![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The way things are going now with the additions I see that we are going down the same path that caused earlier argument in the main article; it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again.
This encyclopedia's founder has made it clear that it was not to serve as a platform for projecting a certain point-of-view. Almost all of the content rules are geared to stop this place from becoming a battleground for opinion. Yet it is becoming abundantly clear to me that at least one editor has no intention of presenting this topic in a neutral manner. He is active off-wiki in this issue, and makes no effort to hide his bias.
I am not going to get into a sterile edit war on this page unless there is some sign that we are trying to create a Wikipedia article instead of a polemic against the nuclear industry in general and the U.S Government in particular. -- DV8 2XL 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"...it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again." Let be ask you outright: James S, will you agree to work NPOV or are you going to continue to try and use this article to forward your personal stand on this topic.? -- DV8 2XL 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
DV8, we all have biases, and many of us are involved in issues off-wiki. The issue is that we work together to write articles from an NPOV. Can you give an explicit example of a case in which you feel that James has engaged in original research, or advanced his POV to the exclusion of others? He has provided plenty of peer-reviewed citations. Perhaps if you have citations that support the safety of DU, preferably (as he suggests below) recent ones, you might want to add those as well. Removal of content will not get anyone anywhere. -- Pak aran 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
DTC 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I’m sure your client enjoys seeing his advocate comparing his stand to that of PETA; an association I am in complete agreement with and thus in the same sprit, I submit a passage that could replace the ‘Health concern’ section of the original article:
(DV8 continues) A small but vocal minority claims that DU causes cancer and birth defects in humans exposed to uranium oxides, claims based more on assertion than proof. These activists, including some with science backgrounds, started to exploit the scientific uncertainties and decry DU as a “crime against God and humanity.” Without any credible health or environmental studies in post-war Iraq on DU, activists have stated the effects are comparable to those of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. Some prominent activists have asserted that not only has the use of DU already caused genocidal effects in Iraq, but that the US uses DU munitions to intentionally inflict genocide on populations. A typical claim was uttered by activist Leuren Moret who works closely with Doug Rokke and other anti-DU extremists; in February 2004 she stated: 'Anyone within 1,000 miles of Iraq; anyone within 1,000 miles of Afghanistan is potentially contaminated now. It’s not just the people [living] in the country. Anyone going to Iraq or Afghanistan now will become contaminated. There’s no way to escape it.'' -- DV8 2XL 13:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
(back left) James, I wish you would stop citing that report, because thats all it is, a report. The authors, juding by their sources, have an obvious and critical bias which make thier conlcusions highly suspect. Their main conlcusion "human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" was not backed by one study they cited. All of the comparision work done on Gulf War Vets, and nondeployed vets found no difference between the tow's offspring. All of thier critical conlcusions were based on anecdotal evidence, and the use of sources like the International Action Center's DU Education Project, which one of the reports contributors writes for, is another reason to consider this suspect at best. DTC 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"CONCLUSION: ...human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" [5]. The authors' conclusion is ridiculous. It suffers from Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). All but one of the human studies cited are based many different studies of Gulf War veterans children and children of locals in the Persian Gulf. The only marginally decent human study that they cite is on uranium workers' children in New Mexico. THEY ADMIT THAT THIS STUDY SHOWED NO INCREASE IN BIRTH DEFECTS. So then they tell us that they reworked the statistics on the raw data so that it does, without giving hard figures or exact methods!! I am highly surprised that this crap even made it to print. EH Journal is not exactly the New England Journal of medicine, though. Dr U 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This section clearly relates to u-238, not DU, therefore I removed. it. DTC 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Where are the RAND, DOD, NEJOM and Sandia studies. DTC 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This edit's comment claims that "UF6 is not DU." On the contrary, more than 95% of all DU is UF6. Please read the sources before jumping to conclusions. -- James S. 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Much is being made here out of how current some research is, and it has being implied (or stated outright) that newer research is somehow more valid that old. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
New results generate a great deal of excitement in the popular press; less so in scientific circles. That is because a very high percentage of new results turn out to be simply wrong. Like wine, scientific theories get better with age, because they have been constantly challenged and survived. And they are not unseated by a single contrary result from a single study – it takes a concerted attack on an established paradigm to topple it. Thus the longer a body of research survives, the more valid the results are presumed. That is not to imply that the newer studies done on this particular issue are necessarily invalid; only like the concept of peer-research, it is no indication of veracity. -- DV8 2XL 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity James, you wouldn't happen to be confusing the term "aerosol" with the term "gas" or "vapor"? DTC 05:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dr U 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page 98, states that, "The taking up of oxygen by U3O8 is not infrequently ignored." -- James S. 06:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I broke the health portion up into three sections. Since it is going to get crowded fast, please lets only cite: conclusions of any study. Notable opinions may warrant more space, but lets keep it as short as possible so the size does not explode. DTC 06:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to bring this discussion to a interim solution, I have created Depleted uranium/basicto include the non-contentious items of this topic (essentially the properties and use of the material) and linked out to a fork Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) which I am beginning to add to with topics like history and later politics of DU. Can we agree to replace the locked page with Depleted uranium/basic, and try and grow Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues)in a pro/con format giving our readers (remember them) both side of the issue and allowing them to weight the evidence? -- DV8 2XL 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not in favor of splitting the article, at least not at its current aggregate size. I am also opposed to splitting out controversial issues -- the general practice, and the specific history of this article, is to include an analysis of the controversy. I am ambivalent about merging the general description and nuclear industry uses into U-238. I am also ambivalent about the seperate health concerns article (in any case, it at present isn't named according to convention -- Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium would be better than the parenthetical form suggesting a hierarchy.) I hope that when a mediator takes this up that we will be able to discuss issues of content before issues of presentation. -- James S. 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ::I have moved Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) to Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium as per James' suggestion. -- DV8 2XL 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
1st: I think its a good idea that the health effects of DU be broken off from the rest of the DU article. At most, I think the DU article should have one or two paragraphs focused on the health effects. Have the rest go of the health effect info go to an article like Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) for the time being, or something like it once we figure a way out of this impass.
2nd: Leaks in UF6 storage canisters under normal storage conditions aren't as seriouse as they would be if UF6 were a gas when the leaks occured. UF6 is not a gas until it reaches 134° F, 57°C 1. It must be heated in order to exract from canisters.
I wouldn't be surprised if UF6 was chemically active in air at STP, but I doubt is would be to bad, it would probably oxidize fast (not nearly as bad as the alkali metals). I don't think its to dangerous unless its heated to its gaseuos form, at which point I've heard (hear-say) that it can strip off flesh "very" quickly.
3rd: Nice pictures, who did you have to petition to get them? I've emailed national labs for permision to use pictures that I find on their websites and I haven't recieved one email back yet.
Lcolson 07:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
After thoroughly reading the evidence on this page, and consulting other resources, I have concluded that DU is worse than any of us thought. I have posted the evidence in the article. If this new evidence doesn't scare you, then you obviously didn't take the time to read it. Dr U 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and don't even think about deleting it, as it is all well-documented and properly referenced. Dr U 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already posted anti-DU info in this article. Clearly I am an anti-DU activist now. I am entitled to edit this version. I believe that the Groves memo weakens our cause, because it doesn't mention URANIUM. Dr U 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
James, your continual insertion of disputed material in this and related article is getting tiresome. The following has been pointed to you repeatedly:
Either abide by the consensus of the other editors, or this will lead to a RfArb. I really hope you seriously reconsider your actions. DTC 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The way things are going now with the additions I see that we are going down the same path that caused earlier argument in the main article; it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again.
This encyclopedia's founder has made it clear that it was not to serve as a platform for projecting a certain point-of-view. Almost all of the content rules are geared to stop this place from becoming a battleground for opinion. Yet it is becoming abundantly clear to me that at least one editor has no intention of presenting this topic in a neutral manner. He is active off-wiki in this issue, and makes no effort to hide his bias.
I am not going to get into a sterile edit war on this page unless there is some sign that we are trying to create a Wikipedia article instead of a polemic against the nuclear industry in general and the U.S Government in particular. -- DV8 2XL 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"...it is beginning to read like an anti DU pamphlet again." Let be ask you outright: James S, will you agree to work NPOV or are you going to continue to try and use this article to forward your personal stand on this topic.? -- DV8 2XL 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
DV8, we all have biases, and many of us are involved in issues off-wiki. The issue is that we work together to write articles from an NPOV. Can you give an explicit example of a case in which you feel that James has engaged in original research, or advanced his POV to the exclusion of others? He has provided plenty of peer-reviewed citations. Perhaps if you have citations that support the safety of DU, preferably (as he suggests below) recent ones, you might want to add those as well. Removal of content will not get anyone anywhere. -- Pak aran 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
DTC 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I’m sure your client enjoys seeing his advocate comparing his stand to that of PETA; an association I am in complete agreement with and thus in the same sprit, I submit a passage that could replace the ‘Health concern’ section of the original article:
(DV8 continues) A small but vocal minority claims that DU causes cancer and birth defects in humans exposed to uranium oxides, claims based more on assertion than proof. These activists, including some with science backgrounds, started to exploit the scientific uncertainties and decry DU as a “crime against God and humanity.” Without any credible health or environmental studies in post-war Iraq on DU, activists have stated the effects are comparable to those of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. Some prominent activists have asserted that not only has the use of DU already caused genocidal effects in Iraq, but that the US uses DU munitions to intentionally inflict genocide on populations. A typical claim was uttered by activist Leuren Moret who works closely with Doug Rokke and other anti-DU extremists; in February 2004 she stated: 'Anyone within 1,000 miles of Iraq; anyone within 1,000 miles of Afghanistan is potentially contaminated now. It’s not just the people [living] in the country. Anyone going to Iraq or Afghanistan now will become contaminated. There’s no way to escape it.'' -- DV8 2XL 13:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
(back left) James, I wish you would stop citing that report, because thats all it is, a report. The authors, juding by their sources, have an obvious and critical bias which make thier conlcusions highly suspect. Their main conlcusion "human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" was not backed by one study they cited. All of the comparision work done on Gulf War Vets, and nondeployed vets found no difference between the tow's offspring. All of thier critical conlcusions were based on anecdotal evidence, and the use of sources like the International Action Center's DU Education Project, which one of the reports contributors writes for, is another reason to consider this suspect at best. DTC 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"CONCLUSION: ...human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects" [5]. The authors' conclusion is ridiculous. It suffers from Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). All but one of the human studies cited are based many different studies of Gulf War veterans children and children of locals in the Persian Gulf. The only marginally decent human study that they cite is on uranium workers' children in New Mexico. THEY ADMIT THAT THIS STUDY SHOWED NO INCREASE IN BIRTH DEFECTS. So then they tell us that they reworked the statistics on the raw data so that it does, without giving hard figures or exact methods!! I am highly surprised that this crap even made it to print. EH Journal is not exactly the New England Journal of medicine, though. Dr U 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This section clearly relates to u-238, not DU, therefore I removed. it. DTC 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Where are the RAND, DOD, NEJOM and Sandia studies. DTC 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This edit's comment claims that "UF6 is not DU." On the contrary, more than 95% of all DU is UF6. Please read the sources before jumping to conclusions. -- James S. 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Much is being made here out of how current some research is, and it has being implied (or stated outright) that newer research is somehow more valid that old. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
New results generate a great deal of excitement in the popular press; less so in scientific circles. That is because a very high percentage of new results turn out to be simply wrong. Like wine, scientific theories get better with age, because they have been constantly challenged and survived. And they are not unseated by a single contrary result from a single study – it takes a concerted attack on an established paradigm to topple it. Thus the longer a body of research survives, the more valid the results are presumed. That is not to imply that the newer studies done on this particular issue are necessarily invalid; only like the concept of peer-research, it is no indication of veracity. -- DV8 2XL 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity James, you wouldn't happen to be confusing the term "aerosol" with the term "gas" or "vapor"? DTC 05:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dr U 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page 98, states that, "The taking up of oxygen by U3O8 is not infrequently ignored." -- James S. 06:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I broke the health portion up into three sections. Since it is going to get crowded fast, please lets only cite: conclusions of any study. Notable opinions may warrant more space, but lets keep it as short as possible so the size does not explode. DTC 06:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to bring this discussion to a interim solution, I have created Depleted uranium/basicto include the non-contentious items of this topic (essentially the properties and use of the material) and linked out to a fork Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) which I am beginning to add to with topics like history and later politics of DU. Can we agree to replace the locked page with Depleted uranium/basic, and try and grow Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues)in a pro/con format giving our readers (remember them) both side of the issue and allowing them to weight the evidence? -- DV8 2XL 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not in favor of splitting the article, at least not at its current aggregate size. I am also opposed to splitting out controversial issues -- the general practice, and the specific history of this article, is to include an analysis of the controversy. I am ambivalent about merging the general description and nuclear industry uses into U-238. I am also ambivalent about the seperate health concerns article (in any case, it at present isn't named according to convention -- Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium would be better than the parenthetical form suggesting a hierarchy.) I hope that when a mediator takes this up that we will be able to discuss issues of content before issues of presentation. -- James S. 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ::I have moved Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) to Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium as per James' suggestion. -- DV8 2XL 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
1st: I think its a good idea that the health effects of DU be broken off from the rest of the DU article. At most, I think the DU article should have one or two paragraphs focused on the health effects. Have the rest go of the health effect info go to an article like Depleted uranium (Health and environmental issues) for the time being, or something like it once we figure a way out of this impass.
2nd: Leaks in UF6 storage canisters under normal storage conditions aren't as seriouse as they would be if UF6 were a gas when the leaks occured. UF6 is not a gas until it reaches 134° F, 57°C 1. It must be heated in order to exract from canisters.
I wouldn't be surprised if UF6 was chemically active in air at STP, but I doubt is would be to bad, it would probably oxidize fast (not nearly as bad as the alkali metals). I don't think its to dangerous unless its heated to its gaseuos form, at which point I've heard (hear-say) that it can strip off flesh "very" quickly.
3rd: Nice pictures, who did you have to petition to get them? I've emailed national labs for permision to use pictures that I find on their websites and I haven't recieved one email back yet.
Lcolson 07:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
After thoroughly reading the evidence on this page, and consulting other resources, I have concluded that DU is worse than any of us thought. I have posted the evidence in the article. If this new evidence doesn't scare you, then you obviously didn't take the time to read it. Dr U 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and don't even think about deleting it, as it is all well-documented and properly referenced. Dr U 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already posted anti-DU info in this article. Clearly I am an anti-DU activist now. I am entitled to edit this version. I believe that the Groves memo weakens our cause, because it doesn't mention URANIUM. Dr U 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
James, your continual insertion of disputed material in this and related article is getting tiresome. The following has been pointed to you repeatedly:
Either abide by the consensus of the other editors, or this will lead to a RfArb. I really hope you seriously reconsider your actions. DTC 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)