![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Archived previous discussions -- DV8 2XL 18:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
After I added the following reference
User Dr Zak reverted this edit several times and wrote this on my talk page:
"This looks like a rather tendentious book", "doesn't really pass the mark" -- You should prove your accusations first. Feelings and impressions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion and cannot serve as a substitute for a proof. This attributes to your feelings as well. Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther was the first scientist who did an investigation on the consequences of the bombardment with depleted uranium in Iraq. If you want to outline the effects of this weapon, you should know about the results he found. -- DenisDiderot 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Professor Guenther wrote two books on the subject: War Eye-Witness and Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children, both of which describe and illustrate the influence of Uranium on the children and their relatives. He also gave a lecture in Washington, which was attended by officers from the Pentagon on the influence of Uranium and the mortality percentages among the Iraqi children.
Siegwart-Horst Guenther:
Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther put his life on line for the truth. He was the first scientist who travelled to the Gulf battlefields to independently study health effects of DU. He predicted in a March 3rd, 2000, interview for “junge Welt” that a significant rise in DU casualty cases from Kosovo would start about March 2001. In the meantime, a message was circulated on the Internet that German authorities denied Günther medical help with his cancer.
Günther was arrested and maltreated in June 1995, following an anti-DU crusade. He remained under police supervision one year after release. On January 4th, 1999, he was told by a German court that, if necessary, he would be forcefully taken to a closed psychiatric institution. The authorities showed they were very nervous indeed about DU truth getting out into the open.
Professor Günther also travelled to Libya, where in 1986 A-10 aircraft attacked the residence of Qadhafi and a coastal town – the site of an alleged chemical weapons plant. In both areas Günther observed cases of leukemia and deformed babies. The same symptoms plus skin sickness and miscarriages were observed in the vicinity of the crash sites of A-10 aircraft at Ramsheid in Germany in 1988 and El-Al cargo plane in Amsterdam suburbs in 1992. Dutch NGOs found DU contamination in soil samples from the crash site.
Professor Guenther called upon the UN to prohibit the use of Uranium, which is used widely by the US, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Russia and Saudi Arabia. He recommended [that] all the afflicted Iraqi children demand compensation from Germany, because the technology for this weapon came from Germany [even though] it was produced in America. -- DenisDiderot 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Professor Guenther is a medical scientist who did toxological studies in Iraq and published his results in several books. He inspired many researchers to delve further into the subject and their results confirm his findings:
...and many others. -- DenisDiderot 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A very large amount of text was added to the article by 71.146.89.91 ( talk • contribs) ( diff). I've reverted it, as most of it was a cut and paste ("do not copy" notice intact), and all of it should be vetted by the various registered editors tracking this article. -- Christopher Thomas 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Some further info re: my fact tag - the health concerns section currently reads:
The only support currently offered for that statement is a 2005 Hindin article. The article looks good, but it doesn't support the statements about cancer or CNS damage. Hinden and her co-authors do state:
However, they don't say anything about cancer or CNS damage. Thanks, TheronJ 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed that someone has altered the text by adding some hidden text into this section baout the removal of UN sources of data. Please could the person who added the remarks please remind us of what sources were removed. Cadmium 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UCT)
I have not been watching this page recently, because I thought that this section had bedded in. I am surprised to come back and find that all the referenced paragraphs have been removed and replaced with a section which does not have one citation to support what is there currently.
I am going to restore the legal section to "Revision as of 14:02, 12 May 2006" as it was before DV8 2XL made very big changes to it.
To removed the ICJ and to describe a Carla del Ponte the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as a "minor UN functionary" a bit surprising. Now as Badagnani says if anyone would like to go through it point by point and suggest modifications, improvements with new citations. I am more than willing to help improve the section. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not the usual way to cite sources, sorry I did not recognise it as such, particularly as it does not support much of what is written above it. For example how does one square this paragraph as was in Wikipedia:
With the source when in ILDU Section "2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW" the author writes:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you (DV8 2XL) are confused, as your edit do include the paragraph without mentioning the statement made in the source: "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties." and as far as I can tell you never put it in as a quote.
This edit was reverted [20:10, 12 May 2006 Badagnani (Put brakes on deletions / POV rewrite.)] you then reverted this edit [20:16, 12 May 2006 DV8 2XL (Revert - I was working on the explanation as you reverted)] this revision was reverted [20:36, 12 May 2006 FayssalF m (Reverted edits by DV8 2XL (talk) to last version by Badagnani)
In your next major edit of this section, when you restored similar text to that reverted by FayssalF was Revision as of 20:47, 12 May 2006 ->Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL there is no mention of the phrase However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties. and the text you added is not in quotes
The next major edit of this section Revision as of 08:01, 14 May 2006, Give Peace A Chance. The next change was Revision as of 15:47, 17 May 2006, Cadmium This edit was criticised and edited 19:01, 18 May 2006 ER MD, Legal status in weapons - should not stat a main parapgraph with "it" where did people learn their writing? ER MD followed this up with another edit on the section to fix a simple typo. As can be see from that typo edit by ER MD to the one immediately before my reversal not significant changes to the last two paragraphs of the section were made: Revision as of 19:02, 18 May 2006, ER MD ->Revision as of 19:37, 6 June 2006, DV8 2XL.So the text of the last paragraph immediately before I reverted:
was largely what you wrote when you replaced the previous text (see above Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL) which I restored. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW the version which ER MD wrote to replace mine, looks very similar to your entry [4] and that edit also missed out the line in the source "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties.", and the tart comment in the history [21:55, 7 June 2006 ER MD (→Legal status in weapons - "Yeung Sik Yuen writies" huh? this section is not encyclopedic)], is rather similar to what you wrote above "There were also a number of quotes from minor UN functionaries stating basically that nothing in the existing treaty structure made DU illegal". Do you use both user names when editing this article, or has the User:ER MD nothing to do with you other than preferring your version of the legal status? -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
From my talk page [5]:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found some papers on the effects of uranium on animal reproduction. I hope to be able to add it soon to the page. Cadmium
Recent addition from anon user may likely be JamesS, a user who was banned from editing the article. Although a checkuser request has not been initiated, an IP whois shows this IP address sources to a server also used by James. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about some of the recent edits done in the last twenty-four hours. While I know this material is covered in other topics I'm not convinced that this means that we shouldn't have a two or three paragraph summery here. The more vocal critics of the edits done since the end of the ArbCom case have accused us of gutting information from this topic and burying it away; I'm afraid that I find myself agreeing with them after today. Do we have some idea where we are going here? --03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The words Pop Culture are short popular culture. As in popular. As in a lot of average people have experienced or are aware of such trends. I feel that the references listed would be better categorized as obscure subculture. I do not think they are relevant. Give Peace A Chance 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It really is an error to talk of DU as if it was a separate entity from uranium when referring to its chemo-toxic profile. -- DV8 2XL 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you blanked my answer, and it wasn't a dodge, I made the edits, another user reverted me saying the article was about DU, I reverted back and explained myself here. I thought your question was a rhetorical one - no ones attempting to minimize the radiological hazards of uranium or its daughters - it's just not germain to this article.-- DV8 2XL 12:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Atlant, my comment was in support of an edit I made where I replaced the term DU in several places with 'uranium'. That's because in the health section we are concerned primarily with the material's chemo-toxic issues not the radiological ones. -- DV8 2XL 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that some aspects of the chemical toxicity of DU are caused by certain compounds of uranium created in the explosion and inhaled as dust, not the elementary uranium. So it is quite misleading and unchemical to talk about uranium as a substance (suggesting the elementary substance) instead of depleted uranium as a weapon (which implies compounds and impurities). -- DenisDiderot 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Have we come to any consensus here as to whether the term DU is equivalent to uranium? My edits were re-reverted and I'm three reverts in on this article today. -- DV8 2XL 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a new intro to the section which should keep everyone happy. (I hope) -- DV8 2XL 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You can find several links to references on the topic of contaminated DU in ammunition in the second paragraph of Military applications section of the main article mentioning the issue. They have been there for some months now, I know - I put them there. -- DV8 2XL 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There is of course in the context of Wikipedia, a limit to how much speculation we can do; we can only report what we can verify. In this instance (contaminated DU) however, I would more inclined to look at the manufacturer of the rounds instead of the military. -- DV8 2XL 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Basically never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- DV8 2XL 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
From Depleted Uranium in Urine of Soldiers by the WISE Uranium Project:
Is DU more hazardous than natural uranium, since it contains contaminants such as uranium-236, plutonium-239, etc.?
No. Depleted uranium used for bullets has been found to contain trace amounts of artificial radionuclides, such as uranium-236, neptunium-237, and plutonium-239. The presence of these radionuclides can be explained by contamination from recycling of spent fuel introduced in the manufacturing process; for details, see [Diehl 2002]. The radiation dose from exposure to such contaminated DU is only a fraction of a percent higher than from pure DU - and thus still is lower than from natural uranium; for details, see [Diehl 2001].
-- DV8 2XL 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we all agree that some of the DU used did contain isotopes other than U-238 and traces of its daughters Th-234 etc, so we could add something to the Np section of the actinides in the environment. I would be glad to see Badagnani and DV8 2XL working together on this topic. I think that while they can not fully agree on how/why the other actinides ended up in the DU they both will be able to make a contributuion. Cadmium
Okay: did some modifications to make the section NPOV. Reads much better now. ER MD 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Philip: nobody agrees with your entry. Its POV, poorly written, un-encyclopedic, and you fail to explain the changes. ER MD 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My chages! I reverted to a version that was here as of 14:02, 12 May 2006 -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
But then you (ER MD) knew that, because you deleted the section at Revision as of 07:52, 17 April 2006 -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What you are calling "some modifications" seems to be very similar to those made by DV8 2XL in these edits. ( Revision as of 18:49, 12 May 2006 (edit) -> Revision as of 20:08, 12 May 2006 (edit)). Which was when the original text was replaced with the text you claim are "some modifications". I can not see one line of text which has remained the same, between the text there earlier on May 12. I am confused ER MD, is this your own edit or a cut and past job of the edit done by DV8 2XL-- Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not cited the source you are using.
No citation given who says it is not clear. The UN working paper was delivered in 2002, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia both stated that it was clear and that these convention do not cover DU.
Then why did the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia state that "There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present."?
What does this mean and who said it?
What is the source for the paragraph in italics below, and what are the "provisions", because the one you have given at the bottom of the section states in its section 2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties."
So I have reverted your changes what was the NPOV of the text as it is now? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
From the history
Please explain why in a legal section on the military use of DU it is POV to emphasise that There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles in a document released by an international trubunal investigating war crimes? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 8 June 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Archived previous discussions -- DV8 2XL 18:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
After I added the following reference
User Dr Zak reverted this edit several times and wrote this on my talk page:
"This looks like a rather tendentious book", "doesn't really pass the mark" -- You should prove your accusations first. Feelings and impressions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion and cannot serve as a substitute for a proof. This attributes to your feelings as well. Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther was the first scientist who did an investigation on the consequences of the bombardment with depleted uranium in Iraq. If you want to outline the effects of this weapon, you should know about the results he found. -- DenisDiderot 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Professor Guenther wrote two books on the subject: War Eye-Witness and Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children, both of which describe and illustrate the influence of Uranium on the children and their relatives. He also gave a lecture in Washington, which was attended by officers from the Pentagon on the influence of Uranium and the mortality percentages among the Iraqi children.
Siegwart-Horst Guenther:
Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther put his life on line for the truth. He was the first scientist who travelled to the Gulf battlefields to independently study health effects of DU. He predicted in a March 3rd, 2000, interview for “junge Welt” that a significant rise in DU casualty cases from Kosovo would start about March 2001. In the meantime, a message was circulated on the Internet that German authorities denied Günther medical help with his cancer.
Günther was arrested and maltreated in June 1995, following an anti-DU crusade. He remained under police supervision one year after release. On January 4th, 1999, he was told by a German court that, if necessary, he would be forcefully taken to a closed psychiatric institution. The authorities showed they were very nervous indeed about DU truth getting out into the open.
Professor Günther also travelled to Libya, where in 1986 A-10 aircraft attacked the residence of Qadhafi and a coastal town – the site of an alleged chemical weapons plant. In both areas Günther observed cases of leukemia and deformed babies. The same symptoms plus skin sickness and miscarriages were observed in the vicinity of the crash sites of A-10 aircraft at Ramsheid in Germany in 1988 and El-Al cargo plane in Amsterdam suburbs in 1992. Dutch NGOs found DU contamination in soil samples from the crash site.
Professor Guenther called upon the UN to prohibit the use of Uranium, which is used widely by the US, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Russia and Saudi Arabia. He recommended [that] all the afflicted Iraqi children demand compensation from Germany, because the technology for this weapon came from Germany [even though] it was produced in America. -- DenisDiderot 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Professor Guenther is a medical scientist who did toxological studies in Iraq and published his results in several books. He inspired many researchers to delve further into the subject and their results confirm his findings:
...and many others. -- DenisDiderot 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A very large amount of text was added to the article by 71.146.89.91 ( talk • contribs) ( diff). I've reverted it, as most of it was a cut and paste ("do not copy" notice intact), and all of it should be vetted by the various registered editors tracking this article. -- Christopher Thomas 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Some further info re: my fact tag - the health concerns section currently reads:
The only support currently offered for that statement is a 2005 Hindin article. The article looks good, but it doesn't support the statements about cancer or CNS damage. Hinden and her co-authors do state:
However, they don't say anything about cancer or CNS damage. Thanks, TheronJ 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed that someone has altered the text by adding some hidden text into this section baout the removal of UN sources of data. Please could the person who added the remarks please remind us of what sources were removed. Cadmium 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UCT)
I have not been watching this page recently, because I thought that this section had bedded in. I am surprised to come back and find that all the referenced paragraphs have been removed and replaced with a section which does not have one citation to support what is there currently.
I am going to restore the legal section to "Revision as of 14:02, 12 May 2006" as it was before DV8 2XL made very big changes to it.
To removed the ICJ and to describe a Carla del Ponte the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as a "minor UN functionary" a bit surprising. Now as Badagnani says if anyone would like to go through it point by point and suggest modifications, improvements with new citations. I am more than willing to help improve the section. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not the usual way to cite sources, sorry I did not recognise it as such, particularly as it does not support much of what is written above it. For example how does one square this paragraph as was in Wikipedia:
With the source when in ILDU Section "2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW" the author writes:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you (DV8 2XL) are confused, as your edit do include the paragraph without mentioning the statement made in the source: "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties." and as far as I can tell you never put it in as a quote.
This edit was reverted [20:10, 12 May 2006 Badagnani (Put brakes on deletions / POV rewrite.)] you then reverted this edit [20:16, 12 May 2006 DV8 2XL (Revert - I was working on the explanation as you reverted)] this revision was reverted [20:36, 12 May 2006 FayssalF m (Reverted edits by DV8 2XL (talk) to last version by Badagnani)
In your next major edit of this section, when you restored similar text to that reverted by FayssalF was Revision as of 20:47, 12 May 2006 ->Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL there is no mention of the phrase However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties. and the text you added is not in quotes
The next major edit of this section Revision as of 08:01, 14 May 2006, Give Peace A Chance. The next change was Revision as of 15:47, 17 May 2006, Cadmium This edit was criticised and edited 19:01, 18 May 2006 ER MD, Legal status in weapons - should not stat a main parapgraph with "it" where did people learn their writing? ER MD followed this up with another edit on the section to fix a simple typo. As can be see from that typo edit by ER MD to the one immediately before my reversal not significant changes to the last two paragraphs of the section were made: Revision as of 19:02, 18 May 2006, ER MD ->Revision as of 19:37, 6 June 2006, DV8 2XL.So the text of the last paragraph immediately before I reverted:
was largely what you wrote when you replaced the previous text (see above Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2006 (edit) DV8 2XL) which I restored. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW the version which ER MD wrote to replace mine, looks very similar to your entry [4] and that edit also missed out the line in the source "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties.", and the tart comment in the history [21:55, 7 June 2006 ER MD (→Legal status in weapons - "Yeung Sik Yuen writies" huh? this section is not encyclopedic)], is rather similar to what you wrote above "There were also a number of quotes from minor UN functionaries stating basically that nothing in the existing treaty structure made DU illegal". Do you use both user names when editing this article, or has the User:ER MD nothing to do with you other than preferring your version of the legal status? -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
From my talk page [5]:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found some papers on the effects of uranium on animal reproduction. I hope to be able to add it soon to the page. Cadmium
Recent addition from anon user may likely be JamesS, a user who was banned from editing the article. Although a checkuser request has not been initiated, an IP whois shows this IP address sources to a server also used by James. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about some of the recent edits done in the last twenty-four hours. While I know this material is covered in other topics I'm not convinced that this means that we shouldn't have a two or three paragraph summery here. The more vocal critics of the edits done since the end of the ArbCom case have accused us of gutting information from this topic and burying it away; I'm afraid that I find myself agreeing with them after today. Do we have some idea where we are going here? --03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The words Pop Culture are short popular culture. As in popular. As in a lot of average people have experienced or are aware of such trends. I feel that the references listed would be better categorized as obscure subculture. I do not think they are relevant. Give Peace A Chance 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It really is an error to talk of DU as if it was a separate entity from uranium when referring to its chemo-toxic profile. -- DV8 2XL 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you blanked my answer, and it wasn't a dodge, I made the edits, another user reverted me saying the article was about DU, I reverted back and explained myself here. I thought your question was a rhetorical one - no ones attempting to minimize the radiological hazards of uranium or its daughters - it's just not germain to this article.-- DV8 2XL 12:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Atlant, my comment was in support of an edit I made where I replaced the term DU in several places with 'uranium'. That's because in the health section we are concerned primarily with the material's chemo-toxic issues not the radiological ones. -- DV8 2XL 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that some aspects of the chemical toxicity of DU are caused by certain compounds of uranium created in the explosion and inhaled as dust, not the elementary uranium. So it is quite misleading and unchemical to talk about uranium as a substance (suggesting the elementary substance) instead of depleted uranium as a weapon (which implies compounds and impurities). -- DenisDiderot 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Have we come to any consensus here as to whether the term DU is equivalent to uranium? My edits were re-reverted and I'm three reverts in on this article today. -- DV8 2XL 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a new intro to the section which should keep everyone happy. (I hope) -- DV8 2XL 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You can find several links to references on the topic of contaminated DU in ammunition in the second paragraph of Military applications section of the main article mentioning the issue. They have been there for some months now, I know - I put them there. -- DV8 2XL 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There is of course in the context of Wikipedia, a limit to how much speculation we can do; we can only report what we can verify. In this instance (contaminated DU) however, I would more inclined to look at the manufacturer of the rounds instead of the military. -- DV8 2XL 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Basically never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- DV8 2XL 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
From Depleted Uranium in Urine of Soldiers by the WISE Uranium Project:
Is DU more hazardous than natural uranium, since it contains contaminants such as uranium-236, plutonium-239, etc.?
No. Depleted uranium used for bullets has been found to contain trace amounts of artificial radionuclides, such as uranium-236, neptunium-237, and plutonium-239. The presence of these radionuclides can be explained by contamination from recycling of spent fuel introduced in the manufacturing process; for details, see [Diehl 2002]. The radiation dose from exposure to such contaminated DU is only a fraction of a percent higher than from pure DU - and thus still is lower than from natural uranium; for details, see [Diehl 2001].
-- DV8 2XL 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we all agree that some of the DU used did contain isotopes other than U-238 and traces of its daughters Th-234 etc, so we could add something to the Np section of the actinides in the environment. I would be glad to see Badagnani and DV8 2XL working together on this topic. I think that while they can not fully agree on how/why the other actinides ended up in the DU they both will be able to make a contributuion. Cadmium
Okay: did some modifications to make the section NPOV. Reads much better now. ER MD 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Philip: nobody agrees with your entry. Its POV, poorly written, un-encyclopedic, and you fail to explain the changes. ER MD 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My chages! I reverted to a version that was here as of 14:02, 12 May 2006 -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
But then you (ER MD) knew that, because you deleted the section at Revision as of 07:52, 17 April 2006 -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What you are calling "some modifications" seems to be very similar to those made by DV8 2XL in these edits. ( Revision as of 18:49, 12 May 2006 (edit) -> Revision as of 20:08, 12 May 2006 (edit)). Which was when the original text was replaced with the text you claim are "some modifications". I can not see one line of text which has remained the same, between the text there earlier on May 12. I am confused ER MD, is this your own edit or a cut and past job of the edit done by DV8 2XL-- Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not cited the source you are using.
No citation given who says it is not clear. The UN working paper was delivered in 2002, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia both stated that it was clear and that these convention do not cover DU.
Then why did the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia state that "There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present."?
What does this mean and who said it?
What is the source for the paragraph in italics below, and what are the "provisions", because the one you have given at the bottom of the section states in its section 2.3 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW "However, the use of DU weapons cannot be considered to be explicitly or implicitly prohibited under such treaties."
So I have reverted your changes what was the NPOV of the text as it is now? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
From the history
Please explain why in a legal section on the military use of DU it is POV to emphasise that There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles in a document released by an international trubunal investigating war crimes? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)