Fieldlab

So sorry James

Sorry James, but I am afraid that your latest reincarnation will be found out as quickly as your others. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

TDC needs people to think that he honestly thought you were me, or else he will be in more trouble for reverting you on depleted uranium, where I am not allowed to edit. I am, however, able to edit Gulf War, and I will be correcting some of your mistakes there. In particular, you seem to imply that DU's radiological hazard is significant. In quantities which can be inhaled, it is not. Please see this report for the reason why -- the chemical toxicity is literally one million ("10⁶" in the report) times worse in terms of producing DNA damage than its radiation. unsigned by user:SeparateIssue

The position that DU particles in the lung are radiologically insignificant is currently scientifically controversial, as alpha particles are quite destructive inside a 50 micron radius, and insoluble particles in the body can be immobile for years, disproportionately affecting adjacent tissue.

In addition:

• There is a dearth of lab or pathology study which collaborate internal theoretical effects.
• It's not always clear in mathematical studies if the trace but significant amounts of U-235 in DU is considered.
• It's not always clear how (or if) the effects of secondary decay products Thorium-234 and Pa-234m are considered in mathematical models, or if DU is defined as a mix of radioisotopes and their decays, or just pure U-238 in a lab.
• It's not always clear in studies if the chemical form of Uranium in DU is assumed to be UO₂, U₃O₈ or metallic, and if alloying materials are considered.
• The combined radiological and chemical effects of U-238, trace radioisotopes, and their decay products is a further point of contention
• The percent of DU aerosolized in hard impacts has only been lab researched in government and military studies by defense contractors or the military itself, and has varied wildly anywhere from 70% to insignificant levels, casting doubt on the accuracy of this critical variable in mathematical models. Battelle's Capstone report concluded only 5% aerosolized, which is also used as the basis for the [Sandia Labs] study.
• Skeptics may take the position that with so many unknowns, mathematical studies are inconclusive and lab, field and pathological collaboration is simply required.

The Wiki entries on DU health effects should simply reflect these unknowns. -- --Fieldlab 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to clear your name and keep people from reverting you, you need to go to WP:RFCU and request a checkuser on you and me, and then publish the results (e.g., on your user page, and User talk:Physchim62).

OK, I posted something at the bottom of checkuser, though I'm not sure if was in the right form, and the IP ban seems to be lifted. There do not seem to be results available to publish. This is no big concern for me, the ban did not effect my user. I'm more concerned with whether the ban was ever really justifiable, and returning the content from other people that was deleted in DU because of my ban.--Fieldlab 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, on talk pages, for articles and users, new comments always go at the end. SeparateIssue 16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

.oops. Thanks --Fieldlab 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to apologize for thinking you were a sock puppet for another user. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: DU radiology

A good recent inhalation pathology study (including a short general review) which you can currently find in a medical library is PMID 16221956. They found that the chemical toxicity is apparently exacerbated by the radiation. Some of the most interesting work is coming out this October: PMID 16864406.

Most of the animal studies are going to be using the same DU as everyone else, so it will have the same U-235 and daughter products as military exposure victims.

As for the percent aerosolized, the big assumption for 30 mm ordnance (the majority of DU munitions used in combat) is whether the rounds that miss ignite. If, in the case of the 1991 Gulf War, the background was mostly sand, 5% might be reasonable. I think 30% is closer to the accurate value. The Sandia study is terrible, because they only looked at cancer risk, which has not been a problem for Gulf War veterans.

I recommend trying to add stuff to the existing articles in new subsections with clear headings. Most importantly, be sure to cite sources with each insertion. Your work is much less likely to be reverted that way. However, be prepared for people claiming that you are misinterpreting or even misrepresenting your sources. Certain people around here with links to the nuclear industry are very sensitive about the issue.

Have you seen the discussion at Talk:Uranium trioxide? I'm trying to get the skeptics there to talk to Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, who has more than 45 years of experience in uranium trioxide gas thermodynamics, who agrees with me that the gas products (which have never been measured, if you can believe that) are perhaps the most significant. SeparateIssue 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I have not received a response regarding old code related to a false sockpuppet charge on my user page, so I have just deleted it. I preserve it here for posterity-