Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 11

How high is the density?
The article doesn't say what the density of depleted uranium is, other than stating that it's "very high". I'm sure that some details on this would improve the article. - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The density of uranium is 19.1 g/mL. Depleted uranium is essentially the same (in principle, depleted uranium should be a tiny bit more dense, but I wouldn't expect the difference to be larger than about one part in ten thousand). --Itub (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"photografic evidence"
I removed this sentence:

''Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that was obtained as a consequence of that use.'' There is no reliable source for that. The given source says:

''Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that may have been obtained as a consequence of that use.''

It doesn´t give any further sources, and also no photos. It seems not to be possible to find evidence for he use of DU "by photos". The source isn´t serious.77.2.121.72 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased graph
It is interesting that the only source directly and freely accessible on the internet is one that shows data stopping at 1998, while the last two years are said to come from Uranium in the Wind, 2004 edition. Until 1998, the incidence reached a maximum 7.76‰ congenital births. In the unaccessible information, the incidence seems to raise to about 9‰ in 1999 and to a significantly higher 17‰ in 2000. There are two other biases on the graph that leave me unsatisfied. First, no historical serie for the congenital births in Basrah is shown before 1990. A reasonable study would show the data or at least estimate it for the Eighties. Secondly, and most importantly, we are now in 2008. Other data must be available to cover the pre-2003-war period and the successive intervention. All in all, at least three things would make this graph credible: 1) an accessible source to the last two years covered in the graph; 2) a reasonable serie; 3) new data to support this congenital births anomaly with stronger evidence of a stable increase in the area (as depleted uranium would not lose its effect over this short period of time). My suggestion is to remove the graph, because it gives a direct-impact visual information that is still generally unsustained from empirical findings. Billy Pilgrim (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is "Uranium in the Wind" inaccessable? Listing Port (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DOT-E 9649
Should there be a section relevant to the shipment of depleted uranium? Kgrr (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bullet image
The bullet pictured is obviously not a 30mm round. As you can see, the diameter is clearly under an inch, and an inch is 12.7mm. It looks like some sort of a .50 caliber round to me, or maybe a 20mm round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.78 (talk • contribs) 15:24, April 19, 2008


 * An A-10 30mm bullet contains "a sub-calibre high density penetrator" so the penetrator is smaller than the actual bore diameter and incased in a sabot for CIWS or aluminum for aircraft.


 * I was wondering why it was a different shape than a regular bullet. If that's the case, though, it should probably be captioned as a "a sub-calibre high density penetrator" and not a bullet.4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Think of the bore erosion if the DU was actually touching the barrels.


 * I was also wondering about that, too. I just figured that national governments had all the money they needed to keep rebarreling the guns and so that's what they did. I Guess I was wrong.


 * Incidentally, do you know if these rounds are available on the US civilian market? I know armor piercing handgun rounds are verboten here, but AFAIK, there is no such restriction on rifle bullets. 4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 in not 12.7mm. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's right. 12.7mm is half an inch, not an inch. I'm in the market for a .50 BMG right now, and was just looking at a bunch of them, so I've got 50 caliber on the brain. 4.240.30.190 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Health situations critique and attempt at re-write
I have listed the problems with the Health considerations at User:Normal_Standard/sandbox. My improvements were mostly removing POV or unsourced material and trying to improve the references. However, I was having problems with the AFRBI URLs.

Would someone please see if the AFRBI URLs are still in the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org/ ? Normal Standard (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see they are now at, e.g., http://web.archive.org/web/20070205224625/www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/miller_NATO_2005.pdf . Normal Standard (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

______________

Hi there, you might want to check out the section on DU in this US Congressional report:

Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: http://www1.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/

It was the one last autumn which showed the GWS is 'real', however the section on DU is instructive, it found that the study looking at vets with shrapnel ignored tumours and roundly criticises the US gov sponsored DU studies as being too small and incapable of producing quality data. All in all pretty damning. ICBUW (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong link
The heavy metal link is to the heavy metal genre of music, not the "heavy metal" elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin3577 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

60% radiation reduction
"The external radiation dose from DU is about 60 percent of that from the same mass of natural uranium." This statement may be true - but the fact that it is repeated three times in the article begs for someone to add a source for it. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

History
The exposition in the section regarding DU usage in the Arab-Israeli war and Israel invading Lebanon seems a bit like someone has an axe to grind? Should it be chopped down? 77.69.208.83 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DUStory-owner deleting sources
DUStory-owner, why did you remove mention of the Canadian and German scientific bodies, the Hindin paper, both of the anti-DU organizations, the Army training video, and the documentary references?

Do you have a source for the relative cost of tungsten in the 1970s? 75.61.103.120 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Counteraction: you need sources
DUStory-owner in response to Counteraction added this

I am glad that someone demanded sources for this fiction. I removed the information that I removed because it has no credible source. The price of tungsten has nothing to do with the use of DU as a kinetic energy penetrator. The only material that penetrated modern tank armor in the 1970's was DU. The material is readily available. Go look at the foot notes on the Gulf Link pages on DU. The Hindin paper was written because the authors were influenced by the Traprock Peace Center which also used to post the forged Memo to Groves from 1943 that had no reference to DU, but they expected no one to actually read the thing, only believe that it said what Douglas Lind Rokke and Leuren K Moret claimed that it said. Traprock also funded tours by Douglas Lind Rokke, an Army reservist who posed as a career soldier, with 40 years service before I FOIAed his military records and detemined that he served 4 years active duty with the Air Force as an enlisted avionics technician directly out of high school, 1 month with the Marine Corps trying to become an officer and less than 2 years, including Desert Shield/Desert Storm and 15 months at the Army Chemical Corps School as an Army Reserve officer on active duty and the remainder of about 26 years in the Illinois National Guard/Army Reserve at home in Illinois. Rokke was made a "Theatre Health Physicist" by the Army in March 1991 and left Saudi Arabia in June 1991. That 3 months was the entire term that Rokke even had a "temporary" Health Physicist designation. Rokke's doctorate is in Vocational Education and his thesis "Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology education as general education" had nothing to do with depleted uranium even though written in 1992 after Rokke claims to have been sickened by having been exposed to DU.

DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DUStory/message/77

Message 77 has instructions to use guest user name and password to access the Files Section where you can read the actual source documents I have obtained through FOIA of Rokke's Army records, University of Illinois personnel records, Jacksonville State University Visiting Assistant Professorship, Urbana Central Schools Substitute Teaching records and Joliet Police Department personnel records. There also is a copy of Rokke's doctoral thesis and other documents pertaining to Rokke, Moret, Asaf Durakovic and other subjects.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DUStory/message/76 has public links to a number of scientific reports by international groups about DU, radiation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.158.4 (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Counteraction added this: (which was justly questioned)

1948: US army develops plans to radioactively contaminate populated areas

 * In 1948 the American military approved plans to explore the possibility of using radioactive material to assasinate people. This plan was a well-hidden part of a broader pursuit by the US army of a "new concept of warfare" using radioactive materials from atomic bombmaking to contaminate swaths of enemy land or to target military bases, factories or troop formations. In 2007 this information was made available to the public through declassified but heavily censored documents. The American army's main research was focused on finding ways of effectively contaminating enemy territory with radioactive material, the developement of ways to use radioactive material as a way to kill individuals was less important.


 * The top priorities listed were:


 * 1 Weapons to contaminate "populated or otherwise critical areas for long periods of time."


 * 2 Munitions combining high explosives with radioactive material "to accomplish physical damage and radioactive contamination simultaneously."


 * 3 Air and-or surface weapons that would spread contamination across an area to be evacuated, thereby rendering it unusable by enemy forces.


 * Citing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071008/assassination-weapon/

Counteraction, you need to ask on WP:RSN if that is an opinion piece or a reliable source, please. Thank you. 76.225.157.40 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference refers to either direct assassination by highly radioactive material or to general destruction of large areas of land by using remnants of nuclear bombs or reactor material. In either case DU cannot be used for those purposes and is not related in any way. I'm removing the material. Starkrm (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article talks about contaminating large area's of land with radioactive material to make it inhospitable for civilians. With cancer increasing 7 fold in Sarajevo in just 5 years, the incidence of birth deformities in area's of Iraq increasing 10fold in a decade, certain area's of Baghdad having 1000 times the normal background radiation, and birth deformities having doubled in under 2 years now in Afghanistan it's no longer an issue to debate whether DU can be used for those purposes or not.Counteraction (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted under WP:OR. The article cited makes no mention of any radioactive substance other than polonium, both for an actual incident that happened and as speculation from an expert about which material might have been feasible. Unless you have a source you can cite that the PURPOSE of the DU is to cause wide scale contamination, it is not RELEVENT here. It MAY be relevent in a different article, but your cited source also said it was abandonded in 1954.Beachgrinch (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected?
This article seems to have a semiprotect. Why? 219.79.235.14 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify intro paragraph?
Hi! The lead pp has "natural uranium is enriched in U-235 by separating the isotopes by mass". This is not clear and is not immediately explained. I think more of a "natural uranium is enriched in U-235 by removing the denser, non-radioactive U-238" (or similar) is clearer (and hopefully correct). Also, the back-of-the-my-envelope comes up with about 99.8% U-238 in DU. Is that right? That would be good in there too. If this is so would an expert clear it up? Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is quite right. I updated to switch things round:
 * Some nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors require uranium enriched in U-235 which is produced by separating the isotopes by mass.
 * The proportion of U-235 in the tailings (DU) depends on the relative values of the enrichment process and the feed natural uranium. Lower U235 taling percentages require more enrichment. Joffan (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

UK pensions tribunal
The UK pensions tribunal cited as "the UK government" is not the UK government, and it did not consider Kenny Duncan's claims of birth defects caused by DU. I corrected the article but it is being persistently reverted by an anonymous user. A second source that the same user wishes to retain barely mentions the case, and adds nothing. Joffan (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source saying that UK government's Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service didn't consider Kenny Duncan's children's birth defects? If you do, they contradict the sources which have been in this article earlier:
 * In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning. (Williams, M. (February 9, 2004) "First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim," The Herald Online, (Edinburgh: Herald Newspapers, Ltd.); Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (Spring, 2004) "MoD Forced to Pay Pension for DU Contamination," CADU News 17)
 * I just looked 500 back in the history to find that on the 4th click (history, 500, earlier 500, top version) and I see other material has been deleted from the introduction as well. I am reverting and replacing. 69.228.83.5 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Craft, E., et al. (2004) in J Tox Env Health
This paper is interesting. Here's the abstract:
 * Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product from the chemical enrichment of naturally occurring uranium. Natural uranium is comprised of three radioactive isotopes: 238U, 235U, and 234U. This enrichment process reduces the radioactivity of DU to roughly 30% of that of natural uranium. Nonmilitary uses of DU include counterweights in airplanes, shields against radiation in medical radiotherapy units and transport of radioactive isotopes. DU has also been used during wartime in heavy tank armor, armor-piercing bullets, and missiles, due to its desirable chemical properties coupled with its decreased radioactivity. DU weapons are used unreservedly by the armed forces. Chemically and toxicologically, DU behaves similarly to natural uranium metal. Although the effects of DU on human health are not easily discerned, they may be produced by both its chemical and radiological properties. DU can be toxic to many bodily systems, as presented in this review. Most importantly, normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, and heart can be affected by DU exposure. Numerous other systems can also be affected by DU exposure, and these are also reviewed. Despite the prevalence of DU usage in many applications, limited data exist regarding the toxicological consequences on human health. This review focuses on the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, and toxicological effects of depleted and natural uranium on several systems in the mammalian body. A section on risk assessment concludes the review.

The full text is available at the link above. 69.228.209.24 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Generation of Thorium?
The article mentions this:

"However, in a matter of a month or so, depleted uranium generates amounts of thorium-234 and protactinium-234 which radiate beta rays at almost the same rate as that of the alpha rays from the uranium-238."

Please correct me if I am wrong and this applies differently to depleted Uranium, but isn't the half life of Uranium 2.3*10^7 years? Thorium and Protactinium should therefore certainly be generated, but only in miniscule quantities. It would be interesting to compare the quantity of Thorium generated after a month by long term retained DU following inhalation, with the amount of Thorium ingested through natural sources. I am also not sure where the "in a matter of a month or so" comes in - decay should be continuous.94.196.179.244 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume it's talking about the buildup of Th-234 and Pa-234 in a sample of U-238, till the equilibrium level is reached, at which Th is decaying as fast as it's created. Th-234 has a half-life of 24.1 days. "Miniscule quantities", yes, because the ratio of the decay rates of Th-234 to U-238 is about 700 million to one.
 * (U-238 has a half-life of 4.5×10^9 years; it's U-236's which is 2.3×10^7 years.)
 * —WWoods (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can clarify. Because production of decay daughters is essentially constant (too slow to affect the amount of U-238), when this process is started, the amount of them starts from zero and then goes up as an inverse exponential to an equilibrium quantity which is set by the ratio of half-lives-- in the case of Th-234 it is 681 million to one. But since Th-234 is exactly that much more radioactive, after it has hit equilibrium it is contributing almost exactly as much to the disintigration rate as the U-238. This is easier to see if you imagine for a moment that Th-234 decays instantaneously when formed-- in that case it's easy to see that it would be as though the U-238 decayed twice whenever it did decay, and thus your total decays would be double that from pure U-238. Something much like this DOES happen with Pa-234, which decays within hours of being formed from Th-234, so once the Th-234 has hit equalibrium, the Pa-234 has done so long before, and the total decay rate in curies is TRIPLE that of the pure U-238 (of course, only 1/3rd of this is alphas, and the other 2/3ds of decays are the betas from the other two isotopes). Basically, the radiation goes up from baseline x amount of U-239 alpha, to x alpha + eventually 2x beta Now, the only question left is how fast does the Th-234 build up, since this controls that extra 200% beta emission. The answer is (I'll save you the math for now) that it builds up to the maximum as this function of time: Amount = MAX ADDITIONAL AMOUNT • 1-[exp-λt)]. Where the exp-λt is the usual 2(-t/halflife), and the controlling halflife is that of the Th-234. So after 1 halflife of 24.1 days, the extra 2x double beta contribution from the Th and Pa decays is 1-1/2 = half of the eventual extra of 2x baseline, so it's a total of twice the baseline (baseline plus half of twice baseline = 2 times baseline). After 2 halflives of 48 days, this goes up to x alpha plus [1-¼](2x)beta = 1+(3/2) = 2.5 times baseline total. Eventually it reaches 3 times, but it takes forever to do so. After a conventional 5 halflives (120 days = 4 months or so) we're up to baseline times 1+2(1-2-5) = 2.9375 baseline. That surely happens before the ammo is used. This is all "original research" sort of like doing your own multiplication, but perhaps enough that you'll agree to tweek the text a bit. I may do so in the U-238 article.  S  B Harris 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also remember that the dose to an organ is a function of the type of particle and not just the number of particles. Dose tables already include the dose from daughter products. Starkrm (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. S  B Harris 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Effects on children in Iraq
hello

I'm a little surprised that there is no mention of the effects that the use of DU in the Gulf War supposedly had on children born during the 1990s. In the Basra hospital, photos of genetic malformations were readily shown to visiting reporters, and physicians told them that the incidence of such malformations had increased in a way that suggested an external cause, for which use of DU ammunition in the Gulf War was proposed (the zone depicted on the map for use of DU is consistent with the region of people giving birth in the Basra hospital).

I'm aware that there is probably not a single serious study to scientifically link the DU to the malformations in Basra, but I wonder if WP should mention that there is a debate ongoing on that. Should I search for a good source (which would reflect this as an debate, not as a fact) or would it be wiser not to mention it at all as long as there is no serious study about the subject? Thanks for any opinion. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In all fairness to Iraqi healthcare professionals and the many civilians they treat I think it is important to find adequate sources for a mention in this article. It doesn't need to dominate the article and you won't be removing contrary information. Because the content is so specific (and pertinent) it can be done with neutrality, especially as the source and context is explained. The voice of Iraq's MD's are valid. They have doctorates in science and have the benefit of direct observation of carefully counted (and photographed) clients on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. The reference in the lead section that disclaims the relationship of DU to cancer is from Force Health Protection & Readiness. This could be seen as biased and it has its place in the article. So, yes, you should search for a good source. - Steve3849 talk 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Studies missing
The World Health Organization in conjunction with the United Nations Joint Medical Staff, has reviewed health and medical concerns for depleted uranium. It is found at. The same group also did a complete review of the literature and science on the subject and developed a substantial report. It is found at.

More recently, Sandia Labs studied the same issues and produced another lengthy report with many graphs, equations and scientific results. The press release announcing this report includes a link to the report itself. It is found at.

These are both highly reputable sources and the scientific work is detailed and thorough. But instead of using these sources as primary information, this article uses less reliable information and more sensational reports, and uses them in great detail and the header of the article focuses exclusively on the articles that describe great health risks and ignores these more reliable sources. That is called "bias". I am putting a neutrality tag on the article.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2000 and 2005 sources are already summarized and cited in the article. That short 2003 source isn't, but if you look a few talk sections above, you will notice that the U.N. General Assembly just ordered WHO, IAEA, and UNEP to update their studies because of problems as described, for example, in this interview.  Also, the peer-reviewed secondary literature review sources (e.g.  and ) are the most reliable according to Wikipedia's criteria. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is one of bias. As the wikipedia's policies on NPOV say, bias is introduced by undue reliance on certain sources and subordination of others.  This has nothing to do with how reliable your two sources mentioned are.  It has to do with the fact that those two sources do not conclude anything but the article bends over backwards to give that perspective more air than the most dominant scientific perspective. Again... its a matter of bias. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those peer-reviewed secondary sources don't conclude anything? They both have "conclusion" sections.  In the case of the Hindin et al (2005) paper the conclusions are a single sentence which is already included in the article.  The conclusions of the Craft et al (2004) paper cite this table.  I would agree that the information in that table is not yet fully represented in the article, and in that sense the article is indeed biased. 69.228.211.161 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The WHO 2001 report concludes only that more research is needed. The WHO guidelines state they are based on this same report. The only stated additional research data was an environmental study done by the UNEP (members from WHO and IAEA) in Bosnia 2003. The relationship between the WHO and IAEA is also a subject of controversy. The decisions on which the WHO guidelines are based are not congruent with the previous 2001 report from the same agency. This too could be placed in this wiki article, exposing the topic's controversy further. My vote: this wiki article currently retains adequate neutrality.  - Steve3849 talk 17:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: Unlike the epidemiological studies, the Sandia study does not appear to be peer reviewed, only contracted. From the Sandia website: "Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness." Again, these do not appear to be unbiased sources. Yet, I think including them contributes to golden calf of neutrality. Why not include them, rather than the NPOV banner? - Steve3849 talk 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Marshall's 2005 Sandia study is in the article already, both as reference 98 at present, and in the external links. The WHO report on Bosnia is reference 89, and the 2001 WHO study Blue Tie suggests is the first link under "United Nations" in the external links. 69.228.211.161 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unstudied effects" as a section
The information in this article is obviously controversial. Controvery however does not make it unencyclopedic. This is the advantage to an online encyclopedia; it has a greater chance of not being censored for political reasons. The section "unstudied effects in Basra" was revoved for the rationale of being "unencyclopedic" and "unsubstantiated news article". The rationale for its inclusion is in the quote from the British Royal Society. Articles are viable if they are major news sources (which these are). - Steve3849 talk 22:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not true that the information "in this article" is controversial but I agree that controversy does not make it unencyclopedic. What does make the information I removed unencyclopedic is that there was no verifable peer reviewed information in that section.  I would stand by my removal of any section titled "unstudied " from any article.  The place to debate the article is on the talk page.  I think it is very important to stick to the known facts and I would welcome a rational discussion here with anyone on any DU subject.  However, I have been following this article for years and I will not sustain adding hyperbole or unscientific political agendas to shape it. Starkrm (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Sandia study peer reviewed? It appears to be reviewed only by empoyees of Sandia. The Royal Society is mentioned as contributing "comments and suggestions", but not review. Also there is this: Peer_review - Steve3849 talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, neither the Australian Defense Ministerium nor the IAEA produce peer-reviewed studies. But their opinions are included. It is not true, I think, that in WP any not peer-reviewed information is forbidden. Take a look at the pages about any political organization, a war, a religion... You'll find plenty of opinions sourced to politicians, journalists and priests, these are not considered facts but well-attributed opinions. They have their place in an encyclopedia. It is a fact that there is a debate ongoing about Basra. Not the effects are a fact, but the debate, I repeat. And as such, the debate has its place in WP, I'd consider. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons has asked for a study in Basra, so there is an interest to address the subject, regardless of the final verdict.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a health section already in the article that could have this information added in a brief statement and I think that would be a good compromise. The problem is that there are many, peer reviewed studies of the effects of U on the human body that show little or no effect.  The news articles that were cited in that section largely relied on agenda driven political figures rather than science.  Starkrm (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the "unstudied" part, but we also have a graph from a scholarly monograph concerning the question of Basrah hospital births. I was surprised to see that an editor claiming proficiency removed so many of the best sources from the introduction's discussion of the controversy, including the only literature review (WP:SECONDARY) sources we have.  Also, you completely removed the excerpt from Veterans Administration epidemiology director Dr. Kang, including the citation to his work.  Isn't that going way overboard?  The removals seem considerably more agenda-driven than the sources I replaced. 209.11.184.10 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, I would say, a subject which has been published in a medical journal (we can't exclude it just because it's from Basra) and written about in a newspaper which has been awarded 20 Pulitzer Prizes (The Boston Globe) shouldn't be just deleted as if it were crap. Thanks for putting it back. As I said: having this section here DOES NOT MEAN that the peer-reviewed studies are untrue. It does just mean that there are physicians and journalists out there talking about the subject. And that is a piece of information which I would expect to find in Wikipedia when researching about DU. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the inclusion of a sentence about the idea. I think that would be a good compromise. The article already has a health section. The section I deleted certainly did not have "many of the best sources" since the sources were mainly newspapers who relied on agenda driven political activist rather than scientists.  In any case I DID NOT remove the material from the introduction, I MOVED it to the health section where it belonged.  I stand by not having a section in an encyclopedic article titled "Unstudied ."  If you want a well written encyclopedic article then bring the discussion here and answer my points.  A sudden reversion of edits by someone from an IP address brings immediately to my mind a sock.  Regarding Dr. Kang - the reference was not actually a citation from his work.  The removals are agenda-driven only in the sense that I would like to see this article driven by a scientific agenda. Starkrm (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have integrated a shorter version - omitting perhaps unnecessary details - of the article back into the text. Please check if you are okay with it. Yo claim that you don't object to the inclusion of a sentence about the idea, but strangely enough, the only sentence you left in the text was "Despite the visual impact of photographs from Basra, experts claim that not a single serious epidemiological study has been undertaken in the region and the link between DU and genetic malformations is far from proven", without any reference to what photographs, what malformations and what visual impact the sentence referred to. That is, to say the least, very very odd a sentence. I hope the shorter version is neutral enough to just show that there is a debate going on on that subject, which is an undeniable fact supported by reliable sources. You can't exclude minority views, if echoed by reliable sources - and the Boston Globe is one - just because they don't fit the mainstream view. That's against WP:Neutrality. A scientific agenda is not against mentioning minority views.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some earlier statements regarding  "non controversy" and that there are numerous peer reviewed studies that show little or no effect implying that all studies agree. There are numerous peer reviewed studies that show a significant effect (observe the references at this link). "Politically driven", as Starkrm termed, is the center of the controversy. The Sandia study (again) does not appear to be peer reviewed and is by a company self described as having "major R&D responsibilities in... economic competiveness" and is directly parented by one of the world's leading military contractors while funded by U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. How much more political can one get? Its like paying the wolf to check on the safety of the sheep. Also, as stated in the discussion preceding this one, the relationship of WHO and IAEA has been questionable. Peer reviewed studies are likely plentiful on the physical properties of the metal. The human element requires disciplines of biology and medicine with settings both clinical and field. Again, present these "numerous peer reviewed" studies please. The potential effects of thousands of tons of depleted uranium dispersed into human habitat is unstudied. It does not require a peer review study to state that something important is unstudied. Yet, the linked peer reviewed study (in this paragraph) has actually done this: "There is a serious need for careful epidemiological research that can elucidate the relationship between DU exposure and specific classes of birth defects."  - Steve3849 talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did Starkrm delete Dr. Kang's study again, and try to make the intro say it is a metal? DUF6 is not a metal. He also changed "lasting kidney damage" to "lasting health effects." 64.9.241.27 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "lasting kidney damage" it was "...no lasting kidney damage." & I edited to say "...no lasting health effects." Quite a different meaning from what you are implying. Starkrm (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep deleting the description of Dr. Kang's study? 69.228.211.251 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link
The links in Reference 15 are broken, here's a fix for it: http://www.artikel-software.com/blog/2006/10/09/primer-on-spontaneous-heating-and-pyrophoricity/ Pulu (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Table inclusion
How much of this table do people think needs to be included in the article? 69.228.82.0 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I cant access that link b/c my CalNet Authentication died years ago. Don't y'all hate that?!  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O.v 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? It works just fine without a login for me. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So it does for me. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was fairly simple to convert that to this wikitable:

Since that source is about the best in the article, I'm including it under chemical toxicity. I did change "None" to "No studies" as it is clear from the context of the review that was what was more precisely meant in the table. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

bioavalability of spent ammo and residue
I need sources on the extent to which spent 20-30mm DU rounds enter groundwater, agriculture, the food chain, etc., considering both weathering of metal rounds and combustion residues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.68 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for a moratorium on military use
I have just edited a paragraph and deleted a paragraph. I think that this source may be of some use if someone wishes to reinstate the paragraph but please note that the source has a strong POV and should be used with care. It would be much better to find a more neutral source. --PBS (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * appears confirmed by http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10792.doc.htm 69.228.197.162 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "It then adopted draft XIV on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium with a vote of 141 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (Annex XIII)." --PBS (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I added the par about the new UNGA resolution. I am a campaigner but I felt that it was pretty balanced reportage, there's more detailed info here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/215.html

I think that the changing position from several EU states is particularly significant. In particular the change from the Dutch government who last year voted against a DU resolution only to support it this year. The par on the 2007 resolution is incorrect in that the resolution called for a debate in 2008 (during the 63rd GA session) it also seems weighted in favour of the US and UK as it ignores the overwhelming majority of states that supported both texts. On both resolutions Russia abstained and China (although in the room) recorded an absent vote because the resolution was submitted by the NAM group. I would replace with:

In December 2008, 144 states supported a resolution requesting that three UN agencies: UNEP, WHO and IAEA update their research on the impact of uranium munitions by late 2010 - to coincide with the General Assembly's 65th Session (A/C.1/63/L.26). The resolution was supported by the Netherlands who voted against a resolution highlighting health concerns in 2007 and by other NATO members including Germany, Italy, Finland, Iceland and Norway. Four states voted against the text - the UK, US, France and Israel. ICBUW (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not against adding the piece but it must have a source and the facts that are added must be in the source. Yes it may be significant that Netherlands have changed their position but there has to be a source that says it is significant (otherwise just report the fact and leave it at that). Have Germany, Italy, Finland, Iceland and Norway altered their positions since 2007? It is also significant that none of the 5 permanent members of the security council have yet to endorse the resolution, because unless some of them do there is no chance of a new treaty that has any bite. Again there is no need to say that unless there is a source that does. --PBS (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I will add the suggested neutral par above with a link to the UN Department of Public Information. WRT to a treaty, you are getting a little ahead of yourself, this is only the second time the UNGA has passed a DU resolution, typically at least three are needed before the issue is passed to the UN body most suited to deal with it, in this case the CCW. Although given its past history with mines and clusters it is unlikely that it will be able to deal with the issue effectively. Never the less this was the biggest thing to happen internationally with DU in 2008.ICBUW (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that when reading the section the emphasis had changed from EU to NATO, so I have copied edited it to keep it consistent. I also added names to the acronyms. If there is anything you disagree with then please feel free to edit it and before I make any changes I'll bring them here for discussion first. --PBS (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope that looks grand, cheers. Will try and add some bits on the Oct 08 US Congressional review of veterans' studies and the Dec 08 Italian Government's confirmation of compensation for veterans who served overseas when I get a minute. ICBUW (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On June 21st 2009 a law banning "inert ammunition and armor that contains depleted uranium or any other industrially manufactured uranium" came into force in Belgium. The law had passed by a unanimous vote in 2007 but the Belgian government had wanted to see how the international community was responding to calls for a moratorium/ban on uranium weapons before it entered into force. The law was preceded by votes in the upper and lower houses of the Belgian government banning investments by Belgian financial institutions into the manufacturers of uranium weapons. Belgium was also the first country to ban anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs. Text of the law: Background to the story:, Senate vote: , lower house vote: ICBUW (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information in intro
The introduction is quite lengthy and contains a lot of redundant information. The last paragraph sticks out especially as unnecessary because it repeats the health effect section's negative adverse health effect's verbatim. We shouldn't need all that information or really even that third paragraph at all but it defiantly needs some fat trimmed. Another issue with this that I see is the article subjects controversial use; the large length of of that paragraph appears the shift the entire article toward it's use as a weapon and violate POV. Any thoughts on what should stay or about removing the last intro paragraph in its entirety? -- $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin   ( talk )( ? )  22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The redundant info (copy/pasted) is actually in the health effects section as it was originally written into the intro. The third paragraph of the intro does stick out because the subject of the article is controversial. Removing it entirely would not be appropriate. Trimming doesn't seem like a bad idea. Rephrasing the health effects section and allowing it to have more detail also makes sense as the introduction should be an "introduction" only. As far as the weight towards weapons use in the article: this is precisely why the subject of the article is controversial and to shift the article away from weapons use also risks violating NPOV. The article is about a controversial topic as many of it's references show. - Steve3849 talk 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I moved some health effect info that was in the intro down to the health section and removed some of the less relevant copy/paste health effect verbage from the intro into the appropriate section. I kept the controversial statement and general weaponized health effects to give a more introductory paragraph. -- $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin   ( talk )( ? )  01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well now the problem is that the controversy is glossed over in the intro, without stating the specific health concerns. WP:LEAD says that the intro should summarize the controversy, not just say that there is one. It also states that three paragraphs isn't too long of an intro for an article of this size. Furthermore, it basically says that the intro is actually supposed to be redundant, because the lead can't have anything in it which doesn't appear in the article body. That third paragraph was trimmed not too long ago. Because I'm a little concerned about the abundance of slanted ideological issues in your edit history, I reverted. 208.54.4.66 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I left the specific health concerns in clearly and provided general context for the health concerns. I would like you to expand upon why you believe the controversy section is glossed over. I know what WP:LEAD says and it does not say that the intro is supposed to be redundant. It says that the intro should provide a general context and summary of the article(exactly like you first stated in the sentence with the wikilink) not repeat verbatim/copy paste a section - in this case, health concerns. Anyone can view my contributions but I don't know who would view my edits as "slanted". That is obviously loaded and has no basis in fact. In addition, as anyone can see most of my edits are aimed at cleaning up POV issues with wikipedia and from my experience this article and your post are both extremely fishy. As an anonymous poster with only 7 edits, 4 of which were in the last week(and 1 vandalism edit on the Aeromexico article) referencing the wiki MOS screams of a wikipedia activist trying to hide his previous POV edits. Sock puppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and I will not be bullied by misguided internet activist. I am restoring the edits unless you can give a valid to delete all my edits. Oh and if you do post again, why don't you use your real account instead posting anonymously since were attacking edit history. That's just bad taste. -- $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin    ( talk )( ? )  05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that you left "specific health concerns in clearly" -- but this is what you edited the intro to say:
 * The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of numerous unanswered questions about potential long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. However, it is weakly radioactive and remains so because of its long half-life. The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel.
 * How does that summarize the controversy? There is no mention of any specific health concerns like reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, or any of the other specific concerns that you deleted.  The sentences about "less toxic than other heavy metals" and "weakly radioactive" are now unbalanced -- and unsourced -- in contrast to the specific health concerns sourced to the WP:SECONDARY peer-reviewed source citations you removed. 207.62.246.65 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Radioactivity and toxicity(reproductive/immune) are both listed health concerns. See WP:COMMON for how the new intro summarizes these two things. The only controversy here now is in your purported specific health concerns and suspicious unyielding need to have them plastered one-by-one in the introductory paragraph. Passing off a large negative list of specific medical studies that are themself controversial does not help to address to the controversy surrounding the article itself. Or specifically, the use of DU as a weapon and it's ethical talking points for it's disuse. I could understand your rationale if the article was about it's use as a weapon but even then it would be unbalanced. Common protocol would dictate a compromise on content but I'm just not sure it would be worth my time considering your use of tmobile and university networks to disguise your identity and your wild accusations of bias. -- $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin    ( talk )( ? )  23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably don't want to cite WP:COMMON when you remove peer-reviewed secondary (literature review) sources, saying they, "are themself controversial," when all you are leaving are unsourced opposing statements in their place. Please have a look at WP:PSTS -- peer reviewed literature reviews are the least controversial and the most reliable of all the science sources possible.  It looks like you've been removing reference to two of them and deleting one secondary source entirely.  That's not improving the quality of the encyclopedia, and it's unlikely to stick, especially in a controversial article. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:RadTek just tried to delete the same peer-reviewed secondary sources. Reverting. KeepinReal (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and article protection
I became aware that registered yesterday and began edit warring at this article, and filed a suspected sock puppet report, claiming employment with a company that would make the editor have a conflict of interest. Without making any judgment on content, as such, and not intending to prejudice content, I concluded that the activity of this account was disruptive and should not be allowed to warp the article without consensus, hence I reverted RadTek's last change and requested temporary article semiprotection (which would prevent editing by very new accounts, and there is more than one active). For whatever reason, and it doesn't matter much, full protection for three days was implemented, and I encourage editors here to negotiate any changes that may be appropriate, pending. If any disruptive material was introduced that wasn't removed, by any editor, or any content removed that did enjoy consensus, a quick consensus expressed here on what version to revert to could be in order. Debating controversial changes would probably take longer than the protection time. If this is needed, I'd suggest a list, which can be expanded, of suggested revisions (permanent versions), with editors who care to noting, without debate, approval or disapproval of each. (Discussion can be in a separate subsection, but the point of avoiding debate in the actual poll is to keep it clean and simple and fast.) If there is a decent showing for a version, an edit to revert to that version can be suggested at WP:RfPP with a reference to the poll here, and it would usually be granted if real consensus has been shown. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove the article because Saddam Hussein wrote it
The best thing that could happen to this is to remove it. It is heavily tainted by the lies and half-truths that Saddam Hussein planted in his initial propganda campaign. None of the so-called campaigners have actually come up with any "facts" that do not relate back to this initial false information. They have convinced soldiers and families who need some cause that the Government will recognize even though uranium has never caused those symptoms in well over 100 years that its health effects on humans have been studied. One would also wonder why no one cites any of the extensive field and laboratory studies done by either the UN Environment Programme Post Conflict Branch which made three trips into the Balkans, one into Lebanon and supported an Iraqi team in Southern Iraq or the International Atomic Energy Agency that did a similar field study of Kuwait. These teams consisted of international scientists, not activists, not people who wanted to "believe", but scientists who made observations and attempted to determine factual evidence.75.101.83.243 (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Roger

Veracity of USDOD claim in introduction
The introduction to this article states, "The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium," citing http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp which says, "no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium." However, there is a discussion on Talk:Uranium which is more than a little contrary. I intend to add some of the sources discussed there. 99.60.3.194 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this unsourced statement from the introduction: "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury." 99.27.135.41 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relative Toxicity
The non sequitur: "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury" is substantially irrelevant for the demographic of those exposed (our troops and multitudes of innocent civilians,) the multiple routes of exposure and multiple toxic effects. The only commonality is that they are all heavy metals. The extent of the public health burden of each contaminant is not known. It is unlikely to be either agreed upon by divergent interests associated with the problem, or ever accurately measured by those who depend on its useful properties. In fact those same interests have a great deal of motivation and ability to hide information on use and abuse. Arsenic is a poison which primarily leaches into municipal drinking water supplies via unsafe mining practices. Arsenic disrupts human cellular energy transfer at the mitochondria. Think sugar and energy metabolism. Mercury is a neuro-toxin when absorbed throught the skin or ingested, and DU emits alpha, gamma and beta radiation (all 3 types of ionizing radiation, and they can mutate your DNA.) You don't have to touch it to get radiated. But if you do, the Alpha particles (which can be) stopped by a sheet of paper are very dangerous to inhale or ingest. The statement "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury" is minimizing, misleading and should not remain in this article. New Orleans,RN (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the article it is stated, "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury.", I think this should be rewritten: "The immediate and short term toxicity of DU is less than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury." As, in the previous sentence of the article it is implied that the long term effects are not known. Of course, everyone should do their own research and ask their own questions as many have - a little googling will demonstrate to most that the questions this article describes as 'unanswered', have likely been answered.

-Tyler Jordan http:earthsociety.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.117.24 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a [citation needed] tag to the unsourced relative toxicity statement and removed "unanswered," although I would point out that "unanswered" appears in the Miller & McClain (2007) source from where that sentence was taken. However, assuming the remainder of the summary is allowed to remain in the intro, it hardly matters whether the questions have been definitively answered, and based on the table being discussed a couple sections above, it seems that the truth of the matter is that the questions have been answered for some animals but not for humans. (Also, please note that new talk page sections go at the bottom, not the top.) GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we have to make the whole "relative" toxicity statement at all; a compound's toxic value is measurable, and it is not something that changes over time. The effects of the low radioactivity might be better understood in the future, but that does not mean that any statement about any substance has to be described as relative because a group of people expects to see different results in the future. I feel it is sufficient to say that no radiological effects have been seen in humans, as this is a statement of fact, and since there is a reference to lab tests on animals, I can't understand why there is so much contention over the issue. Mrathel (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re: comparison of DU to lead and mercury. I think that is a useful comparison. In fact, I believe that is a key purpose of such comparisons in a non-scientific setting such as wikipedia. I thought the idea was to provide meaningful references between a generally known toxin and something less generally understood? I mean, it's the same logic that has weather forecasters saying that "there was golfball sized hail in Smithville yesterday". Why don't they say "there was 1.68 inch diameter hail in Smithville yesterday"? Simple, because the visual aid of a common object, the golfball, is helpful to those who may not easily visualize the size of a 1.68 inch sphere. (again, I thought that part of the point of Wikipedia was to make complex subjects understandable to the masses!) But of course, if the intent of an particular contributor is to lend an air of credibility to a particular (perhaps politicized) position, then such handy clarifications are the antithesis of good rehtoric. We used to have an expression "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with b.s." anyway...enough speculation.

re: "a compound's toxic value is measurable, and it is not something that changes over time." Well, actually, it is not at all accurate to claim that materials toxicity is "the same" over time. Yes, in a strict laboratory sense, a particular substance may exhibit a fixed toxicity in its pure state at a given instant, but we must not forget that like just about every other metal, DU in the environment is constantly interacting with the oxidizer we call "air". Many subtances, (and especially metals) change in terms of their practical toxicity, as they oxidize. As metals corrode, the surface oxidation acts as a barrier which reduces or ends the release of said toxic metal into the environment. The very process of oxidation usually results in more stable compounds (remember your high school chemistry?) So in a practical sense, the DU in the ground in Iraq will not be as toxic in a few years as it was the day it was fired from the weapon, because the surface will corrode into relatively less toxic U02. Does this make it "safer"? Hard to say, but in any case, I think it is clear that DU metals are inherently more safe and stable than drums of liquid slurry UH...expecially when the slurry is in Paducah KY, and the DU is in the sand in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolBlueGlow (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was searching for more information about the toxicity / pyrophoric properties .. but it seems like it got killed out of the article and du being represented as harmless. The comparison with lead dragging it into ridiculous. For example the nanoparticle problem that when a projectile penetrates a tank nano particles are formed that have quite different properties than natural uranium (similar to carbon which by itself is harmless but as a nanoparticle quite toxic) as it's able to cross all the barriers in the human body even contaminating the gonades creating serious maladies in offspring. Also the aspect of the pyrophoric property was not really explained - that it creates temperatures of a 1000 degrees in the inside of a penetrated object and *burning* the people inside alive (tanks or houses). Ebricca (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment "Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure." is misleading in that it does not point out that the effects depend on the quantity internalized. The maximum quantity taken in by troops was extremely small in all military engagements and the internalized DU for post war exposure of civilians is even smaller. Mythphys (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any time you see the phrase "can be affected," if it describes a dose response, don't you think everyone understands that depends on the quantity internalized? The problems that we have seen with the research have been both quantitative (nobody measured the teratogenicity even though it has been known since 1949) and qualitative (often documents say that uranium is only a toxic danger to kidneys, completely ignoring the genotoxicity.) 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to LEAD
I fail to see the point comparing DU to LEAD, as it is done in the article, especially where armor piercing and other effects are compared, a comparison to TUNGSTEN (WOLFRAM) would be much more sensible, with comparisons to LEAD only to give a common man, a idea of the WEIGHT. 91.154.204.152 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tribunal Service comment needs to be qualified in that they are not a scientific body and are not qualified to assess the depleted uranium issue.

The section on reproductive health effects is seriously out of line, including unverified reports and not including careful studies with the opposite conclusions. The citation described as "A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." The cited paper is an appalling example of a lack of scientific rigor and neutrality. When I read this report I was in a state of disbelief that this paper went through a peer review. I would be happy to elaborate on my review of the paper if anyone is interested.

For the Health considerations section the comment on cultured cells is misleading. Cultured cells do not reveal anything surprising with regard to depleted uranium. The question is not whether depleted uranium exposure can cause health effects, the question is what is the probability of health effects given the amount of depleted uranium internalized, and based on scientific investigations (Royal Society, Sandia Labs, the answer is extremely small. A few highly exposed soldiers (~3) in tanks hit by DU weapons have about a 1% risk of lung cancer (above the average risk for unexposed troops). These troops also were at risk of kidney failure from chemical toxicity;however, the toxic effect is an acute effect and was not observed for the highly exposed individuals. All other effects appear to be entirely negligible.

For the section on studies showing negligible effects: for the Sandia study, the comment "... but Marshall did not consider reproductive health effects." is incorrect. The study did, in fact, examine reproductive health effects due to radiation effects from DU exposure. In a later peer reviewed paper "Gulf war depleted uranium effects (jes 2008) the findings of the Sandia report were presented and updated to include possible chemically-induced reproductive health effects. Mythphys (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal
The phrase appears three times on the text.--79.111.171.43 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That appears verbatim in the abstract of the only secondary peer-reviewed literature review we have on the toxicity. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Separation of sources for depleted vs. natural uranium.
A number of the souces cited for health effects cover both the effects of DU and natural uranium. As the WHO states (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), this is not appropriate as natural uranium decay produces a sigificantly higher quantity of high activity radon gas.

I invite some of the original collaborators to help me clean up the citations concerning this. I will be starting some revisions on the article over this topic in the near future.

Cheers, Djma12 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help with depleted uranium. I noticed that http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ doesn't say, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," it says something quite different; specifically, "In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." There is no other mention of cancer on that WHO page.
 * Please note that does not consider the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity. I don't know if there's an easy way to explain all that in the intro. Maybe it could be explained in the body and summarized in the intro. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent response. I'll try to answer point by point.  First, I don't think the uranium miner data applies as the WHO data states that the increased lung cancer risk was secondary to radon gas as a decay product rather than the uranium proper.  (DU has very little radon as a decay product.)  Second, you are correct in stating that "very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group."  I will try to amend the intro in a concise manner to reflect this.  (Help would be appreciated.)  Finally, the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity is fair, but has not been demonstrated in any epidemiological setting.  The only setting that has been postulated is in cell and animal studies, which is already in the lead.  Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about if we replace, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," which is contradicted by the source cited, with a summary of that source and a summary of these statements pertaining to the WHO controversy? On the radon question, how much more radon does natural uranium produce? 76.254.66.122 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that there was a WHO controversy... Let me review that and I'll get back to you.  I do think we should include a consensus statement from some credible international medical organization in the lead, but obviously we should also include the controversy if one exists.
 * Concerning your other question, decay of U-238 only produces half of the radon that decay of U-235 produces. Furthermore, U-238 has a much lower activity.  (It's half life is 4 billion years vs 700,000 years for U-235.)  This means that much less decay occurs as well.  Both of these factors contribute to the significantly lower radon yield of U-238. Djma12 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at. The way I read it, the "definitive" recommendations are by WHO, but there are eminent scientists who believe that the WHO data is politically skewed. In my lit review, no quality epidemiologic review exists, but this is confounded by the fact that (relatively) small populations have been exposed to DU. (As opposed to, say, lead.) A growing body of cell and animal literature exists concerning toxicity, but its applicability to humans is (as of now) unclear.

My personal thought is that DU demonstrably causes chemical toxicty, likely causes teratogenicity (based upon other heavy metal data), and may increase carcinogenicity. However, the full data is rather sparse, so we should probably stick with what data and consensus statements are available for the lead.

Your thoughts? Djma12 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the WHO ever made recommendations. The literature is strongly bifurcated in this area, as there are plenty of publications which say uranium exposure causes minimal risk, often simply to the kidneys, and the secondary literature which lists a whole lot of serious risks. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *No, that's fair. Let's just make the controversy a little more apparent in the lead then, and I'm happy. Djma12 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *One last point on the WHO report. It doesn't just target carcinogenicity d/t radiation, but it also explicitly covers chemical, reproductive, and developmental effects.  Their review of the literature can be found at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/index.html. Djma12 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell when a report claims to cover chemical toxicity whether that means just nephrotoxicity (just the kidneys, which oddly enough build up a tolerance, per Pellmar et al 1999) or genotoxicity and associated effects, which the WHO has been accused of excluding. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem. When they talk about reproductive effects, you have to drill down through the source citations, and when you do, it's almost impossible to find studies on more than just mice. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Gulf War syndrome and soldier complaints (DO NOT DELETE)
This section diverges from a presentation of the facts regarding DU towards an opinion piece with selective referencing and unverified grey literature referencing. If the latter are to be presented they must be noted as such, and provided with balancing references. This section confuses two separate issues, but there is already a Wikipedia entry for Gulf War syndrome. Depleted uranium is one of many exposures that some people have claimed to be responsible for Gulf War Illnesses / Syndrome. A discussion of the relevance of depleted uranium to Gulf War Syndrome can only be made in the context of other exposures.

The most recent independent expert reviews on Gulf War Illnesses amongst veterans are from the VA Association and the IOM. These have not been referenced in either this section or the main Gulf War syndrome entry. These independent expert panels comprehensively reviewed all of the available literature and reached different conclusions to those that might be drawn from the selective referencing of the Wikipedia entries.

"Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC)."

For the health outcomes discussed in this chapter, the committee concluded that exposure to uranium is not associated with a large or frequent effect. Nevertheless, it is possible that depleted-uranium–exposed veterans will have a small increase in the likelihood of developing a disease. Typically, extremely large study populations are necessary to demonstrate that a specific exposure is not associated with a health outcome. The committee’s evaluation of the literature supports the conclusion that a large or frequent effect is unlikely, but it is not possible to state conclusively that a particular health outcome cannot occur. There is an apparent bias in the presentation in at least one of the references in this section. For example no. 89, Doyle et al. 2004 was summarised as follows:

"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.'[89]"

This is one line from the paper, which then goes on to discuss recall bias. The paper actually concludes:

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.

This section also confuses unverified grey-literature claims of birth defects in the Basra region with Gulf War Syndrome. These are separate issues. If this ‘information’ is to be included in the depleted uranium entry it must be with a caveat that the birth defect data has never been independently verified and that there is no evidence, except anecdotal, to connect these to depleted uranium exposure. The graph needs the caveat unverified data attached to the caption.

I suggest this section is substituted with a link to the main Wikipedia entry, e.g. “A number of studies on Gulf War Syndrome / Illnesses have considered depleted uranium exposure as one of several possible causes, but no conclusive connection has been made.” In fact the consensus is that a connection is unlikely, so this would be a very generous concession to the disputed POV.

--Du spécialiste (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

99.38.150.200 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I dispute the fact that the present Wikipedia entry reflects a scientific consensus. I quote the conclusions of two recent and comprehensive, expert and independent reviews of the scientific literature. There are 1840 references in the VA report, including those that you cite in this discussion (except for Hindin et al.) The conclusions of those reviews are at odds with your beliefs.


 * Doyle et al. 2006 reached a different conclusion to Kang et al. 2001, i.e. there is no increase in birth defects amongst veterans’ offspring. Kang et al. 2001 did not even consider causes; on what basis do you connect their disputed conclusions to depleted uranium? Kang et al. 2003 does not investigate depleted uranium as a cause either! The papers by Craft and Miller are inconclusive. Hindin et al. used “thoughtful triangulation” to reach unsubstantiated conclusions. Yes, I do dispute your sources! You also make the mistake of thinking those authors represent the groups you state! How can you justify your point of view?


 * Collectively, the authors of the present Wikipedia entry have not made a comprehensive and unbiased review of the literature in selecting their references. One point of view is presented in the present entry, it is not neutral and it is not balanced.


 * I highlighted one quotation that is made in the present entry which is blatantly at odds with the conclusion of the citation’s authors. That selectivity can only be explained by a biased point of view.


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think the article should include this statement from page 96 of the VA report? "No studies that have evaluated birth outcomes and birth defects among Gulf War veterans and their children have assessed whether there is any connection between reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure in the Gulf War." Could that be the reason that Hindin et al. was not included in the VA report?


 * In fact, Doyle and Kang reported similar levels of birth defects present in veterans' offspring. For what reason do you say that they did not?


 * Craft and Miller both contain conclusions, and both cite DNA genotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity. For what reason do you say they are inconclusive?  They are secondary peer-reviewed sources -- both of them are review articles, as is Hindin's -- from the academic literature, and therefore at least as authoritative as the VA report.  Did the VA report undergo a peer review process? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)  sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure that I understand your first point. Hindin et al. did not assess a connection, except through “thoughtful triangulation” with the grey literature, which is not exactly scientific research.


 * I’ve already exposed your (?) miss-representation of Doyle et al.


 * Craft and Miller do not reach any conclusions regarding actual exposure to depleted uranium and human ill health. They are inconclusive with respect to your point of view, and the biased point of view of the entry. In vitro toxicity is already recognised in the main body of the entry, I don’t dispute that.


 * I think we can trust the VA and IOM to have made a more thorough and non-partisan literature review than has been made in the Wikipedia entry. The articles that have been selected are not representative of the peer-reviewed literature.


 * The entry includes “One particular subgroup of veterans which may be at higher risk comprises those who have internally retained fragments of DU from shrapnel wounds”. But it fails to mention the extensive research by MacDiarmid et al. into these individuals, which have no clinically significant relatable health effects.


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My point of view is that government is not usually better at peer review than academic journals. You may find that is not an uncommon opinion now as ever. Craft, Miller, et al do in fact reach conclusions about exposure to uranium and human ill health. Do you agree with VA recommendations to study correlations and chi-squared statistics relating uranium exposure to cancer, birth defects, and immune system problems? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The IOM is not a government body, but is a well respected independent organisation of medical researchers. They are better placed to review scientific peer-reviewed articles than campaign groups. My understanding is that the panel who conducted the VA review are reputable medical scientists who were independently appointed to represent Veterans’ interests. I use these reports to illustrate the closest thing that we have to a scientific consensus. I could also cite the Royal Society reports. What is you evidence that governments took an active part in the review of these reports?


 * The conclusions of Miller and McClain 2003 were: “Although no conclusive epidemiologic data have correlated DU exposure to specific health effects, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.”


 * Craft et al 2003: “Despite the prevalence of DU usage in many applications, limited data exist regarding the toxicological consequences on human health.”


 * Neither reference makes a substantiated conclusion that DU exposure has caused human ill-health!


 * I have no problem with more research being conducted; the scientific evidence is not that this material is safe. However, it is misleading to attribute this material as a common cause of Gulf War Illnesses, or to unverified birth defect data from Iraq. The present article gives a biased point of view, and is highly selective of the peer reviewed literature.


 * I can cite a number of peer reviewed articles that would balance the point of view expressed in the current entry. But if we are to exclude non-peer reviewed articles, then the Basra ‘data’ has to go, as do the media articles?


 * To move this discussion forward, it would be helpful for you to acknowledge that the present article is unacceptable!


 * I’ve already stated why I think the sub-section on Gulf War Syndrome should be removed. If we want to keep a section on Gulf War Illnesses in this article then it should be concise and accurate, but not speculative and biased.


 * The article cannot become a long discussion, as here, so we need to set some limits on length. Can we agree that the present sub-section is condensed to a paragraph, and a balanced paragraph is written? I suggest that uranium toxicity data and animal experiments are kept in the other sections, and this sticks to epidemiological studies and medical investigation of exposed Gulf War Veterans. It is important that citations draw from the substantiated conclusions of articles, and not the speculative discussions that they may include. Do we limit citations to peer-reviewed articles from ISI listed journals?


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They also wrote articles together in 2005 and 2007, both of which are cited in this article. Their 2007 article is a review of the peer reviewed literature which summarizes the evidence of cancer, birth defects, immune system problems, and neurological problems in a variety of mammals, but it wasn't nearly as comprehensive as Craft et al's 2004 (not 2003) review, which cited some of those and many other toxicity problems. Have you read Miller and McClain's 2007 review? "Limited" does not mean "nonexistent."
 * How can you on one hand say that the subject is so complex that more research, after so many years, still needs to be conducted on birth defect, cancer, and immune system problems in relation to uranium exposures 20 years on, and also assert that the section needs to be reduced in size? That seems like trying to hide an uncomfortable subject. If we did reduce the section to a single paragraph, how could the birth defect statistics from U.S. and U.K. troops be included? Would you prefer that those be removed; if so, why?
 * There is already a section of this article devoted to studies finding negligible effects. Have there been any since 2005? 99.27.200.196 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of Wikipedia must be to summarize the facts in a balanced and concise article. It is not for pushing a point of view or writing new material. This is why we have to limit the length of the section. The problem with the contradictory birth defect data is that they are not tied to depleted uranium exposure, the connection is speculative, and you do not even have an evaluation of risk based on plausible intakes to support a connection.


 * McClain, Miller et al. 2007 is in an obscure journal to which I do not have access; the abstract suggests they have nothing significant to add to this. I’d ask you to quote from it if you have access to this, but I’ve already revealed that Doyle et al were misrepresented here.


 * Craft et al 2004 make a fairly respectable job of a review. But you have to be careful, the more conclusive points relate to risk from accidents with hypothetical large UF6 releases. These do not easily relate to realistic and common exposures for Gulf War Veterans. Their main conclusion is that further research is needed, perhaps that should be the conclusion of this section too? I don’t think that is the point of view in the current entry.


 * We can balance piece by piece, along the lines of “One particular subgroup of veterans which may be at higher risk comprises those who have internally retained fragments of DU from shrapnel wounds”, but McDiarmid et al have studied this group extensively and found no evidence of clinically significant related health issues in this group.


 * The Wikipedia section starts with “Increased rates of immune system disorders and other wide-ranging symptoms, including chronic pain, fatigue and memory loss, have been reported in over one quarter of combat veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.[80]”. Yet I am not allowed to quote from the follow-up conclusions of that same committee, who all but rule out any connection of Gulf War Illnesses to DU exposure! And your best peer-reviewed source, Craft et al 2004 feebly speculate on hypothetical connections.


 * But this could go on for ever. How much space do you want, and if I have to lose VA, IOM and Royal Society reports you have to surrender media articles and misrepresentation of articles. Selectively citing limited and disputable studies does not prove your point of view either, if a more comprehensive study finds no evidence then that should be taken. Why would those studies be annexed elsewhere? You even want to push your point of view against those of Doyle et al 2006, whom you cite in your support!


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you believe is contradictory about the birth defect data? We have three peer reviewed secondary sources which say that uranium exposure causes birth defects. They are not speculative because they are based on empirical experiments. You have incorrectly characterized Doyle's statement that they were unable to make a connection as asserting that no such connection exists. On the contrary, if you look at the references in Doyle, you will see that they cited none of the abundant studies showing that the connection does exist. You have similarly mischaracterized the 2004 and 2007 literature reviews as relating only to UF6 exposure and having nothing significant to add, respectively, and you completely disregard the plain language of the Hindin et al 2005 epidemiology review. I strongly urge that you become familiar with the secondary literature on this topic. I have a copy of the 2007 review and quite a bit of additional information which I would gladly share with you if you will allow me to go over it with you. Am I correct in assuming that you may be available to meet over lunch in Richmond? If so, name the day and location, and I will bring a copy of the materials I would like to share with you at about 12:15, if that is acceptable to you. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You will really have to spell out the 3 pieces of evidence that you have. I believe I am reasonably familiar with the literature, and have seen nothing that finds an excess of birth defects that can be related to depleted uranium exposure. There needs to be some demonstrably tested evidence to reach the conclusions that you have. At the least you need verifiable data and documented exposure to show a casual relationship, causal is trickier because of other exposures and stresses. You have none of these though.


 * I am not saying that Doyle et al have proved that there is no connection, but that they concluded that there is no evidence for an excess of birth defects in male Gulf War Veterans offspring. These are therefore not a common problem for Gulf War Veterans. They discuss the issues of recall bias and conclude that there is no reliable association of birth defects to depleted uranium exposure. The data is simply not there to show exposure to depleted uranium, so how can you conclude otherwise?


 * I have not mischaracterised Craft et al 2004. I stated that their main conclusions are that more research is needed and that the most conclusive parts relate to the UF6 exposure. Risk assessment is lacking in their other sections, which is crucial for relating in vitro / in vivo experiment data to realistic exposures. Therefore the rest is speculative and untested, pick out the points you think are conclusive for discussion.


 * Back to Hindin et al 2005, science just does not work by thoughtful triangulation. It is about objectively testing evidence.


 * I’ve heard bad things about Richmond so best not meet there. So which group do you belong to? When I’m next in California I’ll be sure to drop by and say hi. Post a few quotes from McCain and Miller 2007, convince me there is some substance to this obscure paper and I’ll see if I can get my own copy. I like to think I have an open mind, but I see too many people trying to prove a point for political gain and not succeeding with the science.


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Those conclusions are drawn from their studies of the peer reviewed literature, which is what the WP:SECONDARY Wikipedia policy says are the most authoritative sources we should use. Triangulation is a long accepted term of art in epidemiology, e.g. There is nothing in Craft et al which suggests that UF6 exposure's teratogenicity is different than any other kind of uranium exposure resulting in serum uranyl.
 * I can scan the Miller and McClain review into bitmaps, but I would like the opportunity to go over it with you. Are you willing to teleconference over Skype, Google Talk, or something similar? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I’ll start by exposing the error of the first part of your statement: “All three explicitly state that uranium exposure causes birth defects…”


 * Craft does not show any evidence of birth defects from veterans. Furthermore he states: “Few studies have examined the effects of DU on human reproductive development”. He cites two studies of uranium miner, one of these found reproductive health issues, but this is a different exposure and these are not birth defects. He then cites a McDiarmid study, which does not find evidence for reproductive health issues in DU exposed veterans. A quote from the abstract of a second McDiarmid study finds subtle effects on the reproductive system, except that Craft misses out the word subtle; these are also not birth defects. The rest are rat and mice studies, but he makes no attempt to evaluate the experimental uranyl exposures against realistic human exposures. The results are mixed, as is his writing! So where is your evidence for birth defects in this review?


 * With regards to genotoxicity, Craft says: “Despite the lack of genotoxic effects resulting from DU exposure, the incidence of cancer has increased markedly in Iraq following the Gulf War.” This contradicts another of your conclusions. Craft accepts a news piece from a journalist as evidence of a cancer increase in Iraq. Unverified data with no evidence of any connection to DU. This is not objective science, his only credible conclusion is to recommend more research!


 * Hindin et al are reliant on the gray literature for their ‘thoughtful triangulation’, which is distinct from triangulation where different lines of verifiable evidence are cross-checked to increase confidence in the conclusions. Hindin has no data for depleted uranium exposure to cross-check!


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Few studies" is not the same as "no studies". Why would anyone have any reason to believe that the ample evidence of birth defects in other mammals Craft et al document is not applicable to humans? There are multiple reports of increased cancer incidences from both 1991 and 2003 incidents of depleted uranium use in Iraq. Have you discussed your critique of Hindin et al with the authors? Their email addresses are readily available and they have not, in my experience, ever failed to respond to queries. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The focus is on objectively reading the articles and not making personal acquaintances with the authors. The animal experiments can not be blindly related to the ‘reported’ human birth defects, which can not be related to their undocumented exposures. The animal exposures are different and need to be evaluated in terms of plausible doses and routes of human exposure. Not even the authors of the papers state the conclusions that you have.


 * I think we have almost exhausted this conversation, so I’m going to try to find time to make the necessary edits and add balancing references over the next few weeks. I hope that you will work with this rather than exclusively pushing your point of view.


 * --Du spécialiste (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only trained epidemiologists who have ever considered the question published after peer review their explicit conclusion that the human birth defects observed are consistent with uranium exposure. You rejected their conclusion, without any sources in support of your opinion.  You have shown that you are unwilling to obtain and read the Miller and McClain 2007 review, even after I offered to share a copy with you (perhaps you should try WP:RX?) and that you were unfamiliar with the epidemiological process of statistical triangulation. You have shown such a poor understanding of the literature that you repeatedly cited incorrect dates and used the wrong pronouns for the authors of the reviews on the topic.  Which conclusions do you believe I have misrepresented?
 * I welcome the opportunity to see what you have to add. I will continue to insist that the article reflect the plain language of the peer reviewed secondary sources. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned User:Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)