS (including cost) are considered, does NOT rise to proof of the statement that it is "inexpensive to obtain from it's keepers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.142.31 (talk • contribs) on 00:40, 14 May 2006.

You know what? He and I hate each others guts - but you are in violation of the policies regarding courtesy here and that is not tolerable. As for what you believe is or isn't corroberated by reference, it would appear you are in the minority. Check out WP:V verifiablity is the rule here not proof. --DV8 2XL 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Gold less expensive than titanium? What world do you live in? Dr Zak 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The same one where the US miliary has a licence for every DU round they have. --DV8 2XL 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear energy applications

I would like to take this section out of the article all together as it has already been duplicated in the Uranium-238 article. These applications depend more on the isotopic properties of the material and less on the fact that it is DU in the sense that is use in the rest of the entry. Comments? --DV8 2XL 11:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea.Cadmium

Agree. Dr Zak 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let the bellowing begin. --DV8 2XL 16:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)