![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Badagnani, I understand your desire to replace the missing text, but much of what you are replacing is already in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium.
I realize that you didn't participate in the mediation discussions, but you had every opportunity to and plenty of notice if you were watching the talk page. Please respect the consensus settlement decision to split the articles. If you can't, them please at least explain why not. -- James S. 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do think the Health concerns section here should be more than three sentences and a link. -- James S. 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What part of 'we split the topic because it was too damned big' don't you people get. Go and read the other article, it has much more detail on the negative issues than this one ever did. It also covers the politics and history of DU use, something that was never here. This is just about the material it is not written in support of it's use, just the applications that it is found in. And we link out to the other topic no less than three times; are you suggesting that our readers are too stupid to follow a hyper-link? -- DV8 2XL 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation link at the top is a great solution. -- James S. 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani your revisionist version of what happened here is an outright attempt at dissemination. It does not reflect the debate that went on here for the last six weeks. It does not assume good faith. For the record JamesS was not forced into arbitration, but agreed to a voluntary process called mediation. The chemist, the engineer, the physician, and the metallurgist, that were party to this actually have contributed to the new topic bring up even more negative aspects of DU than was ever in the original article. On top of which this debate was carried out publicly, not via e-mail, so that everyone interested could have input - yet all of you left James to twist in the wind by himself and only show up to try and destroy a compromise that took as much effort on his part as any of the other principals.-- DV8 2XL 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Copied here for explanation:
The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
|
This is posted to serve notice that as per the agreement at depleted uranium I will defend this article from any attempt to remove content that is properly referenced and verifiable as such. -- DV8 2XL 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
DV8, it looks like this is your show - I am new to wikipedia, so I dont know how to fix it, but it seems the links are a bit off... Link #53 sends the reader to the DU battlefield effectiveness story (although a secondary source) and link #52, in the area of the text dealing with the battlefield effectiveness of US DU tanks, sends the hapless reader (me) to a medical text. 17:00 CST, 6 February 2006.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the FOIA was considered original research. Ten Dead Chickens 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To clear a few things up: Sandia is "managed" by Lockheed, not funded. Thats like saying the cafeteria at work is "funded" by Aramark when they just run it.
Secondly, I went over the CDC tox profile for sulfur mustard, and once again, the only referecnes to birth defects in humans I found was statment that there was no information available, and all information on birth defects was via animal studies. Please provide a "specific" page in which you found the material.
Lastly, with respect to the Marshal Study, you put in the follwoing text:
All these issues were in fact considered in the report. Have you read it? Ten Dead Chickens 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
particulate do not show an increase in health effects of any type, relative to the general population (refer to Appendix D). The evidence for other chemically induced DU effects is not, at present, well established."
Check out what GNC is selling: http://www.drugstore.com/qxp88904_333181_sespider/gnc/liquid_multi_colloidal_minerals.htm
They don't seem to be alone. I'm sure that it has as much uranium in it as a pinch of average topsoil, but the fact that they're able to market it as a health suppliment shows that Congress and the FDA are asleep at the wheel. Dr U 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless I can convince myself that "Dr U" who claims to be an M.D. can justify any of the edits he seems intent on, then I will ask for a return to mediation. ---- James S. 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, MY edits? The anonymous edits are the ones that substantially deviate from the original version. Each of mine were justified in detail, and made one at a time, and were primarily directed toward cleaning text or reducing reference to mustard gas, which is a strawman argument. SOMEBODY else, logging in anonymously made RIDICULOUS edits. Dr U 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation page is here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by DV8 2XL ( talk • contribs)
I read up on DU while serving in the Army back in the 80's. We used DU in our tank ammunition (still do). I also tested the rounds with a Geiger counter. Even held against the round, the counter only registered background radiation. Our manuals gave us some rather interesting instructions regarding what to do if one of our tanks gets blown up. The manuals explained that the DU would oxidize (burn), and the burned DU was a threat. We were to treat the burning tank as an NBC threat with MOPP2 10 meters upwind and 610 meters downwind. MOPP2 means charcoal protective suits and gas masks. Some of the guys took this to mean that oxidized DU was a radiation threat, but I don't think a simple chemical reaction has any effect on atomic decay. I think the threat was from heavy metal poisoning. It's simple enough to find DU on Iraq's battlefields. I've seen video of reporters pointing out pieces on camera. However, I have yet to see a clever young journalist hold a Geiger counter to a piece of DU and get excited about the meter count. And I doubt that's because we have a shortage of clever young journalists. They probably tried it and found they had a non-story. I suspect the real threat here is the DU and DU oxide dust in the environment causing heavy metal poisoning in a manner similar to lead, cadmium, etc. And the real question is how significant is the poisoning? To answer this, we must go backwards and look at where DU has been manufactured and used and see if the workers have demonstrated unfortunately high levels of medical problems. After all, folks working around the stuff are going to be the ones dropping dead first - if at all. Cheers, Rklawton 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Rklawton mentions that the ammunition rounds have a titanium case: this is presumably to protect against corrosion, but would also have the effect of stopping any alpha radiation escaping. Bloody military, a good coat of paint would serve equally well for both purposes at a fraction of the cost! The CSM reported, on the other hand, was measuring munition fragments, which would obviously no longer have the casing, and he was measuring them very close up so that the alpha particles were not stopped by the air. In such circumstances, yes, you would get a higher reading. To get a background reading, he would merely have had to take a step backwards. Physchim62 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is also one of context: the readings can be "very high" in the sense that there are children playing around these things, people eating and drinking nearby etc, and still be "relatively low" on the scale of radiological dangers. There is a little bit of journalistic hyperbole in the article, but not so much that I could really criticise the reporter: the situation is, to say the least, worrying. Physchim62 (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to forking this article because:
I also object to the absurdly long title of the fork. I will continue to merge. -- James S. 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, there are now scans of new source articles in:
http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/
-- James S. 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved nuclear energy and nuclear weapons applications out to uranium 238 since it is the isotopic properities of the material that are relevant to these uses, not the source. -- DV8 2XL 04:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Some scientific studies usually found no link: drop the usually. I'd do it myself, but seeing the dispute, perhaps the intent was to mislead the reader into reading Scientific studies usually found no link instead, so I'm leaving the edit to the Powers That Be Depleted. ;] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.245.70.224 ( talk • contribs) .
I have data from 95 and 2000. This suggests that there should be data from 2005. Dr. Margaret A. K. Ryan would rather we look at lengthy tables showing no effect of marriage on congenital malformation rates. So, if the arbitrators say we have to get verification from those Iraqi doctors with the gross-out photos, then don't say I didn't warn you. -- James S. 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak to the accuracy dispute, but the general quality of the writing in this article is atrocious; the editors involved seem to have been more interested in scoring debating points than in conveying factual information to the reader. Adding proper reference citations (probably on a per-section basis) would help, although I would argue most of the major sections in this article ought to be articles in themselves, particularly if the controversy prevents effective summarization. In general I think this article tries to do too much: it is not the place of a Wikipedia article to be a general review of the scientific literature on a subject; IMHO that's original research. 121a0012 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As a casual first time reader of this article, I agree with the '121a0012' comments. Initial impressions are that sections that represent some people's POV seems over-stuffed with citations, redundant and off-topic information. If contributors want to effectively communicate that DU is a health hazard and that governments that use it are criminals then summerized the most powerful arguments. IMHO, some suggested changes to make this article more readable:
-- MarsRover 02:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
From the section on nuclear weapons: "The use of U-235 in nuclear weapons has been superseded by plutonium fueled devices. However the production of plutonium itself requires enriched uranium as a feedstock."
Is this true of all reactors, or merely of light-water reactors? The CANDU heavy-water design can produce power commercially using unenriched uranium; presumably some amount of plutonium would be present as a byproduct of the fission reaction? -- carlb 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
UO3 vapor; Total inhalation exposure; Teratogenicity; Neurotoxicity; Carcinogenicity; and other questions from "Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?" to "Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?" ( history.) -- James S. 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Do any factual disputes remain? -- James S. 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Factual disputes remains!! First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standart conditions. Only at temperatures above 1000° (Ackermann) and at low pressure (all MS studies) Intrinsic stability is never a good creteria for the real world chemistry during combustion reactions. There is no other studie showing it. The linarity of the log pressure to 1000/T diagramm gives the pest hint for the UO3 I can see, but at standart conditions this would make a U03 pressure of 10 -56 atm (nothing would fit best for this number).
Mixing the Ackermann paper wich has no experimental data for 2500°C (ending with 1600°C) with the burning temperatur of Uranium from another paper above 2500°is primary research and has no place in Wikipedia. The phase diagramm for Oxygen and Uranium is discribed as complicated and chalenging but well researched ( U02 and the other oxides have high importance in the nuclear fuell cycle!)in most literature (Gmelin), so why are you so sure that they overlook something so important than a U03 gas which would be a better oportunity for enrichment than the toxix chalenging dangerous waterinstable UF6. Factual disputes remains!!-- Stone 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How many different kinds of possible spills are there? What are the top three ways to secure each kind of a spill site? -- James S. 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The Uranium trioxid GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product!-- Stone 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I spent some time cleaning the article up. It is now more concise and removed a large portion of the POV and diputed info [ [2]]. The article is much better now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have found it dificult to reason with ER MD. -- James S. 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that this article is absolutely stuffed full of misinformation, propoganda,irrelevent material and POV. It could not possibly be used as a reliable source of information. Could it not be edited to include factual information about the subject only? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
195.92.168.176 (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As facts are added, or checked, please alter the inline URL notes into Wikipedia:footnotes. This aids long term maintainance of the article because when a URL is changed it is much easier to find a replacement if the Author, Title and Date is included between in the <ref></ref> than just the inline URLs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has rearranged the article to downplay the health concerns. The reason given was that it is POV to put the health concerns near the beginning of the article. However, the same applies to tucking away the health concerns near the end of the article. The question is, should the health concerns be mentioned early in the article, or not? What do others think? Michael Glass 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Even with berylilium, plutonium, fluorineand even chlorine which was used as chemical weapon, the order is this way. So lets leave it that way.-- Stone 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone interested can see what an MD/PHD and other professionals have said about these alleged and exagerated health problems:
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/library?source=*&library=PRM_2026_public&file=*&st=petitions-a
I found Dr. Nancy Standler, MD/PHD's perspective particulary insightful. Some of these respondents included original documents from research refuting these claims, so save a trip to the library, and read these documents first.
Comrade Lenin 08:44, 29 April 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Badagnani, I understand your desire to replace the missing text, but much of what you are replacing is already in Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium.
I realize that you didn't participate in the mediation discussions, but you had every opportunity to and plenty of notice if you were watching the talk page. Please respect the consensus settlement decision to split the articles. If you can't, them please at least explain why not. -- James S. 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do think the Health concerns section here should be more than three sentences and a link. -- James S. 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What part of 'we split the topic because it was too damned big' don't you people get. Go and read the other article, it has much more detail on the negative issues than this one ever did. It also covers the politics and history of DU use, something that was never here. This is just about the material it is not written in support of it's use, just the applications that it is found in. And we link out to the other topic no less than three times; are you suggesting that our readers are too stupid to follow a hyper-link? -- DV8 2XL 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation link at the top is a great solution. -- James S. 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani your revisionist version of what happened here is an outright attempt at dissemination. It does not reflect the debate that went on here for the last six weeks. It does not assume good faith. For the record JamesS was not forced into arbitration, but agreed to a voluntary process called mediation. The chemist, the engineer, the physician, and the metallurgist, that were party to this actually have contributed to the new topic bring up even more negative aspects of DU than was ever in the original article. On top of which this debate was carried out publicly, not via e-mail, so that everyone interested could have input - yet all of you left James to twist in the wind by himself and only show up to try and destroy a compromise that took as much effort on his part as any of the other principals.-- DV8 2XL 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Copied here for explanation:
The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
|
This is posted to serve notice that as per the agreement at depleted uranium I will defend this article from any attempt to remove content that is properly referenced and verifiable as such. -- DV8 2XL 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
DV8, it looks like this is your show - I am new to wikipedia, so I dont know how to fix it, but it seems the links are a bit off... Link #53 sends the reader to the DU battlefield effectiveness story (although a secondary source) and link #52, in the area of the text dealing with the battlefield effectiveness of US DU tanks, sends the hapless reader (me) to a medical text. 17:00 CST, 6 February 2006.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the FOIA was considered original research. Ten Dead Chickens 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To clear a few things up: Sandia is "managed" by Lockheed, not funded. Thats like saying the cafeteria at work is "funded" by Aramark when they just run it.
Secondly, I went over the CDC tox profile for sulfur mustard, and once again, the only referecnes to birth defects in humans I found was statment that there was no information available, and all information on birth defects was via animal studies. Please provide a "specific" page in which you found the material.
Lastly, with respect to the Marshal Study, you put in the follwoing text:
All these issues were in fact considered in the report. Have you read it? Ten Dead Chickens 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
particulate do not show an increase in health effects of any type, relative to the general population (refer to Appendix D). The evidence for other chemically induced DU effects is not, at present, well established."
Check out what GNC is selling: http://www.drugstore.com/qxp88904_333181_sespider/gnc/liquid_multi_colloidal_minerals.htm
They don't seem to be alone. I'm sure that it has as much uranium in it as a pinch of average topsoil, but the fact that they're able to market it as a health suppliment shows that Congress and the FDA are asleep at the wheel. Dr U 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless I can convince myself that "Dr U" who claims to be an M.D. can justify any of the edits he seems intent on, then I will ask for a return to mediation. ---- James S. 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, MY edits? The anonymous edits are the ones that substantially deviate from the original version. Each of mine were justified in detail, and made one at a time, and were primarily directed toward cleaning text or reducing reference to mustard gas, which is a strawman argument. SOMEBODY else, logging in anonymously made RIDICULOUS edits. Dr U 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation page is here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by DV8 2XL ( talk • contribs)
I read up on DU while serving in the Army back in the 80's. We used DU in our tank ammunition (still do). I also tested the rounds with a Geiger counter. Even held against the round, the counter only registered background radiation. Our manuals gave us some rather interesting instructions regarding what to do if one of our tanks gets blown up. The manuals explained that the DU would oxidize (burn), and the burned DU was a threat. We were to treat the burning tank as an NBC threat with MOPP2 10 meters upwind and 610 meters downwind. MOPP2 means charcoal protective suits and gas masks. Some of the guys took this to mean that oxidized DU was a radiation threat, but I don't think a simple chemical reaction has any effect on atomic decay. I think the threat was from heavy metal poisoning. It's simple enough to find DU on Iraq's battlefields. I've seen video of reporters pointing out pieces on camera. However, I have yet to see a clever young journalist hold a Geiger counter to a piece of DU and get excited about the meter count. And I doubt that's because we have a shortage of clever young journalists. They probably tried it and found they had a non-story. I suspect the real threat here is the DU and DU oxide dust in the environment causing heavy metal poisoning in a manner similar to lead, cadmium, etc. And the real question is how significant is the poisoning? To answer this, we must go backwards and look at where DU has been manufactured and used and see if the workers have demonstrated unfortunately high levels of medical problems. After all, folks working around the stuff are going to be the ones dropping dead first - if at all. Cheers, Rklawton 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Rklawton mentions that the ammunition rounds have a titanium case: this is presumably to protect against corrosion, but would also have the effect of stopping any alpha radiation escaping. Bloody military, a good coat of paint would serve equally well for both purposes at a fraction of the cost! The CSM reported, on the other hand, was measuring munition fragments, which would obviously no longer have the casing, and he was measuring them very close up so that the alpha particles were not stopped by the air. In such circumstances, yes, you would get a higher reading. To get a background reading, he would merely have had to take a step backwards. Physchim62 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is also one of context: the readings can be "very high" in the sense that there are children playing around these things, people eating and drinking nearby etc, and still be "relatively low" on the scale of radiological dangers. There is a little bit of journalistic hyperbole in the article, but not so much that I could really criticise the reporter: the situation is, to say the least, worrying. Physchim62 (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to forking this article because:
I also object to the absurdly long title of the fork. I will continue to merge. -- James S. 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, there are now scans of new source articles in:
http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/
-- James S. 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved nuclear energy and nuclear weapons applications out to uranium 238 since it is the isotopic properities of the material that are relevant to these uses, not the source. -- DV8 2XL 04:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Some scientific studies usually found no link: drop the usually. I'd do it myself, but seeing the dispute, perhaps the intent was to mislead the reader into reading Scientific studies usually found no link instead, so I'm leaving the edit to the Powers That Be Depleted. ;] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.245.70.224 ( talk • contribs) .
I have data from 95 and 2000. This suggests that there should be data from 2005. Dr. Margaret A. K. Ryan would rather we look at lengthy tables showing no effect of marriage on congenital malformation rates. So, if the arbitrators say we have to get verification from those Iraqi doctors with the gross-out photos, then don't say I didn't warn you. -- James S. 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak to the accuracy dispute, but the general quality of the writing in this article is atrocious; the editors involved seem to have been more interested in scoring debating points than in conveying factual information to the reader. Adding proper reference citations (probably on a per-section basis) would help, although I would argue most of the major sections in this article ought to be articles in themselves, particularly if the controversy prevents effective summarization. In general I think this article tries to do too much: it is not the place of a Wikipedia article to be a general review of the scientific literature on a subject; IMHO that's original research. 121a0012 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As a casual first time reader of this article, I agree with the '121a0012' comments. Initial impressions are that sections that represent some people's POV seems over-stuffed with citations, redundant and off-topic information. If contributors want to effectively communicate that DU is a health hazard and that governments that use it are criminals then summerized the most powerful arguments. IMHO, some suggested changes to make this article more readable:
-- MarsRover 02:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
From the section on nuclear weapons: "The use of U-235 in nuclear weapons has been superseded by plutonium fueled devices. However the production of plutonium itself requires enriched uranium as a feedstock."
Is this true of all reactors, or merely of light-water reactors? The CANDU heavy-water design can produce power commercially using unenriched uranium; presumably some amount of plutonium would be present as a byproduct of the fission reaction? -- carlb 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
UO3 vapor; Total inhalation exposure; Teratogenicity; Neurotoxicity; Carcinogenicity; and other questions from "Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?" to "Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?" ( history.) -- James S. 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Do any factual disputes remain? -- James S. 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Factual disputes remains!! First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standart conditions. Only at temperatures above 1000° (Ackermann) and at low pressure (all MS studies) Intrinsic stability is never a good creteria for the real world chemistry during combustion reactions. There is no other studie showing it. The linarity of the log pressure to 1000/T diagramm gives the pest hint for the UO3 I can see, but at standart conditions this would make a U03 pressure of 10 -56 atm (nothing would fit best for this number).
Mixing the Ackermann paper wich has no experimental data for 2500°C (ending with 1600°C) with the burning temperatur of Uranium from another paper above 2500°is primary research and has no place in Wikipedia. The phase diagramm for Oxygen and Uranium is discribed as complicated and chalenging but well researched ( U02 and the other oxides have high importance in the nuclear fuell cycle!)in most literature (Gmelin), so why are you so sure that they overlook something so important than a U03 gas which would be a better oportunity for enrichment than the toxix chalenging dangerous waterinstable UF6. Factual disputes remains!!-- Stone 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How many different kinds of possible spills are there? What are the top three ways to secure each kind of a spill site? -- James S. 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The Uranium trioxid GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product!-- Stone 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I spent some time cleaning the article up. It is now more concise and removed a large portion of the POV and diputed info [ [2]]. The article is much better now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have found it dificult to reason with ER MD. -- James S. 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that this article is absolutely stuffed full of misinformation, propoganda,irrelevent material and POV. It could not possibly be used as a reliable source of information. Could it not be edited to include factual information about the subject only? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
195.92.168.176 (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As facts are added, or checked, please alter the inline URL notes into Wikipedia:footnotes. This aids long term maintainance of the article because when a URL is changed it is much easier to find a replacement if the Author, Title and Date is included between in the <ref></ref> than just the inline URLs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has rearranged the article to downplay the health concerns. The reason given was that it is POV to put the health concerns near the beginning of the article. However, the same applies to tucking away the health concerns near the end of the article. The question is, should the health concerns be mentioned early in the article, or not? What do others think? Michael Glass 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Even with berylilium, plutonium, fluorineand even chlorine which was used as chemical weapon, the order is this way. So lets leave it that way.-- Stone 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone interested can see what an MD/PHD and other professionals have said about these alleged and exagerated health problems:
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/library?source=*&library=PRM_2026_public&file=*&st=petitions-a
I found Dr. Nancy Standler, MD/PHD's perspective particulary insightful. Some of these respondents included original documents from research refuting these claims, so save a trip to the library, and read these documents first.
Comrade Lenin 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)