Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Original Research and POV issues

CDC-published teratogenicity risks

Because DU is a chemical toxicant heavy metal with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging)[1], teratogenic (birth defect-causing)[2], and potentially carcinogenic[3] properties, there is a connection between uranium exposure and a variety of illnesses[4]. The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive. In 2002, A.C. Miller, et al., of the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, found that the chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one million-fold[5]. Hydroxyl radicals damage DNA and other cellular structures, leading to cancer, immune system damage in white blood cells, birth defects in gonocytes (testes), and other serious health problems. In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were found to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims[6],[7].

CDC report cited, show no significant risk in low level DU exposure, sections as is written leads reader to believe otherwise.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs150.html#bookmark03 Those who fire uranium weapons, work with weapons with damaged uranium, or on equipment which has been bombarded with these weapons can be exposed to uranium and may wear protective clothes and masks to limit their intake.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150-c2.pdf studies have reported reproductive abnormalities manifested as reduced implantations and increased fetal resorptions and dead fetuses (Paternain et al. 1989), maternal toxicity (reduced weight gain and food consumption [identified in other studies as taste aversion and not toxicity], and increased relative liver weight) and fetal toxicity (Domingo et al. 1989a), testicular lesions and degeneration and decreased testes weight (Malenchenko et al. 1978; Maynard et al. 1953), and reduced litter size (Maynard et al. 1953) following oral exposure to uranium compounds.... The potential for teratogenicity and general developmental toxicity of uranium was demonstrated by results from oral animal studies in which the following were reported in mice: increased fetal mortality, reduced survivability, reduced growth (Paternain et al. 1989), reduced fetal body weight and length, an increased incidence of stunted fetuses, increased external and skeletal malformations and developmental variations, an increased incidence of cleft palate, underdeveloped renal papillae, and bipartite sternebrae, reduced or delayed ossification of the hind limb, fore limb, skull, and tail, an increase in the relative brain weight of the offspring, a reduced viability and lactation index (Domingo et al. 1989a), and embryotoxicity (Paternain et al. 1989).] --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The last two sources (6,7) in the above article excert are clearly biased and cannot be used. They do not come from reputable sites. The writers are not experts, they are journalists or have something to prove. Especially 6. Lcolson 16:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

One is a mainstream newspaper, the other is a weekly with a larger investigative reporting budget than most major dailies. Are you suggesting that I would have trouble finding peer reviewed articles in the medical literature expressing the same concerns yet?

Do you have any sources which contradict their assertions? --James S. 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to contradict them. The are not reliable sources. You need to find proper sources supporting these statments. --DV8 2XL 03:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The events described took place in 2005, so a mainstream newspaper and a newspaper known for its investigative journalism is the best anyone can hope for. In a few months I'm sure there will be reports in the peer-reviwed medical literature, if they aren't already. There are plenty of statments in Wikipedia supported by newspaper accounts. Sure, I agree peer-reviewed medical journal articles would be better, but the newspapers are certainly reliable sources. --James S. 10:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Chemical weapons

A report written by an Irish petro-chemical engineer 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). However, Dr. Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, has argued that a more likely cause for the increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army’s use of teratogenic mustard agents. Since more recent epidemiological findings have come to light, only the plaintifs in a long-running class action lawsuit continue to assert that sulphur mustards might be responsible[8]. According to their CDC toxicological profile, for sulphur mustards to have produced as many birth defects as have been observed, they would have had to have also produced several dozen times as many cancers as observed[9]. (See Gulf War syndrome for more details specifically on the controversy over the use of depleted uranium in the Persian Gulf War.)

Reports cited in second half of paragraph do not back up claims in the first. Issue of Iraqi birth defects not covered by lawsuits or information from CDC.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp49-c3.pdf Rozmiarek et al. (1973) reported that exposure of pregnant rats to 0.1 mg/m3 vaporized sulfur mustard did not produce fetal toxicity or gross teratogenic effects.... Studies of animals administered sulfur mustard by gavage in oil during pregnancy have indicated reduced fetal weight and reduced ossification of the vertebrae and/or sternebrae, but only at levels that were also toxic to the mother (DOA 1987; Sasser et al. 1996a).... Factory workers who have been exposed to undetermined levels of sulfur mustard for a number of years have been shown to develop respiratory cancer.... British retired veterans who were studied 15 years after their exposure to sulfur mustard in World War I showed twice the expected number of deaths due to lung cancer.... 2,068 cases investigated, the number of deaths from cancer of the lungs in the two groups with the highest sulfur mustard exposure potential was more than 3 times the number in the local male population (SMR≥3, p<0.01) (Nishimoto et al. 1983)..... British sulfur mustard workers also showed increased deaths from cancers of the respiratory passages and from lung cancer (Manning et al. 1981). In a cohort study of 502 workers involved in sulfur mustard manufacturing between 1940 and 1945, a significant excess mortality was observed for carcinoma of the larynx and trachea (SMR=7.5, p<0.02).... Male and female Strain A mice exposed once for 15 minutes to an unquantified level of sulfur mustard had a significantly higher incidence of pulmonary tumors than did their littermate controls (Heston 1953b).... See also the charts with relative effect level data --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Guthrie was not so specific as sulfur mustard, he simply pointed to "chemical weapon" use in Basra.

Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people. [10] DTC 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the lawsuit link, you will see that Guthrie has in fact referred to sulphur mustards specifically. Otherwise, unspecified "chemical weapons" are an insuffficient alternative hypothesis, especially given that the birth defect rate on the border remained fairly low until the late 90s. Futher, I have seen no peer-reviewed sources claiming that Iran also observed an increase in birth defects instead of an increase in veteran cancers, which is reported widely, and is explained by the chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war. --James S. 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

James, if the "source" doesn't say it specifically, you can't infer it. Lcolson 16:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed evidence of teratogenicity

The increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis may be due to depleted uranium inhalation exposure[11],[12].

Original research again, reports cited do not claim that birth defects in gulf War Vets linked to DU.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11738513&dopt=Abstract Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation periods.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2366813&dopt=Abstract Cytogenetic damage induced by a wide range of concentrations of uranyl fluoride injected into mouse testes was evaluated by determining the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations in spermatogonia and primary spermatocytes. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are making the jump from a study of mice, to its implication on people: original research. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources suggesting that any substance teratogenic in mice is not in humans? --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not up to me to prove your case. If there is any informatio that DU is teratogenic in humans, because it is teratogenic in mice, then please provide it. Other wise, we cannot make that link independently and expect it to be in the article. DTC 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The reproductive systems of mammals are very similar. I can name dozens of human teratogens which are also reproductive toxicants in mice. You can clearly not name a single mouse teratogen which is not a human teratogen. Your inability to do so has proven the point. --James S. 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources suggesting that any substance teratogenic in mice is not in humans You got to be kidding. If everything that was true in mice was true in humans cancer would be cured and we would be living to the age of 200. You are inferring to much. Your claims are unspported despite what you claim. The research simply does not say what you say it does. Lcolson 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

saccharine is carcinogenic in mice, but has been proven not to be in humans. Notice that Sweet-and-Lo no longer has a cancer warning. That being said, most things that harm mice also harm people. However, the ammounts of test substances administered to mice are usually ridiculously high, and rarely reflect levels likely to be encountered by people. The main issue is this: Uranium is proven harmful to mice in large doses. To make a case for human illness, you have to show that human exposure levels were comparable to those that harmed mice. There are no studies that have proven that anybody in the Persian Gulf received such exposures.Dr U 07:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Logical constraints on arguments please

I am in pharmaceutical R&D. I do not have an opinion about the possible teratogenic effects of DU, because I regard available peer-reviewed literature as inconclusive. But I would ask all participants in this dispute to permit their views to be constrained by the limitations of available scientific data. Main points drawn from the peer-reviewed literature are:

1. Some suggestive evidence from animal studies for possible teratogenic effect from low levels of DU

2. Epidemiological studies on humans place a stringent upper limit on the effect size from actual human exposures to DU.

3. The mechanism for the effect, if any, is not clear.

From the above, were DU a potentially life-saving drug under consideration for FDA approval the decision would depend on the risk-benefit ratio. A drug for a life-threatening condition for which no current treatment is available might be approved without mechanistic knowledge of the possible toxicity. But if existing drugs were reasonably effective, then the sponsor would likely need to demonstrate a mechanistic difference between human and animal physiology sufficient to explain any apparent disconnect between human and animal studies. There have been cases where a substance had harmful effects on some animal but turned out not to have such an effect on humans. There have also been cases where the effect in humans turned out to be worse. In the case of DU, it seems highly unlikely that the effects on humans could be as bad as suggested by some animal studies (since an effect size that strong would not be consistent with epidemiological studies), but until the mechanism is better understood one cannot draw definitive conclusions.

The IAEA is about as close as currently available to being a source that is both neutral and knowledgeable about this issue, and their views are quite close to what I say above.

Any opinions expressed about DU that vary wildly from my reasoning will at least for me carry limited cognitive weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.131.168 (talk • contribs) .

Birth defects in Gulf War vets

A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects[13]. In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs"[14].

Once again, information in links does not cite DU. Original research. Plus the sample was extremely large, 15000, there were not 15000 Gulf War Vets exposed to DU in any significant quantity.

Is your calculation of "any significant quantity" based on your knowledge of uranium trioxide gas dispersion patterns? If so, please share it. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The study does not link spontaneous miscaiages with DU, that is your assertion and is original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a stomping ground for your anti nuclear crusade. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement provides peer-reviewed, published research showing the number of excess birth defects observed in Gulf War veterans. The link to DU's teratogenicity is shown in other passages cited above. The fact that you would claim that this research originates with me undermines your position, and is telling about your motives. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Link between the research and DU's teratogenicity is one that you are making and as such it original research . Perhaps the infomation belongs on the Gulf War Syndrome article, but any attempts by an editor to tie the tow together, without a notable outside source still falls into the original research category. DTC 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you are referring to only reports the birth defects in the veteran population. The other peer-reviewed research above proves the link to DU. Your claims are unfounded. --James S. 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

James, this is a case of drawing too much from research. I believe it is called a "Red Herring" in legal speak. These claims you make are not supported by the research. The sources you are using say there are birth deffects in specific populations, they do not say why. You draw too much when you say it is from DU. It could have been from virtually anything. Lcolson 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if studies can prove beyond a doubt that there is an increased rate of birth defects in Gulf War veterans, it does not prove that DU was the cause. The veterans of that war were exposed to anthrax vaccine and other vaccines not usually given to Americans and Brits, antimalarial drugs, smoke from burning oil wells, pesticides applied directly to their uniforms, and unusually high levels of stress, amongst other things. Many vetrans got nowhere near DU sources. I am open to the possibility that DU is potentially harmful, but you are a LONG way from proving it. This work suffers from Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). Dr U 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, studies have proven the correlation, and that human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects from uranium poisoning, and that the effect was found in combat-deployed veterans but not in cohorts away from combat. From those and other studies, there is no evidence that anthrax vaccines, chemical wrfare agents, antimalarial, other drugs, smoke, pesticides, stress, or local diseases are teratogenic. Only one possibility remains. The previous paragraph suffers from the fallacy of argument from ignorance. --James S. 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I love it! The above paragraph cites the RAND corporation to prove that other factors couldn't be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. IT VERY CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDS CITING THE RAND CORPORATION FOR DU. Well here it is: [15]

Seems that the same source discounting other factors, also DISAGREES that DU is causing harm. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT DU, IN CONCENTRATIONS ENCOUNTERED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, CAUSES HARM: "In summary, to the extent that reproductive health issues related to uranium have been investigated to date, there have not been findings that would suggest a relationship between levels of exposures that could have occurred in the Persian Gulf and those that are associated with adverse outcomes in animal experiments. Further studies are currently under way, particularly with respect to evaluating the impact of uranium on male reproductive health." Dr U 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

FOIA request

In 2005, a Freedom of Information Act request[16] for the electronic schemata and records from the Naval Health Research Center's Birth and Infant Health Registry was filed with the United States Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. The request is file number FOIA 2006-01 at the NHRC. Questions should be directed to Ms. Linda Tiller at the Office of the Surgeon General. The time series of birth defects observed (as described above) will show whether the trend is increasing or decreasing.

You cannot link to your own FOIA request which has not even been approved.

Oh yes it has been approved, by the Navy Office of the Surgeon General, and the NRC is waiting to learn the trend. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is still original research, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with the policy. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reporting the existance of a FOIAR, which is a matter of public record, is not original research. If I had claimed that I was planning to file a FOIAR, that would be. After it is filed, an abstract of the request is published by the governmental agency in reciept of the request on a monthly basis. Simply repeating the information available in that abstract and linking to the original text of the request is neither original, because the stated facts are already published, nor research, because the questions posed haven't been answered yet. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

First, your FOIA request has not even gone through, it is not noable enough to make it into the article. DTC 21:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The injury involved affects tens of thousands of people. There are no other FOIARs like it. It has been stalled for half a year; that alone is notable. --James S. 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with DTC here. Your FOIA should count as original research and doesn't belong in the article. I could easily do the same thing you did but for any number of topics and pollute any article the same way. Lcolson 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:N at best. The policies at Wikipedia discourage reporting on yourself DV8 2XL 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-2000 research

Also, information from DOD and NJOM studies, not present in the article.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you took it out, and I would like an explantion for its removal. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The studies from pre-2000 are all uniformly negative; see below. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"uniformly negative", what does that mean? The DOD and NJOM studies found no increase in birth defects from gulf war vets. DTC 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Further studies by the New England Journal of Medicine analyzing 34,000 babies of Gulf War veterans [17], as well as by the Department of Veterans Affairs [18] found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.

Those are 1990s studies. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And that means what, exactly? They are relevant and, to the best of my knowledge, have not been repeated on this scale. Unless, that is, other large scale studies of this sort have been conducted. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the Iraqi reports were mostly negative prior to 2000. Here is a graph of the birth defects per 1,000 births reported in Basrah university hospital:

File:Basrah birth defects.gif

Now are you interested in the trend? --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not interested in this trend line that you created. It could have been from hundreds of things, like the massive ammount of chemical warfae that took place inthe region during the Iran Iraq war. Someone has already commented on this, and you attempted to marginalize his inputs, it dont work like that. DTC 21:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply plotted the data from the peer-reviewed Basra University Medical Journal. What comments are you referring to? --James S. 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Basara Univeristy Medical Journal published in Sadam Hussein controlled Iraq? Yep, I'm sure that there was complete academic freedom in that publication (not). Even if there was an increase in birth defects, a much more plausible explaination would be malnourished mothers because Saddam diverted oil for food program funds to building palaces and greasing corrupt UN offcials instead of feeding his own people. That's also an iteresting scale that was chosen for the graph. The percentage differences in defects are not on the order of magnitude that the graph makes them appear. Dr U 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The authors of the table continue to assert that their data is correct, far into 2005. Malnutrition-caused birth defects are mostly due to lack of folate, which doesn't cause the kind of birth defects being observed in U.S. troops' kids, most prominently aortic valve stenosis.

I don't understand the comment about the linear graph scale. You would prefer that the percentage year-to-year change be graphed instead -- for no other reason than that it would make the changes seem less? Interesting. You are welcome to make your own graph. --James S. 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Information from WHO report in Kosovo also no longer present in the article [19] WHO found no link between DU and leukemia, or an increase in birth defects in studied areas.

Again, pre-2000. If you want to add old research, please be sure to show the date prominently. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares when it was done, the reason you removed it from the article is because it does not support you POV. DTC 21:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

James, quit adding original work, this is a clear violation of wiki policies. And the age thing is totally wrong. Again, the way the talkpage was manipulated makes it look like this is the first time this issue was brought up, it wasn't. I think I'm actually going to go through your sources one by one if I can (will allyour sources somehow go offline?). Sometimes you draw the completely wrong conclusions from some of the "research" you claim backs up your ideas, or infer too much from it. That sort of thing would never be accepted under peer review. Lcolson 15:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The graph is not original because it is based on a table in the peer-reviewed Basra University Medical Journal. The graph matches similar incidence rates over time from U.S. and U.K. troops. --James S. 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's original work underWP:NOR, but it's isn't in the main article so this issue is moot. DV8 2XL 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandia's Marshall study

Information from Sandia study also missing:

Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.

Marshall failed to account for reproductive, developmental, immunological, or neurological toxicity. He is funded by the organization which sells the 30 mm guns which fire DU rounds, paid for by our tax dollars. --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A few things on this. Do you have any sources for this, his funding? Was his study funded by these allged groups? Has anyone raised this issue in relationship to Marshall’s work? If not than it is your opinion and there is no reason to leave his study out of the article. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The funding for Sandia National Laboratory is solely from Lockheed Martin and has been since it was Martin Marietta. The relationship has been discussed at length on the internet mailing list RADSAFE. Marshall has not replied to several emails raising questions about his work, which you can also find in the RADSAFE archives[20]. There is no question that Marshall explicitly avoids any discussion of reproductive, developmental, immunological, and neuro-toxicities in Section 5.2 on p. 72, "Other Heavy Metal Effects," of his report. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandia National Laboratory is not solely funded from Lockheed, and I dont know where you pulled that from. And because Marshall wont respond to your emails means nothing. Seriously, what in God's name are your qualifications that he would even take time to answer you? DTC 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lockheed Martin manages Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration."[21] Marshall hasn't responded to anyone's questions about his report, as far as I know. If you want proof that the report is a whitewash, just read the disclaimer that says the report isn't to be interpreted as contradicting Sandia's radiological weapons studies. It must be hard to whitewash DU combustion product inhalation risks when your colleague down the hall has been reporting on them as part of their dirty bomb research. --James S. 23:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

James, quit claiming government conspiracy, no serious peer reviewed journal out there would back you up on this. You are completey wrong here. And your requirements for sources only seem to exist when they are against your beliefs about DU. Lcolson 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandia's Marshall study was not peer reviewed, and it shows. --James S. 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Veracity and originality of research

• • Do you think that the types that put this rubbish in here care about NPOV or the truth? They hate anything nuclear and they hate anyone who knows enough science to understand it. Your flag doesn't last the night. 70.49.63.162 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the first part of your statment, I dont think the flags will removed till this issue is resolved. I guess you were right after all. DTC 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then Be Bold and see what a storm will follow, you tool of the military-industrial complex.:) Your going to think you suggested injecting babies with AIDS. 70.51.180.33 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hey, all I know is I have been around plenty of DU, and hand have two healthy kids to boot. DTC 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So I bet you are as interested as I in the long term trend and subsequent-generation effects. I wonder why the Navy NHRC hasn't released them to their Surgeon General yet. Any ideas? --James S. 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not, beause I think most of this is scare mongering anti-nuclear bullshit. DTC 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, you cannot take the results of multiple studies, pick relevant information from a few, ignore information that does not support your POV, use studies on lab animals, toxicology data, and present an arguement in the article that DU is responsible for the medical maladies of all these individuals.

Told ya so, TDC. 70.51.185.40 09:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think I'm the only one who has made this connection? [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]; and there are thousands more where those came from. Nothing could be further from original research. --James S. 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing a bunch of opinion pieces from horridly biased sources does not make the claim true. DTC 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't all opinion peices, and most of the news sources are mainstream. --James S. 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DTC on all his points. I think the flags should stay. Depleted uranium is just an alpha emmiter (so don't ingest it) and its toxic effects are similiar to lead. Anything else is most likely speculative. Lcolson 17:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Findings are from peer reviewed studies. Remove tags and discuss each point on "Discussion" if you want it changed or removed. And please avoid profanity--it does undermine your position(s) considerably. Badagnani 19:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

TDC, you are not going to get any traction with this crowd. As you have already realised, they have no scientific training, and no clue how science works. Lacking the tools to engage in scientific argument, they fall back on the only dialectic they know: political debate. And the worse part about it is they are convinced that this is a valid approach. You have two options: soil yourself by using the same tactics; or drop it. DV8 2XL 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

People often turn to personal attacks when they have no recent peer-reviewed sources to support their point of view, even though it makes the bankruptcy of their position obvious. --James S. 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This was not addressed to you, and even if it was the only way you could possibly interpret what is after all only the simple truth, as a personal attack is because of the deep feelings of inadequacy you have over your own intellectual shortcomings. DV8 2XL 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

References and talk page manipulation

I just looked at your "sources" above. They are garbage. If you are going to claim that you have reliable sources, they must come from something like the New England journal of medicine or the FDA, not newspaper columns (take a look at how this is done for the drug Vioxx, that is how to make "relevant" health related articles from qualified sources, not hearsay). Seriously, news paper articles?!! News writers are not medical experts and cannot be used as expert opinion for a medical topic, they have no scientific background and will write what ever they are told. And conspiracy theories about the government?!! This is truly ridiculous. Also, I don't approve on how one argument got segmented into five subtopics, I think it will make it harder to focus attention where the original poster wanted it (I certainly hope this is not what you intended). The talk page should not have the possibility to have an edit war with itself, so please don;t do that again, it is like changing what someone wrote, and making it harder to comment on your assertions. Also, I think this makes it look like you always have the last word on topics when you do not. Anyone trying to figure out where this started, you may have to look at the talk page history page. Lcolson 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote up above; they can't make the distinction. In a political debate referencing public opinion is valid. They are not scientists: they don't understand. DV8 2XL 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The news sources supplement the several peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications which are plainly shown above, to counter the assertion that the claiming uranium is teratogenic was "original." I did not present those news articles as "sources" such as the peer-reviewed citations which support the bulk of the text which has recently been repeatedly reverted.

People attempting to claim that their opponents providing multiple recent peer-reviewed source do not understand the science, while being unable to provide anything more than personal attacks in support of their position do not make valid arguments. If you have any recent peer-reviewed studies supporting your position, by all means, let's see them. --James S. 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Lcolson old friend, don't you just love it when they chant 'peer-review' like a mantra when the sources support their positions, but can turn on a dime and claim peer-review is proof of a conspiracy when it doesn't. DV8 2XL 01:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is disgusting DV8 2XL, I had no idea it was this bad. This sort of thing is going to make this page unusable as a reference source. Also, quit manipulating the talk page (whoever it is, I'm too lazy to check), I had this topic placed under the heading it belonged in. It makes me feel like your trying to limit my free speech. As far as claiming only recent research is reliable, I think it actually is the opposite that is true, the oldest research, that can stand the test of time is usually more reliable. Don't forget, about 1/3 of all health research papers are usually retracted, usually from poor statistics because the confidence intervals were to low. Lcolson 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that peer-review is not a guarantee of truth. A peer-review only means that experts in the field of study, have provided an objective assessment of the manuscript's quality. Thus it means the work meets the minimum requirement not that its statments of fact or conclusions have been checked. DV8 2XL 16:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposition

Would we be better off moving most of the engineering sections over to Uranium-238 and leaving this article to discuss the heath/safety and politics of DU? The two topics seem to be in some tension here to the determent of both. Particularly as the history of the debate over the use of DU munitions is not being given complete coverage and the article is already getting rather long and meandering. 207.164.4.52 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation (was A proposal to James S.)

Listen, as you can see from the debate here, you are in violation of the rules and standards of Wikipedia, and clearly out of the consensus. Now, either work with us to find a version that is acceptable to everyone or let a mediator do this. DTC 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• As frustrating as it is we have to show these folks some patience. We cannot just tell them that they are wrong no mater how crystal-clear it is to us. We have to explain and educate them and show them why these sources are not proper. Otherwise it's just going to turn into a unproductive battle. Look in the archives, its happened here before DV8 2XL 17:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

At this stage I would welcome mediation, given the lack of truth in the accusations above, the personal attacks, the controversy, and the huge amount of detail. I have a two-foot stack of paper on this subject, and I've already spent more than 150 hours on it, including dozens in major university chemistry, biology, medical, physics, engineering, and reference libraries. I know the weak parts of the argument, and so far nobody on wikipedia has hit anywhere near them. They aren't that weak, either. The NRC has granted my first petition in part, and they are working on my other two. The Department of Transportaion granted my petition in full. I am confident I would prevail substantially in mediation, but I see no need to request it yet. --James S. 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, dont accuse anyone here of making a personal attack on you, no one has. Secondly all of your time researching the subject is good, but not applicable here in the manner in which you believe it to be. If you want you 150 hours of research to be recognized here, write a paper, get it peer reviewed and publish it, then you can cite it. DTC 17:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! 150 hours. Tell me DTC how many hours did you spend on your Master's theses? DV8 2XL 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not as many as you might think, perhaps 500-600 hours, I incorporated a project from work I was doing so there was alot of overlay. DTC 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation is a good idea. I believe any person who is trained in finding reliable sources and interpreting them will agree with the recent retractions from the article (many of the "sources" were either: baised, not credible, many times the wrong conclusions were drawn from limited research (i.e. Red Herrings), unaccessable, or original research). I strongly suggest anyone commenting on the retractions in question to actually take the time to look at the sources to see if they are reliable, accepted in the scientific community, and see what they actually say and compare this to what it is claimed that they say. If we have a mediator, I suggest they be an author from a good medical article on health issues that knows which sources are reliable and what conclusions can be drawn from what. On a side note, my masters thesis (MSNE) took alot more time than 150 hours (~ 1.5 years of research, about 8 hours 2 times a week doing experimentation and a little less time doing analysis), not to mention that my first few editions were shredded apart by my advisors for many of the same issues that are brought up here (it takes time to learn how to write good papers that stand up to criticism, it is not my intention to personally attack you James, its just your citation methods seem a litle ameturish at this stage). The amount of time I've spent on my masters degree is being pailed by the amount I'm currently spending on my PhD though. Lcolson 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • James S. won't be responding for the moment as he is been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule on this topic. DV8 2XL 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked James. Everyone involved should take their disputes to WP:RFM for mediation. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• As sugested, I have opened a request at WP:RFM--DV8 2XL 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replied. --James S. 21:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to any of these five moderators: Andrevan, Asbestos, Improv, Redwolf24, or Sasquatch, based on my perception of the likelihood that they will be able to understand the technical issues involved. I will agree to private email, IRC, or OnWiki mediation, at the agreed-upon mediator's preference. --James S. 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lcolson problems with health effects section

Many of the sources that you use are peer reviewed James, but you are inferring to much from them. You are misrepresenting the results from many of the studies. Below is the entire section in question, not all of it is controversial, I'll try to make this easy to understand, but please leave the section below in its entirety. I'll go through my objections one by one. The sections that I dispute are shown in black with numbers in front to ease identification. Others may have issues with other parts. My problems with them are listed below the disputed section. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Health concerns

Health effects of DU are determined by factors such as the extent of exposure and whether it was internal or external. Three main pathways exist by which internalization of uranium may occur: inhalation, ingestion, and embedded fragments or shrapnel contamination. [1] Properties such as phase (e.g. particulate or gaseous), oxidation state (e.g. metallic or ceramic), and the solubility of uranium and its compounds influence their absorption, distribution, translocation, elimination and the resulting toxicity. [2] For example, metallic uranium is relatively non-toxic compared to hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds such as uranyl nitrate.

[3]Projectile munitions comprise the only use of depleted uranium involving substantial inhalation exposure risks. Those risks have been associated with often controversial health concerns.

[4] Early scientific studies usually found no link between depleted uranium and cancer, and sometimes found no link with increases in the rate of birth defects, but newer studies have and offered explanation of birth defect links[40]. Environmental groups and others have expressed concern about the health effects of depleted uranium[41], and there is significant debate over the matter. [5] Some people have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions, because of its proven mutagenicity [42], teratogenicity [43],[44] in mice, and neurotoxicity [45], and its suspected carcinogenic potential, because it remains radioactive for an exceedingly long time with a half-life of approximately 4.5 billion years (about the age of the Earth); and because it is also toxic in a manner similar to lead and other heavy metals. The primary radiological hazards associated with this material are beta and alpha emissions, however the long half-life indicates that depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive. All isotopes and compounds of uranium are toxic. [6] Such issues are of concern to civilians and troops operating in a theatre where DU is used, and to people who will live at any time after in such areas or breathing air or drinking water from these areas.

[7]Studies showing detrimental health effects have shown the following:

• [8]Indications that DU passes into humans more easily than previously thought after battlefield use. (radioactive particles absorbed into the body are far more harmful than a similar background radiation level outside the body, due to their immediate proximity to delicate structures such as DNA, bone marrow and the like.) [9]Pre-1993 military DU studies mainly evaluated external exposure only.[46][47]
• DU can disperse into the air and water, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study [48] 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."

By contrast, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." [49]

[10] Because DU is a chemical toxicant heavy metal with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging)[50], teratogenic (birth defect-causing)[51], and potentially carcinogenic[52] properties, there is a connection between uranium exposure and a variety of illnesses[53]. The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive. In 2002, A.C. Miller, et al., of the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, found that the chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one million-fold[54]. [11] Hydroxyl radicals damage DNA and other cellular structures, leading to cancer, immune system damage in white blood cells, birth defects in gonocytes (testes), and other serious health problems. [12]In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were found to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims[55],[56].

[13]A report written by an Irish petro-chemical engineer 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). [14]I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, report a similar increase (see Table 1 here). However, Dr. Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, has argued that a more likely cause for the increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army’s use of teratogenic mustard agents. [16]Since more recent epidemiological findings have come to light, only the plaintiffs in a long-running class action lawsuit continue to assert that sulphur mustards might be responsible[57]. According to their CDC toxicological profile, for sulphur mustards to have produced as many birth defects as have been observed, they would have had to have also produced several dozen times as many cancers as observed[58]. (See Gulf War syndrome for more details specifically on the controversy over the use of depleted uranium in the Persian Gulf War.)

[17]The increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis may be due to depleted uranium inhalation exposure[59],[60]. A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects[61]. In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs"[62].

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air[63] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas[64], and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine[65]. [18] But those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas -- also known as uranyl oxide gas, or UO₃(g) -- which is formed during uranium combustion (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, "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U₃O₈ with oxygen." U₃O₈ being the dominant aerosol combustion product [66].) Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets [67]. UO₃ gas remains dissolved in the atmosphere for weeks, but as a monomolecular gas is absorbed immediately upon inhalation, leading to accumulation in tissues including gonocytes (testes [68]) and white corpuscles [69], but virtually no residual presence in urine other than what might be present from coincident particulate exposure.

[20]In 2005, a Freedom of Information Act request[70] for the electronic schemata and records from the Naval Health Research Center's Birth and Infant Health Registry was filed with the United States Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. The request is file number FOIA 2006-01 at the NHRC. Questions should be directed to Ms. Linda Tiller at the Office of the Surgeon General. The time series of birth defects observed (as described above) will show whether the trend is increasing or decreasing.

Commentary and responses

Warning: if any number of [url] references are added or removed above the previous section, the reference numberings below will be wrong by that number.

• [1] Probably true, but no credible source.Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [2] Probably true, but no credible source.Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [3] Probably true, but no credible source.Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The statements annotated "probably true" are not apparently not being contested. [1] and [2] I edited but didn't originally add as I did [3]. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

James you have to get it through your head that he is contesting the source; it doesn't mater if it's true or not, if the source is rubbish it undermines the statemnt and drags down the whole agument. --DV8 2XL 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is supported by more peer-reviewed sources per kilobyte of wikitext than any other article on my watchlist. If the statments are not contested, asking me to come up with sources is just assigning busywork. If you think that section needs sources, I invite you to add them. --James S. 07:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind. This is a great source for [1 and 2]:

<<Gmelin Handbuch der anorganischen Chemiek,>> 8th edition, in English translation, the Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, vol. U-A7 (1982) pp. 300-322.

For [3] I think the globalsecurity.org link which is already in the article should do. --James S. 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• [4] The study used for reference was theoretical and offered no solid proof. They say themselves "Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen.. That is not definitive, they say possibility, furthermore, it is studies in rats, not people, it is possible/probable the results would not carry over to humans. Therefore, the studies offer the possibility of an explanation, but no definitive explanation, it is all speculative. Also, I believe it should be mentioned in the article that the actual experimentation was done on rats and that a NEW England Journal of Medicine article mentioned later found no such evidence in over 30000 vets studied. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference [39] pertains to more recent studies. If you need evidence of the fact that early- and mid-90s studies did not find any link, then you have no further to look than the two studies which TDC was trying to replace during the reverts of 15 January which got me baned for not calling them "rvv". --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [5]Sources [42, 43, 44] were all rat studies and this should be made clear that these results would probably not carry over in humans. Furthermore its suspected carcinogenic potential, because it remains radioactive for an exceedingly long time with a half-life of approximately 4.5 billion years (about the age of the Earth seems like weasel wording, this makes it souled like a threat that will never go away, in fact most background exposure is from radon, a natural by product of uranium decay present everywhere. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they were all rodent studies which is why I added the {{Disputeabout|...|date=March 2008}} tag. I didn't like "the age of the earth...", and tried to remove it several times last month, but someone else kept putting it back in. I think most people don't understand that longer half-life == less radioactive. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [6] My main objection is with this part to people who will live at any time. Anytime?, surely after a short period it would be no worse than background exposure. No, there is definitely a time limit. Find a source for this if you think the risk never goes away. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose settling that by changing "any time" to "for several years." This paper has the details. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [7] The studies need to be explained. If the studies showing detrimental effects were only done in mice or rats, this should be mentioned here, right off the bat. Also, add that the studies are speculative, cause they are. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever edited anything in sections [7], [8], and [9], except that I might have added reference [47] because I thought [46] was weak. Those parts were here when I arrived. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [8] These sources do not claim what you say they do. The first sentence is unsupported. The first source merely shows the range of alpha particles in air for a given energy level (does not mention uranium's energy level). The second source is another rat study, and this needs to be better explained. The second sentence is garbage. Of course alpha radiation is bad if ingested, most background radiation comes from cosmic rays (external) and radon (natural decay product of uranium found everywhere) which is inhaled. Also, source 8 clearly states that alpha radiation won't make it past the skin, so the only way to get it would be to inhale it or eat it, making it primarily dangerous to lung tissue, or the digestive tract, at which point its chemical toxicalogical hazard likely outweighs its radiological one. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See above. The alphas are harmful if their source makes it in to the lungs or blood or most other tissues. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [9] Mainly, only, sounds like a few probably didn't, again, weasel wording. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See above. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [10] Sources 13 and 14 are animal studies again, your going out on a limb saying that this holds for humans.Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I challenge you to name a single substance which is teratogenic, carcinogenic, immunotoxic and/or neurotoxic in rodents but not in humans. Some carcinogens have a 1-sigma difference between different breeds of mice, but that's because some lab mice are more sucseptible to cancer to begin with. If you want variation between species, you will have to look at the nephrotoxic effects, where the rabbits and the dogs difer in their LD50/30s by 25-fold on a mg/kg basis. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank DV8 2XL for pointing out the carcinogens he described in detail below, and I note that the thalidomide disaster occured because it was said to be not teratogenic in several species of animals, but was teratogenic in humans -- although apparently, on second look, the company testing it was accused of not using pregnant animals and falsifying their study results. Also, aspirin causes birth defects in a particular breed of mice, but not in any other animals.

So I agree to settle this aspect with DV8 2XL's compromise statement below: "Although there have been no human tests to prove that uranium causes birth defects in humans, the fact that it induces them in several other species of mammals indicates that it might" --James S. 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• [11] Unsupported assertation. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually contested? Source from Halliwell and Gutteridge, "Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine," 3rd ed., Oxford Univ. Press --James S. 06:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [12] Clearly biased sources with something to prove. These are not scholarly and should not be used. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, one is a mainstream local newspaper, and the other is a weekly with an investigative journalism budget larger than most metropolitan dailies. I would rather have peer-reviewed medical literature instead, but that might take a few months. Newspapers are reasonable sources for recent current events. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [13] Alludes that DU is to blame, cannot make that assumption. Furthermore, isn't the Lancet an online publication, how bout a link to this article so it may be scrutinized. What exactly did it say, how bout a quote. Was the article refuted, what where the confidence levels, were the children dying from DU or from starvation or clusterbombs. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not add [13], it was in there when I arrived on wikipedia about a month ago. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [14] Look at the source for this table http://www.irak.be/ned/ and tell me it is unbiased with nothing to prove. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The host is irrelivant; the article is a English translation from the Medical Journal of Basra University. this 2.3MB PDF is similar work by overlapping authors (warning: angry M.D. text with gross-out pictures).

• [16]only the plaintiffs in a long-running class action lawsuit continue to assert that sulphur mustards might be responsible Where is the proof for this? Sure you have a link to the lawsuit, but the only people to make this assertion. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any others, and I've had a google news alert on it for more than a year. If you can find any other people still making that claim, I'd like to read their work. Believe me, I've looked. Read the CDC info on the mustard gas: you get cancers but not birth defects, or very few compared to the cancers. With uranyl poisoning, it's just the opposite. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [17] Sure it may be, but it probably isn't, the sources make no such claimes. This is speculative, it could easily have been vaccinations, poisen gas, you name it. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, all those things have been ruled out. They've been carefully studies since the firs symptoms appeared in February 1991, and some of the early victims were probably affected by rockef fuel and oxidizers exploding above them (not so much chemical weapons.) But then months later different symptoms started appearing. There are just no remaining alternative hypotheses left. There were non-combat cohorts given the same vaccinations, the same insect repellants, breathing the same oil well fire fumes, with the same nerve gas antidotes. If they weren't close enough to see the combat (and smell the gun fumes) then the didn't get GWS. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [18] But those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas Unsupported assertion, sources are about the chemical properties of uranium only, not about studies. This is original work or unsupported and should be removed, furthermore, there may have been good reason to ignore it if it was ruled inconsequential. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

References [62]==[65] have the particulate fume studies. Search for "75 percent" IIRC on http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm and you should find the Mishima '78-'95 studies. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• [20] Original research performed by James (look at source 32, his name is on it). Anyone can make accusations and commentsl like this, it is clearly not notable or expert and says nothing. Lcolson 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Already asked and answered above at Talk:Depleted uranium#FOIA request. --James S. 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No you did not answer this to anyone's satisfaction --DV8 2XL 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is the truth you are after, why object to the findings of the FOIA request? It sounds as if you realize that the results of the FOIA request might be disturbing to you. Reporters file them all the time, then report on the findings. Instead of criticizing the requesting and releasing of information from the government, why not fill out a FOIA or two of your own? It can be rather refreshing to receive previously suppressed information, often of great importance, from the government--something, I should point out, that one cannot do in many other nations. Badagnani 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When the results come in they could be included if they are relevant. The inclusion of the request is at issue, and that is violating WP:N if nothing else. --DV8 2XL 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, the trend directly affects the health of dozens of thousands of veterans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and their families. The fact that the FOIAR has been stalled for more than six months is notable in and of itself. Finally, the FOIAR abstract is published by the Navy. --James S. 10:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"...the trend directly affects the health of dozens of thousands of veterans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and their families" is not relevant because it is not related casually with the FOIAR itself. The notability of the delay is supposition on your part based only on the unspoken accusation that the government is trying to hide something - that is not encyclopedic in the least. WP:V "Verifiability requires direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior."--DV8 2XL 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nrcprm2026|James S. represented by advocate

Pakaran has agreed to act as my advocate. I asked him because he has a clear interest in related topics, and I was worried about the 3-against-1 numbers of the mediation request, and because I will be involved with about 100 hours of new client work over the next couple weeks. I thank him for his kind help. --James S. 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Animal studies, human relivance

The question, whether everything that causes cancer in animals also is a human carcinogen, is not testable without doing the actual natural experiment, there are only some three or four dozen specific chemicals that are confirmed as causes of human cancer. Here's the list. For a number of insults there is significant differences between species, sub-species and different strains of the same species.

Examples of species differences

1. N,2-fluorenylacetamide:

1. causes bladder cancer in male and female Slonaker rats

2. causes liver cancer in male Wistar rats and breast cancer in female Wistar rats

3. causes intestinal cancer in male and female Piebald rats

2. N-nitrosodiethylamine:

Causes liver tumours in Norway (BD II) rats, white-tailed rats, chickens, guinea-pigs, NMRI mice and Syrian golden hamsters at doses for each species that varied by a thousandfold.

3. Ethyl carbamate:

Causes high incidences of cancer in certain mouse strains but not in the X/Gf mouse strain.

4. Dimethyl-benzo-alpha-anthracene:

1. causes lymphomas in Swiss mice

2. causes bronchial adenomas in the Strong A mouse strain

3. causes hepatomas (liver cancer) in male mice of other strains

5. Benzidine:

1. causes bladder cancer in humans

2. causes tumours of the acoustic nerve, intestine and liver in mice

6. Carbontetrachloride (CC1):

1. causes liver tumours in mice

2. produces cirrhosis of the liver in rats

7. Chloroform (CHC1) (see above)

Produces liver tumours in various strains of female mice but not in male mice

8. DDT:

Causes liver tumours in mice but not in rats or hamsters

9. Sodium saccharin (artificial sweetener):

1. causes bladder cancer only in male rats

2. does not affect monkeys, hamsters or mice even at high doses

3. shows no evidence of bladder cancer in human population studies

10. Arsenic:

1. is carcinogenic in humans

2. is not carcinogenic in rodents !!!!!

11. Benzidine and 2-naphthylamine:

1. causes bladder cancer in humans and dogs

2. causes liver & mammary tumours in rats

3. causes mostly liver tumours in mice and hamsters

12. Glass fibre products:

1. Experiments on rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and monkeys in the 1950s produced no lung damage when the animals were forced to inhale glass fibres. A later analysis in the 1980s revealed that hamsters, guinea pigs, mice and monkeys exposed to glass fibres, glass wool or mineral wool did not produce lung tumours following long-term inhalation.

2. In 1991 the US Occupational Health & Safety Administration decided that glass fibre products should be labelled as a potential cancer hazard because, contrary to animal experiments, studies in industry workers showed an increased risk of lung cancer.

That's why we are insisting that it's not valid to extrapolate from animal studies to humans --DV8 2XL 07:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! I am all for mentioning this information, but James is currently trying to independently link the two, humans and lab animals, based off his own opinion. Furthermore, he is also supressing all information that invalidates the wildest claims of DU opponents.

DU is toxic, no one denies this. But it is no more toxic that many heavy metals, like tungsten also used in sabot rounds, and most importantly, which the article does not in its current form express, the use of DU munitions have not been shown through pathological studies to negatively impact either accute or chronic health effects. Studies from the DOD, RAND, Sandia, IAEA, and the NEJOM have also verified this. James may argue that these are biased sources, but that is his opinion, and personal opinions are to kept out of the article unless they can be cited to a notable source. DTC 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what the {{Disputeabout|date=March 2008}} that you repeatedly kept removing says. Until we have human tests, we can not know for sure. Until then, I believe that the fact that uranium has been shown to be a developmental and reproductive toxicant in several species of mammals is sufficient to explain the observed increase in the incidence of birth defects in U.S. and U.K. troops and Iraqi civilians. The mecanism, as described by the Army's own radiobiology lab is that it destroys DNA, and there is plenty of evidence that is exactly what has been happening in humans: "Chromosome Abberation Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocites of Gulf War and Balkans War Veterans; PowerPoint slides.

• "Until then, I believe that...is sufficient to explain..."

WP:NOR Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. 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 that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". --DV8 2XL 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then how about "Although there have been no human tests to prove that uranium causes birth defects in humans, the fact that it induces them in several other species of mammals suggests that it does"? --James S. 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Although there have been no human tests to prove that uranium causes birth defects in humans, the fact that it induces them in several other species of mammals indicates that it might" And I'm good with it. It is more than a suggestion, less than a proof.--DV8 2XL 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --James S. 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

slight modification

• "Although there have been no human tests to prove that uranium causes birth defects in humans, the fact that it induces them in several other species of mammals indicates to add name of notable source that it might" DTC 02:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TDC is right the reference needs to be there. It makes the sentence true even if someone else finds somthing different.--DV8 2XL 02:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How about: There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans, but it induces them in several other species of mammals and "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[71] -- the text being taken directly from Hindin, Brugge, and Panikkar's conclusion statement? --James S. 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Specify that the documented exposure risk as it relates to birth defects is from industrial exposure, as the report states. DTC 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Uranium trioxide gas

I am finding a lot of trouble locating information on the physics and chemistry of this phase of UO₃. On the occasions I have worked with this material, it was in the form of an orange solid with a rather elevated latent heat of vaporization. --DV8 2XL 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see the articles cited and the explanation in the UO₃(g) section of the talk archive. To make a long story short, the solid form decomposes around 150-300 deg.C, but individual molecules don't, because UO₍₁₎ doesn't exist, and so it won't part with an O₂. UO₃(s), on the other hand, can release as many O₂ as it takes until it becomes UO₂(s). --James S. 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --DV8 2XL 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that at least one of us remembers his inorganic chemistry. DTC 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

This may be useful - from the British Ministry of Defence - Depleted uranium Julian in Cumbria, UK

Staging version to edit during mediation

I have created Depleted uranium/Staging which may be edited in hopes of achieving a compromise during mediation. I have already:

1. reformatted the section headings removing the empty extra "Uses" layer;
2. added all of the citations requested above
3. replaced the dispute tag with the most recent compromise statment above; and
4. added a "History" section on the 1943 Groves memo, quoting four paragraphs.

--James S. 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The way things are going now with the additions I see to the staging version I fear 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 that 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 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now there is also Depleted uranium/Alternate, so that both sides can edit their prefered version without edit wars during mediation. The talk page of the /Alternate is redirected back to the talk page of the original /Staging. --James S. 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit the mediation request any further

I have a feeling that each edit to the mediation request has bumped the date by which the mediators respond to their requests in order. So please don't add anything more there. I've inadvertently done this a few times with explanatory notes; sorry. --James S. 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I got a feeling that hell will freeze over before anyone will pick up on this. The backlog there is already rather grim. --DV8 2XL 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They say it's still five days, but some of the requests have disappeared after just a few days. Ours is still not the oldest, though. --James S. 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Settlement proposal

I changed my mind about splitting, and I'm ready to agree to a settlement based on the current state of Depleted uranium/basic, Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, Gulf war syndrome, Radiological weapon, and Uranium trioxide, provided that all parties to the mediation and Dr U, who came in after mediation was requested, agree to respect the current state of those four articles and not remove any of their current sourced statements. Rephrasing would be fine, as is inserting additional text or references, which I intend to do from e.g. the citations Dr U has suggested. I also agree with replacing redundant text with links to specific sections of other articles along with a summary of what to expect to find there, provided that the remaining summary is at least a full paragraph. I know that there is a lot of overlap between the DU and GWS articles currently, and I agree that redundancy should be replaced with links to the Health&Env. effects and/or the Uranium trioxide article(s), as long as at least a full paragraph description of the overlapping text remains, say, of at least as many sentences as there are redundant paragraphs removed.

Also I think the "Legal status" section of /basic needs to be in the Health and environmental effects article, with an additional pointer to it in the "projectile munitions" section, since that's the only application that the UN HRC has referred to.

Is that acceptable, TDC, DV8, Lcolson, and Dr U? --James S. 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I suggested this route, I naturally agree given these conditions: Uranium trioxide is considered a chemistry topic and as such will not be modified by reference to this issue (in practical terms any mention of UO₃ gas will not survive the notice of the other editors that work in that area); Depleted uranium/basic replaces Depleted uranium and suffers no more "mission creep" into the politics and health issues around DU; The Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#Rebuttal section is permitted to stay and grow to present the alternate view. --DV8 2XL 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems acceptable as long as they are all linked from the Depleted uranium/basic article. Lcolson 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless the references to UO₃ gas are removed from Uranium trioxide we have no deal. In particular we cannot expect other editors to abide by this agreement and the section will not survive the next chemist that comes across it. --DV8 2XL 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections. I believe that there are sources which do support James' claim that modeling of DU dispersion is inadequate. If he is agreeable to including that information in a manner which mentions "various oxides of uranium" or any of the components of the soot that were found on analysis, perhaps we can avoid splitting hairs over whether or not it is gaseous uranium trioxide or not, while still making his point that there are combustion components that are unacounted for in prior analysis. Dr U 23:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too, but in the Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium not in Uranium trioxide as it now stands. --DV8 2XL 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to work on Uranium trioxide, without reading the above replies, in hopes of being able to put the technical stuff about the gas formation there, so it could be removed from Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, Depleted uranium/basic, and Gulf War syndrome. I reworded it and included all the relevant science citations. Why wouldn't that be better than leaving the bulk of the gas formation discussion in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium? (This edit is the result of a fourth edit conflict in a row; my previous record was just one.) --James S. 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that none of us can keep other knowledgeable editors from ripping this apart if it appears in an inorganic chemistry category. I am not going to try and defend this idea there, so I cannot agree to it. --DV8 2XL 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; the reaction might be "not infrequently ignored" according to the Gmelin Handbook, but I don't think it would be removed by future editors, but I can see how that would be a concern. So, then, lets leave it in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium without reference to Uranium trioxide? --James S. 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bring it back into Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium and I'll back it's inclusion as a hypnosis on the pro side of the argument. --DV8 2XL 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't understand your use of the word "hypnosis" here. --James S. 01:08, 28 January 2006(UTC)

Hypothesis Hypothesis,Hypothesis. Never trust a bloody spellchecker :) --DV8 2XL 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to move on this, folks? --DV8 2XL 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We're waiting for TDC to weigh in. --James S. 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me apologize for my tardiness to this debate, especially since I was the catalyst in getting this shitstorm going, but I have been extremely busy the past several days. As per above, I support the idea of splitting the material into several different sub articles. This would stop the creep of contentious material, in and of itself could exceed the length of the non disputed material on applications and what not, into this and related articles. As is, I see serious issue with the Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium article, but that can be dealt with there. This article has been protected long enough and its time to allow other editors to contribute to it. DTC 16:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

UF6

Most of the depleted uranium produced to date is being stored as UF6 in steel cylinders in the open air in so-called cylinder yards located adjacent to the enrichment plants.

Is UF6 uranium hexafluoride gas? If so, it should be spelled UF₆ and properly linked. Spelling it out in full once wouldn't hurt either. 82.92.119.11 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#Safety and environmental issues the issue is dealt with in detail there, --DV8 2XL 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. So if I understand correctly, this sentence is to be removed on unprotection, so its formatting doesn't matter? In any case, ignore what I said, it was silly. Obviously nobody cares about wikification of a disputed article while it's protected; this is easily fixed afterwards. 82.92.119.11 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)