Hi,
I got your request to comment on depleted uranium. I unfortunately don't know much about this. I gather you found me via nuclear fusion? I also noticed your user page is blank now, wonder what's happening... Dstrozzi 06:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is probably better if you take your request to WP:RFM. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page.
My motivation is protecting the health of my family and society. I came on the issue in 2004, spending days searching online and in libraries, and when I was finished I was upset that there had never been any attempt by the military to measure the gaseous combustion products (uranyl oxide gas), only the particulates. I don't know whether that was an honest mistake. Also, there is the matter of a c.1945 memo from General Leslie Groves recommending using uranium as a chemical weapon, which is hard to ignore. The fact that UO3(g) is a combustion product has been known since as early as 1960, and I don't see how any responsible researcher could possibly miss it. So I do believe that at least gross negligence if not outright malice, or both, has been involved. You will note, however, that I have never expressed that point of view in any of my edits.
- we have the background to help polish this section to the point where the statements of risk would be unassailable....
Who is we and what background are you referring to?
- you don't really have the knowledge to mount an effective argument
I've spent hours on the phone with Army, Navy, Air Force, and NRC officials in officially transcribed teleconferences going over the minutae of the issues. If that has taught me anything it is that the research is sorely lacking in some areas, ignored in others, and often presented in a very misleading way.
I can, and have, provided peer-reviewed sources supporting all aspects of my argument. When I asked the same of you, you balked. Do I have any reason not to say, therefore, that you lack the basic ethics to participate in a debate without an unfair double standard?
After half a century of uranium use, mining, metalworking, etc., why have there been no toxicological studies to detect anything more than its nephrotoxicity in humans?
If you want to propose changes or additions, you don't need my cooperation to do so. -- James S. 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, welcome back. BTW I have already been working on a page called Biological halflife. You might want to merge your page with this existing (longer) page which has some examples from a range of different substances which might come into contact with people.
Cadmium 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, I am glad to have you back. I thought it was sad when you went away, but I am glad that you have returned. Cadmium 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have access to the source James uses to demonstrate UO3's gasseous form, or a good inorganic chemist you could ask? DTC 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I am an inorganic chemist with a knowlege of the actinides, and I think that UO3 gas is unlikely to be found under 'normal' conditions. I know that it is possible to vaporise uranium oxides with a laser pulse or a glow discharge, this trace of uranium oxide gas can be detected with mass spec equipment .... But under more normal conditions it is very difficult to melt or even vapourise uranium oxides. UO2 when heated in air will be converted to U3O8 solid, trying to burn U3O8 would be like trying to set light to a firebrick (very little will happen).
Cadmium 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that I have a reference which might bring the debate to an end. I think that I may have added it to the DU talk page already. It is from a book of nuclear chemsitry which states that the plute fuel from a A-bomb is converted into a high fired solid oxide during the detonation event. I think that a nuclear bomb detonation will one of the hotest enviroments possible, if this converts Pu metal to a solid oxide then a burning lump of U metal from a tank busting shell is likely to form a solid oxide. Cadmium 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I find the above and below to be entirely unconvincing, and dangerous. --
71.141.141.202 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- this phase exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all
- Source? -- 71.141.141.202 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am not going to debate with a anon on my talk page; get an account and we will talk. Oh and BTW 'Source?' Cd and I are chemists, our source is common sence. -- DV8 2XL 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. See you have deleted my little rider about Terry Pratchett's part in the popularisation of the term multiverse. I want to put it back, but it may need discussion. I don't know when Moorcock boosted the currency of the word, but there is no doubt Pratchett has extended that currency considerably further -- I linked to the multiverse article from a Pratchett one. Pratchett's first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic, came out about 1985 or '86. It's probably not worthwhile or feasible to conduct an actual survey, but I think it more than likely that more readers have first met the term in Pratchett than in Moorcock, and I feel your delete was a tad random. I don't have a Wiki User account (yet). Can I get your answer on this page? -- Cheers, Neil Copeland-- 203.109.252.196 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Neil, I don't know how long you have been around this place, but you will find that in the science articles at least, there is a general dislike of what we call cruft. Cruft is random bits of true but pointless information that is added out of (or at least distant to) context. You can imagine what a technical article would look like if it were peppered with asides pointing out every SF story or time an author used a term or concept or every mention of it in a Star Trek script.
- There is a (unstated) convention that allows mention in the case where a term or a concept was first mentioned in fiction and was subsequent borrowed by science. I believe that who ever placed the Moorcock reference in there believed that this was the case. While I wrote the bulk of this entry I was not responsible for this insertion and cannot vouch for it's accuracy. If you have evidence that Pratchett's mention was first then by all means replace it, but simply tacking it on will likely get it deleted by one of the other editors that watch this page.
- Now as for the randomness of my actions, please understand that edits by unregistered users when they violate convention don't usually warrant a discussion with that editor if for no other reason than the difficulty of reaching them. Also I'm sure that you can imagine the sort of crank that this topic attracts and sometimes this sort of edit is a precursor to much worse, thus a quick response demonstrates that the page is being watched and they move on.
- I hope this answers your questions. I encourage you to get an account, it's easy and it's free. Oh and by the way the impact this concept has had on fiction was large enough to warrant it own article at Parallel universe-- DV8 2XL 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, DV8 2XL (may I call you DV8?). Point taken. Parallel universe looks the right place--though no mention of TP there I notice. In mitigation of my action, I'll just say say that my insertion wasn't completely out of place--the context was the popularisation of the term through fiction, and Terry Pratchett has certainly played a major part in that. I read the word "popularised" as affecting the reading public as a whole, rather than just the scientific community. And no, I wasn't claiming that he was first to use it. He may very well have come up with the term independently, but it's more than likely that he got it from Moorcock--Pratchett reads very widely, is a great fan of SF, and a habitué of SF conventions. He wrote two science fiction novels before he wrote the Discworld series.
I wouldn't dream of tampering with scientific articles. But I saw this article as something on the periphery of science proper, as the article itself suggests, and very relevant to speculative philosophy and imaginative literature. I've seen enough tampering, much of it ignorant, in my own major areas of interest - linguistics, literature and religion. In the latter case the tampering is often accompanied by a good deal of ill-will and acrimony in the talk pages, though the worst real vandalism comes from the anti-religious sector. I don't want to be guilty of the same crime.
Anyway, thanks for your response--you've been both courteous and helpful.
Best wishes
Neil-- 203.109.252.196 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a look. [1]. DTC 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since its an encyclopedia, the descision to include things shouldn't be made on who said what to who. That being said, my 1st posting today might have been a bit over the top. You do have to get to know me though. Clearly my cow catapult comment was just humor, and not meant to offend or sway debate. Dr U 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You blanked to talk page for Oklo. Why?
Jackliddle 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- The talk page was moved to Natural nuclear fission reactor along with the merged content of the main page -- DV8 2XL 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. I should have noticed that. I'm a bit jumpy about talk page censoring. Sorry about that Jackliddle 10:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should take a look at Wikipedia's civility policy, before making threatening and inflammatory comments of this nature. Also please use correct English grammar, if you expect other editors to take you seriously. Using incorrect grammar in a criticism is highly unprofessional.
-- Tisquantum 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel it is nessecary to do so, please explain on the talk page why you think these edits are warranted.
-- Tisquantum 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Admin please note I have no edits on the page in question -- DV8 2XL 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This apparently false accusation of vandalism against DV8 may be a result of some POV discussion at Police state. See also blanking at [2] Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi DV8, do you know why Enr-v is taking such an interest in the Nuclear fuel cycle ? He/she seems to have a one track mind about energy production (wind mills and nuclear). While I have written a lot on nuclear matters I have also written on other things such as church scandal and general chemistry so I am not a single issue person, I am sure that you (DV8) have written a good range of subjects so you are also not a single issue person. Cadmium
- Hi Cd, ya I contribute in cosmology, quantum physics, and electronics, but lately I have been spending a lot of time on nuclear subjects, due to the Depleted uranium business, and fending off the anti-nuke vandals that subject attracts. As for Enr-v, I've seen many like him, doctrinaire, evangelical, and autodidacts. What little they know about there subjects is generally distorted, and they are generally spoiling for a fight, so that they can feel self righteous and persecuted.
- My advice is to stop engaging with him; but if he becomes a pest I'll help deal with him. I am hoping that the DU thing will be settled this week, and I will have time to do some real editing. -- DV8 2XL 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, please could you tell me what you mean when you write 'cool' on the nuclear fuel cycle page in an edit summary. I have started to make diagrams to show how the different cycles work. I had to stop last night after only two. But I hope to draw more cycles soon. Cadmium
- I took out a passage that didn't have much to do with the fuel cycle and replaced it with one on thorium fuel. I'll try to keep my edit summaries a bit more reserved in the future. --18:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added some content on PUREX chem, please could you help me by formating this area better I am not too good at taming pictures to make them fit just in the right spots. Also do you want to make a label like template for ones thoughts on nuclear matters
0 This user does not like the nuclear industry
1 This user does not mind the nuclear industry
2 This user thinks that nuclear technology is OK
3 This user thinks that nuclear technology is good
4 This user thinks that nuclear technology is jolly good
5 This user is an 'atom head' (nuclear industry right or wrong)
Cadmium 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have looked at the nuclear fuel cycle and I notice now that you are removed the paragraph on subcritical reactors. I think it should go back in becuase it explains some of the reasoning behind some of the more advanced potential fuel cycles for the future. One of these is a double layered cycle with two layers. One layer is for U/Pu use while the other is for minor actinide burning. I hope to add a graph soon which will explain things more clearly.
What do you think about putting in details of possible future cycles which are being considered currently by the experts in the field? Cadmium
Hi, I have altered the nuclear fuel cycle page by sticking the paragraph which you removed back in, I have added a few details of the fuels for minor actinide burning (to make it more about fuel). I am working on a figure which will explain why fast neutrons are needed for minor actinide burning. It is not ready yet for use. The plan is to show the graphs of fission cross section divided by total absorption cross section vs. neutron energy. I have already done this for Am241, Pu239 and U238. I need to do the calculations for U235 before it will be ready. Cadmium 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi James. About a week ago I added a line to the history section of Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#History mentioning a U.N. report that suggested that some of the DU rounds had been manufactured with material from the reprocessing cycle. I have not been able to find this report anywhere, and I was wondering if you had run across it in your research. If this is true it is a finding with major consequences as uranium is one thing; minor actinides are another all together, as even in minute amounts these can be a very serious hazard. I have seen this finding mentioned several times, I would very much like to give it some weight with a reference. -- DV8 2XL 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go:
- -- James S. 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that this one shouldn't be split. Should we put Cold fusion controversy up for deletion? -- DV8 2XL 13:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but lets give the author a few days to to it himself. I should have added a merge tag to that one, too. -- James S. 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Was there any other reason remove the UO3(g) sources in Uranium trioxide than that you thought that someone else would take them out later? (not paper) -- James S. 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- The chemical compounds topics are patrolled by a group of chemists who have probably a lower tolerance for this sort of thing than I do. I have run afoul with them for the temerity of starting an article named chromia and was raked over the coals for it. Your interpretation will not be accepted by them and they will act in force to protect the article what they will see as original research. -- DV8 2XL 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then please leave it in and let them at it. We would all benefit from their wisdom if they have reasons to remove it. -- James S. 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. If someone has a good reason to take it out, I want to know about it. Until you reminded me of the transuranics contamination today, I had completely forgotten about that. I wonder what the quantification was. I think I'll ask on RADSAFE. -- James S. 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reverts on plasma cosmology. This is getting stupid. I reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Elerner, since Lerner has clearly indicated that the IP is his. – Joke 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I really dislike the doctrinaire attitude he has about this topic. -- DV8 2XL 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons
Due to the repetitive vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons, I'm suggesting it goes under Semi-protection and fast. What are your thoughts? CG 11:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we should hyper-link ordnance -- I'll try that if it happens again. -- James S. 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
{{RFMF}}
So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t| c 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t| c 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi 130.126.224.132, I notice that you are editing uranium trioxide - please don't neglect the nonsence there on UO3 gas it's pure B.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DV8 2XL
Why evidence do you have that it is "pure B.S."? -- James S. 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've been over with you why this idea of yours is BS
I recall you've alluded that it is wrong four or five times, but I don't remember you every saying why you thought that. Would you please tell me why you don't think it is correct, or give me a pointer to where you've "been over" it? -- James S. 09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL
About PIE, I thought becuase PIE is a term for the study of used nuclear fuel that it should go into the nuclear fuel page. I think that for the vast majority of fuel that PIE will never be done on it, so it does not fit within the fuel cycle.
I do not know if there are many other people involved in wikipedia who know about PIE, and are willing to add to the section but I am planning on enlarging the section. Maybe one day it might get a page of its own in the same way that the PUREX process now has a page of its own.
BTW why did you chose DV8 2XL as a username ?
Cadmium 12:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, thanks for the insight into your user name. I have added some graphs to the PIE section of nuclear fuel. I think that you might want to read this section, what do you think of it ? I would be interested to know if these ideas apply to many things other than fuel. The graphs are not perfect (thermal conductivity is a function of T) but they do explain something important. Cadmium
With regards to the used nuclear fuel, I wanted to get all the used fuel material onto its own page as it was split between several pages. I have added a short section on the joys of used fuel. Does this make it OK to have made the fork ?
About the MOX, I think that the forked MOX page is less detailed than the MOX section in the nuclear fuel page. I think that the MOX page should be enlarged a bit. Cadmium
Hi again, I have 'attacked' the MOX page. Please take a look and tell me what you think. By the way what do you think of the graphs in the PIE section of nuclear fuel ? Cadmium
About the matter with Simesa and Benjamin Gatti, I am horrified at the mock medal which Benjamin Gatti "awarded". Do you know what is likely to happen to Benjamin Gatti ? and when we will find out. There is Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence which is in progress. Cadmium
Since James cannot have his way on Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium he has decide to scrap the outcome of the mediation. [3] [4] , [5], [6], [7] [8]. I see little other option at this point. Ten Dead Chickens 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
Here is the posting for the RfArb [9]. Ten Dead Chickens 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "... this phase exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all."
- Source? -- James S. 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ... Cd and I are chemists, our source is common sence. --DV8 2XL 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So, do you have any reasons in support of that opinion at all?
For the record the above was a conversation on my talk page between myself and
User:Cadmium which James was not a party of. I have addressed his claims elsewhere in detail. Also reediting your contributions of an exchange after the fact as he has on his talk page, is dishonest, and I believe a violation of policy---
DV8 2XL 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You claim to be a chemist: what are your credentials, and how can they be verified? I will no longer tolerate unverifiable assertions of authority by anonymous editors unwilling to put their name behind their edits. If you are a chemist or a metallurgist, then either prove it or stop trying to claim the benefit of what you are unwilling to own up to. -- James S. 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do not respond to this sort of arbitrary demand. I do not care what you think of me or my qualifications. This will be decided on the facts, which are in my favor. --
DV8 2XL 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have any facts in your favor, why haven't you been able to state them after repeated requests over a period of several weeks? You are indistinguishable from any other pretender, and the content of your argument makes it clear why you refuse to associate your name with your edits to Wikipedia. --
James S. 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, I've stated them over and over again - you will not listen - you are misinterpreting the science - it is that simple. Now that we are going into mediation, I will not engage you privately until this is over. --
DV8 2XL 00:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, why not scan you primary source and make it available for all of us to see so we can humble you publicly.
Ten Dead Chickens 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have already read it and several citators, and have cited them for you. If you are too lazy to visit a library to come up with any peer-reviewed sources pro or con, then we don't need your credentials, identity, or qualifications to know that you are insufficiently equipped to participate in this debate. --
James S. 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- What’s wrong, afraid it might not pan out? My source was an engineer with 15 years experience modeling gas dynamics, but I know, I know, you doubt his credentials.
Ten Dead Chickens 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- About one's qualifications or credentials. I hope that you will understand that I value my privacy so I will not be using my real or legal name. Those who know me from the chemical community may well be able to work out who I am, but I would rather not give out my name and address because while it is likely that you may be a nice and decent person there are some nasty sharks on the web. I do not wish to be pestered by cranks or other irksome types. I have over 40 papers to my name, a PhD (which did not come out of a cornflake packet !), a degree in chemistry and a healthy dose of common sense. I have looked at the entry for Morrow, P.E et. al. Health Phys. 1972, 23, 273-80 at [10] and this appears to be a paper on the retention of UO3 in the lungs of dogs (the UO3 is retained in the lungs suggesting that it is a solid). I know that actinide oxides are much worse when inhaled as powder than they are when taken by mouth. It is important to understand that something does not have to be a gas for you to inhale it. Silica powder and coal dust cause lung damage, but neither are gases. I have looked in yahoo for "uranium trioxide gas" and I have found nothing other than James Salsman's petition to the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and wikipedia. Cadmium 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- What’s wrong, afraid it might not pan out? My source was an engineer with 15 years experience modeling gas dynamics, but I know, I know, you doubt his credentials.
Ten Dead Chickens 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have already read it and several citators, and have cited them for you. If you are too lazy to visit a library to come up with any peer-reviewed sources pro or con, then we don't need your credentials, identity, or qualifications to know that you are insufficiently equipped to participate in this debate. --
James S. 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, why not scan you primary source and make it available for all of us to see so we can humble you publicly.
Ten Dead Chickens 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, I've stated them over and over again - you will not listen - you are misinterpreting the science - it is that simple. Now that we are going into mediation, I will not engage you privately until this is over. --
DV8 2XL 00:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have any facts in your favor, why haven't you been able to state them after repeated requests over a period of several weeks? You are indistinguishable from any other pretender, and the content of your argument makes it clear why you refuse to associate your name with your edits to Wikipedia. --
James S. 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If you need to, you can request an injunction I believe against User:Nrcprm2026 as part of the arbitration process. The warning I gave User:Nrcprm2026 on their talk page applies in general against personal attacks regarding credentials... I enjoin all parties in the arbitration to remain civil and limit your contact with the opposite side to keep friction minimal. -- Syrthiss 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, shortcut WP:RFM/DU: I look forward to your contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No prob w/ revert, I was in the process of collapsing it to a redirect at the time, so I barely noticed :) -- Saswann 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thank you for your help with UO3 report. I am trying to get the inorganic chemistry straight, but the ore processing and the reprocessing and the ceramics/glass business is out of my realm.-- Smokefoot 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the UO3 gas, the idea of UO3 gas wizzing about as a 'creaping death gas' at 760 mmHg and 20 oC is so silly that it irks me. I wish this dire idea would die out as it is so silly. Please do try to keep up the good work, you might want to look for other chemists (ones with degrees which did not come out of breakfast food packs) who could read the UO3 gas papers and then offer their thoughts on the subject. I feel that the more chemists who agree on the subject the more likely that we are to deal with the subject. Cadmium 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week. Stone 15:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have joined you to our arbitration request. -- James S. 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV,
you are more experienced in the ways of wikipedia than I am, please could you tell me what is likely to happen next. I thought that after I added my thoughts that we could lay the idea of the creeping uranium trioxide death gas to rest. But it seems to have started all over again.
By the way the barnstar looks nice on your page, pitty no one has ever stuck one on my page (I am envious). I think that the design should be somewhat different. I think it should be related to the kiddy game of 'Wack a rat'. One has to sometimes play 'wack a rat' and be ready to deal rapidly with silly ideas and bad science where ever it shows it's face. The problem is you can never know where it will appear. Hence I think it is more like 'wack a rat'. Cadmium 20:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to DrU. I hope I can live up to his high expectations -- DV8 2XL 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL,
Recently I accused you of impersonating User:Smokefoot based on a suspicious edit resulting from multiple unexplained reversions and a suspicious pattern of account creation in relation to the two account's edit histories. I believe this accusation was entirely justified given the information available to me at the time.
I am sorry. My views on taking personal responsibility for one's actions, including edits on Wikipedia, have not changed. Please accept my apology.
In order to prevent such misunderstandings in the future, I will try to limit my interactions with you.
Sincerely, James S. 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. -- DV8 2XL 20:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, I have examined the pages in question. I think that I might have something with which to add to some of it. I need your advice about something, is the trial of James about his conduct (eg did he threaten xyz with a high court writ) on wikipedia or is it about the facts (eg can UO3 creeping death gas do xyz blagh blagh abc). I look ofrward to hearing from you. Cadmium 08:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about by dissapearing act, but I am ass deep in a particularly difficult optimization in Ohio, but God willing, it will all be over in a day or two. Ten Dead Chickens 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have added something to the workshop page, I am sure that James is trying to wrongly discredit the IAEA as a source. How well am I doing, I have noted that sometimes he makes a statement which can then be shown to be false. Cadmium 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Give James enough rope and he'll hang himself with it: he seems to be doing a very good job of it for the time being. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to thank you again for your contributions. I have added to the workshop page again. Several 3rd parties have made many of the points that needed to be made there, they continue to do so in your absence, and I don't think that reiterating points that have already been made ad nauseum bolsters our cause. I have no beef with James as a person, just with his recent conduct, and felt that saying more than the minimum that needed to be said would make this look personal, which it isn't. I think we said most of what needed to be said in our statements requesting arbitration. I am more new to Wiki than you and didn't realise there would be workshop pages, prolonged debate, etc.; I was under the impression that arbs just looked at the edit histories in question and made up their own minds after an issue was put on the table. Anyway, your tone suggests that you are fatigued and maybe a bit hurt that others did not engage as much as you. I can't speak for the motivations of others, but I have limited my engagement because I thought it was the right thing to do, and not with the intention of letting you feel like a dangling meatpuppet. I sincerely apologize if I have wronged you in any way. I have admired your spirited and sincere approach to these issues since the beginning, and if we ever cross paths in the real world, I'd like to buy you a cold beer. Peace. Dr U 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear DV8 2XL, I have recently attempted to open a less heated discussion with James. I think that I am less pro-nuclear than you and I have had less involvement in the recent trouble so I reasoned that I might be in a better position to reason with him. I would like to know if you think if James is likely to be more reasonable an editor than Benjamin Gatti, I think that the conduct of Benjamin Gatti (The mock medal he awarded) was very much out of order. I have asked James the question of why does he consider the UO3 gas to be so important ? but I have not heard anything from him. Do you have any ideas why he considers the UO3 gas to be so important ? My main complant against James is that he keeps dragging up the idea of the uranium oxide gas (which I think is a red herring issue). What do you think of the way that things are going ? Cadmium 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear DV8 2XL, thanks for your thoughts I am trying my best with James. James has just said that UO3 gas can condense, it now appears that he might be changing his point of view. I do not know how to do this but someone editing one of the DU pages has added some text which suggests that a long lived uranium oxide gas is wizzing about as the creeping death gas which then harms people. Do you know how best to find out who added this text ?
- On the subject of DU, I think that your point of view is similar to mine. I would say try not to panic (aberdeen for instance is packed with rock which has plenty of U) but it is best to err on the side of caution. I would say that under exposure to uranium will never do any harm, but over exposure can do real harm. Cadmium 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi DV8 2XL, James seems irate currently. I hope that I have not stirred up a wasp's nest. I have noticed something which might be of note. A great question in science is does the dog wag its tail or does the tail wag the dog ? I had suggested to James that he might consider spending some time on the enviromental behaviour of some radionasties other than uranium. I assume that a person with an genuine interest in radiochemistry, even a person with the same outlook as greenpeace, would feel happy about writing about other common actinides such as Th and Pu. But James appears to be interested only in uranium which suggests to me that he has set out on a mission of some sort. I suspect that he has made up his mind that he wishs to push forward a conclusion and that he is then seeking evidence that suits his POV. Cadmium 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank-you for the information, I will keep that in mind ..but I just wanted to tell you that I was working on disambiguation (fission) and was only changing links ...next time I see two links to the same article I will remove one. Good bye and Take Care
Wolverine
talk 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"the current most popular third language in the Provence is now Spanish." This ist nur reccent, nicht wahr? Ach nein, das Amerikanische imperialism. Nehm any famous Canadian you kenst of, das Deutsch as ein drittesprache spricht. Brauchen Kanadiens Spanisch as much as die US Amerikanen, nicht wahr? - This is only reccent, right? Oh no, American imperialism, I don't soppose Canadians *need* spanish as much as the Americans, do they? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)
Ah, ich bin surprised. W'rum would Spañarden mirgate as fern Nors as Kanada, i'dacht, dass they mainlich to der US migrated. - Ah, I am surprised. Why would they migrate as far north as Canada, I thought it was mainly to the US. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)
Hi; I checked out the article, and it didn't seem to say anything about the passages I had a problem with, so I'm going to remove them and rephrase the section. I'm also going to ask for an expert review of the article, so we can get all this sorted out by someone who does this for a living. Cheers Tlogmer 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi DV8. Thanks for your message on my user page. I don't want to get caught up in the argument about uranium trioxide gas - my life isn't worth it! However, I'm happy to support the article in any way I can. Looking at the talk page there, it seems only James S. really believes in or cares about UO3 gas :). I've looked at his scans of 1960s papers, but I just can't be bothered to spend hours trying to understand them. I'll leave the arguing to you guys and I'll keep the article readable and tidy where possible.
Cheers,
Ben 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I read a view papers on this topic! The Ackermann is only chemical transport without any prove for the stuff in the gasphase UO3 postulated. The mass-spectroscopy article I have to read but what I think it will be the same. I will try further to fight for science untill the article is on the level that all of the chemists agree with it! -- Stone 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on a template to try to help better catagorize the various nuclear technologies. I would like some comment on it before putting it on any pages though. If you have the time could you look at it and perhaps comment on what you think I've missed and its general format? Thanks. Lcolson 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Its a fairly rare known bug that I'm working on that causes it to switch the last two contributors when someone edits the page when the bots doing its revert cycle, it seems to happen extremely rarely but I'm working on a fix, sorry about that -- Tawker 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The term indeed commonly addresses phone calls.
Thus the article needs urgent edit!
It is not obvious, if it is about disposeable batteries, or rechargeable batteries.
(Because the term "old" is used).
My information is true for rechargeable batteries.
As long as the sets keep together, and the discharge is not complete, it does not matter, and a "reverse charging" does not take effect.
More, leaving batteries (for months) into appliances gives far more unpleasant results.
In case of ignorance, i declare to add this information again (in better quality).
alex
11:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Never do something without thinking! was a sentence a wise man once told me I sometimes ignore it!-- Stone 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I realise you're a frequent contributer to this article, and not a vandal, but do you realise that you're reverting to a duff version? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nuclear_power&diff=44678093&oldid=44675849 - you're adding some SWANSON comment and removing a load of ext links and international language tags. Thought you ought to know! --
OscarTheCat
talk
16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We should mke clear that the gas is disputed. Is there an easy methode to stick a disputed tag to the UO3 sections in the differnt articles?-- Stone 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to congratulate James on provoking controversy - I'm just trying to be diplomatic. I don't want to attack him personally because it will only weaken the prosecution in arbitration. Let them decide if James is wrong and POV from his contributions. On James' talk page, I was thanking him for the references that I can use to add chemical data on UO3. I was thinking of the Cotton reference, because I want to add the structure of the molecule.
My personal feeling is that James is making a crusade against science, trying to prove DU and its compounds are causing Gulf War Syndrome and that there's a massive cover-up by the US Government. My own view on DU is that I don't know very much about it and the chemistry of uranium oxides is very complicated, but that UO3(g) probably has nothing to do with Gulf War Syndrome. Occam's razor - why invoke theories on UO3(g) when dust particles of solid UO3 can perfectly well explain human exposure.
Anyway, give me a break. My concern is to make uranium trioxide a good chemical article.
Take it easy, I hope you don't feel angry towards me. I like the way you stick up for the other side against James.
Ben 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I just reverted the deletion of sources on the above section. Please add full reference data to the article for your citations. Thanks, Vsmith 14:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know enough about this topic to have anything helpful to say one way or another, but the broad trend of it (one guy pushing a very specific agenda, linked explicitly to his own private campaigns against the NRC, against the disapproval of three or four editors who are clearly well educated in these sorts of subjects) raises my eyebrow. But I don't know enough about the subject or its literature to tell what's OR and what's not, but the fact that there are lots of back-and-forth equations is never a good sign in my opinion. -- Fastfission 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am so grateful and appreciative for your edits this morning. Thank you very much. -- James S. 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem James, I know when I'm on the wrong side of an argument. I'm thinking now that some of the toxicology data you've posted elsewhere needs wider distribution, eh?. -- DV8 2XL 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
James has cited a paper which I have read and I think that it may be flawed. Please could you take a look at the paper by Busby which is in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles. Cadmium 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your writing style's pretty good I think - a bit like mine!. Keep it up!-- Light current 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"the Hispanophone population in Montreal, in fact may well surpass the Anglophone numbers in the very near future." That is if the trend continues, do you have any idea what the most common third language may have been historically. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)
Hi,
I got your request to comment on depleted uranium. I unfortunately don't know much about this. I gather you found me via nuclear fusion? I also noticed your user page is blank now, wonder what's happening... Dstrozzi 06:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is probably better if you take your request to WP:RFM. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page.
My motivation is protecting the health of my family and society. I came on the issue in 2004, spending days searching online and in libraries, and when I was finished I was upset that there had never been any attempt by the military to measure the gaseous combustion products (uranyl oxide gas), only the particulates. I don't know whether that was an honest mistake. Also, there is the matter of a c.1945 memo from General Leslie Groves recommending using uranium as a chemical weapon, which is hard to ignore. The fact that UO3(g) is a combustion product has been known since as early as 1960, and I don't see how any responsible researcher could possibly miss it. So I do believe that at least gross negligence if not outright malice, or both, has been involved. You will note, however, that I have never expressed that point of view in any of my edits.
- we have the background to help polish this section to the point where the statements of risk would be unassailable....
Who is we and what background are you referring to?
- you don't really have the knowledge to mount an effective argument
I've spent hours on the phone with Army, Navy, Air Force, and NRC officials in officially transcribed teleconferences going over the minutae of the issues. If that has taught me anything it is that the research is sorely lacking in some areas, ignored in others, and often presented in a very misleading way.
I can, and have, provided peer-reviewed sources supporting all aspects of my argument. When I asked the same of you, you balked. Do I have any reason not to say, therefore, that you lack the basic ethics to participate in a debate without an unfair double standard?
After half a century of uranium use, mining, metalworking, etc., why have there been no toxicological studies to detect anything more than its nephrotoxicity in humans?
If you want to propose changes or additions, you don't need my cooperation to do so. -- James S. 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, welcome back. BTW I have already been working on a page called Biological halflife. You might want to merge your page with this existing (longer) page which has some examples from a range of different substances which might come into contact with people.
Cadmium 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, I am glad to have you back. I thought it was sad when you went away, but I am glad that you have returned. Cadmium 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have access to the source James uses to demonstrate UO3's gasseous form, or a good inorganic chemist you could ask? DTC 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I am an inorganic chemist with a knowlege of the actinides, and I think that UO3 gas is unlikely to be found under 'normal' conditions. I know that it is possible to vaporise uranium oxides with a laser pulse or a glow discharge, this trace of uranium oxide gas can be detected with mass spec equipment .... But under more normal conditions it is very difficult to melt or even vapourise uranium oxides. UO2 when heated in air will be converted to U3O8 solid, trying to burn U3O8 would be like trying to set light to a firebrick (very little will happen).
Cadmium 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that I have a reference which might bring the debate to an end. I think that I may have added it to the DU talk page already. It is from a book of nuclear chemsitry which states that the plute fuel from a A-bomb is converted into a high fired solid oxide during the detonation event. I think that a nuclear bomb detonation will one of the hotest enviroments possible, if this converts Pu metal to a solid oxide then a burning lump of U metal from a tank busting shell is likely to form a solid oxide. Cadmium 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I find the above and below to be entirely unconvincing, and dangerous. --
71.141.141.202 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- this phase exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all
- Source? -- 71.141.141.202 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am not going to debate with a anon on my talk page; get an account and we will talk. Oh and BTW 'Source?' Cd and I are chemists, our source is common sence. -- DV8 2XL 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. See you have deleted my little rider about Terry Pratchett's part in the popularisation of the term multiverse. I want to put it back, but it may need discussion. I don't know when Moorcock boosted the currency of the word, but there is no doubt Pratchett has extended that currency considerably further -- I linked to the multiverse article from a Pratchett one. Pratchett's first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic, came out about 1985 or '86. It's probably not worthwhile or feasible to conduct an actual survey, but I think it more than likely that more readers have first met the term in Pratchett than in Moorcock, and I feel your delete was a tad random. I don't have a Wiki User account (yet). Can I get your answer on this page? -- Cheers, Neil Copeland-- 203.109.252.196 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Neil, I don't know how long you have been around this place, but you will find that in the science articles at least, there is a general dislike of what we call cruft. Cruft is random bits of true but pointless information that is added out of (or at least distant to) context. You can imagine what a technical article would look like if it were peppered with asides pointing out every SF story or time an author used a term or concept or every mention of it in a Star Trek script.
- There is a (unstated) convention that allows mention in the case where a term or a concept was first mentioned in fiction and was subsequent borrowed by science. I believe that who ever placed the Moorcock reference in there believed that this was the case. While I wrote the bulk of this entry I was not responsible for this insertion and cannot vouch for it's accuracy. If you have evidence that Pratchett's mention was first then by all means replace it, but simply tacking it on will likely get it deleted by one of the other editors that watch this page.
- Now as for the randomness of my actions, please understand that edits by unregistered users when they violate convention don't usually warrant a discussion with that editor if for no other reason than the difficulty of reaching them. Also I'm sure that you can imagine the sort of crank that this topic attracts and sometimes this sort of edit is a precursor to much worse, thus a quick response demonstrates that the page is being watched and they move on.
- I hope this answers your questions. I encourage you to get an account, it's easy and it's free. Oh and by the way the impact this concept has had on fiction was large enough to warrant it own article at Parallel universe-- DV8 2XL 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, DV8 2XL (may I call you DV8?). Point taken. Parallel universe looks the right place--though no mention of TP there I notice. In mitigation of my action, I'll just say say that my insertion wasn't completely out of place--the context was the popularisation of the term through fiction, and Terry Pratchett has certainly played a major part in that. I read the word "popularised" as affecting the reading public as a whole, rather than just the scientific community. And no, I wasn't claiming that he was first to use it. He may very well have come up with the term independently, but it's more than likely that he got it from Moorcock--Pratchett reads very widely, is a great fan of SF, and a habitué of SF conventions. He wrote two science fiction novels before he wrote the Discworld series.
I wouldn't dream of tampering with scientific articles. But I saw this article as something on the periphery of science proper, as the article itself suggests, and very relevant to speculative philosophy and imaginative literature. I've seen enough tampering, much of it ignorant, in my own major areas of interest - linguistics, literature and religion. In the latter case the tampering is often accompanied by a good deal of ill-will and acrimony in the talk pages, though the worst real vandalism comes from the anti-religious sector. I don't want to be guilty of the same crime.
Anyway, thanks for your response--you've been both courteous and helpful.
Best wishes
Neil-- 203.109.252.196 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a look. [1]. DTC 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since its an encyclopedia, the descision to include things shouldn't be made on who said what to who. That being said, my 1st posting today might have been a bit over the top. You do have to get to know me though. Clearly my cow catapult comment was just humor, and not meant to offend or sway debate. Dr U 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You blanked to talk page for Oklo. Why?
Jackliddle 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- The talk page was moved to Natural nuclear fission reactor along with the merged content of the main page -- DV8 2XL 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. I should have noticed that. I'm a bit jumpy about talk page censoring. Sorry about that Jackliddle 10:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should take a look at Wikipedia's civility policy, before making threatening and inflammatory comments of this nature. Also please use correct English grammar, if you expect other editors to take you seriously. Using incorrect grammar in a criticism is highly unprofessional.
-- Tisquantum 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel it is nessecary to do so, please explain on the talk page why you think these edits are warranted.
-- Tisquantum 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Admin please note I have no edits on the page in question -- DV8 2XL 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This apparently false accusation of vandalism against DV8 may be a result of some POV discussion at Police state. See also blanking at [2] Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi DV8, do you know why Enr-v is taking such an interest in the Nuclear fuel cycle ? He/she seems to have a one track mind about energy production (wind mills and nuclear). While I have written a lot on nuclear matters I have also written on other things such as church scandal and general chemistry so I am not a single issue person, I am sure that you (DV8) have written a good range of subjects so you are also not a single issue person. Cadmium
- Hi Cd, ya I contribute in cosmology, quantum physics, and electronics, but lately I have been spending a lot of time on nuclear subjects, due to the Depleted uranium business, and fending off the anti-nuke vandals that subject attracts. As for Enr-v, I've seen many like him, doctrinaire, evangelical, and autodidacts. What little they know about there subjects is generally distorted, and they are generally spoiling for a fight, so that they can feel self righteous and persecuted.
- My advice is to stop engaging with him; but if he becomes a pest I'll help deal with him. I am hoping that the DU thing will be settled this week, and I will have time to do some real editing. -- DV8 2XL 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, please could you tell me what you mean when you write 'cool' on the nuclear fuel cycle page in an edit summary. I have started to make diagrams to show how the different cycles work. I had to stop last night after only two. But I hope to draw more cycles soon. Cadmium
- I took out a passage that didn't have much to do with the fuel cycle and replaced it with one on thorium fuel. I'll try to keep my edit summaries a bit more reserved in the future. --18:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added some content on PUREX chem, please could you help me by formating this area better I am not too good at taming pictures to make them fit just in the right spots. Also do you want to make a label like template for ones thoughts on nuclear matters
0 This user does not like the nuclear industry
1 This user does not mind the nuclear industry
2 This user thinks that nuclear technology is OK
3 This user thinks that nuclear technology is good
4 This user thinks that nuclear technology is jolly good
5 This user is an 'atom head' (nuclear industry right or wrong)
Cadmium 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have looked at the nuclear fuel cycle and I notice now that you are removed the paragraph on subcritical reactors. I think it should go back in becuase it explains some of the reasoning behind some of the more advanced potential fuel cycles for the future. One of these is a double layered cycle with two layers. One layer is for U/Pu use while the other is for minor actinide burning. I hope to add a graph soon which will explain things more clearly.
What do you think about putting in details of possible future cycles which are being considered currently by the experts in the field? Cadmium
Hi, I have altered the nuclear fuel cycle page by sticking the paragraph which you removed back in, I have added a few details of the fuels for minor actinide burning (to make it more about fuel). I am working on a figure which will explain why fast neutrons are needed for minor actinide burning. It is not ready yet for use. The plan is to show the graphs of fission cross section divided by total absorption cross section vs. neutron energy. I have already done this for Am241, Pu239 and U238. I need to do the calculations for U235 before it will be ready. Cadmium 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi James. About a week ago I added a line to the history section of Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#History mentioning a U.N. report that suggested that some of the DU rounds had been manufactured with material from the reprocessing cycle. I have not been able to find this report anywhere, and I was wondering if you had run across it in your research. If this is true it is a finding with major consequences as uranium is one thing; minor actinides are another all together, as even in minute amounts these can be a very serious hazard. I have seen this finding mentioned several times, I would very much like to give it some weight with a reference. -- DV8 2XL 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go:
- -- James S. 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that this one shouldn't be split. Should we put Cold fusion controversy up for deletion? -- DV8 2XL 13:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but lets give the author a few days to to it himself. I should have added a merge tag to that one, too. -- James S. 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Was there any other reason remove the UO3(g) sources in Uranium trioxide than that you thought that someone else would take them out later? (not paper) -- James S. 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- The chemical compounds topics are patrolled by a group of chemists who have probably a lower tolerance for this sort of thing than I do. I have run afoul with them for the temerity of starting an article named chromia and was raked over the coals for it. Your interpretation will not be accepted by them and they will act in force to protect the article what they will see as original research. -- DV8 2XL 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then please leave it in and let them at it. We would all benefit from their wisdom if they have reasons to remove it. -- James S. 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. If someone has a good reason to take it out, I want to know about it. Until you reminded me of the transuranics contamination today, I had completely forgotten about that. I wonder what the quantification was. I think I'll ask on RADSAFE. -- James S. 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reverts on plasma cosmology. This is getting stupid. I reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Elerner, since Lerner has clearly indicated that the IP is his. – Joke 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I really dislike the doctrinaire attitude he has about this topic. -- DV8 2XL 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons
Due to the repetitive vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons, I'm suggesting it goes under Semi-protection and fast. What are your thoughts? CG 11:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we should hyper-link ordnance -- I'll try that if it happens again. -- James S. 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
{{RFMF}}
So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t| c 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t| c 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi 130.126.224.132, I notice that you are editing uranium trioxide - please don't neglect the nonsence there on UO3 gas it's pure B.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DV8 2XL
Why evidence do you have that it is "pure B.S."? -- James S. 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've been over with you why this idea of yours is BS
I recall you've alluded that it is wrong four or five times, but I don't remember you every saying why you thought that. Would you please tell me why you don't think it is correct, or give me a pointer to where you've "been over" it? -- James S. 09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL
About PIE, I thought becuase PIE is a term for the study of used nuclear fuel that it should go into the nuclear fuel page. I think that for the vast majority of fuel that PIE will never be done on it, so it does not fit within the fuel cycle.
I do not know if there are many other people involved in wikipedia who know about PIE, and are willing to add to the section but I am planning on enlarging the section. Maybe one day it might get a page of its own in the same way that the PUREX process now has a page of its own.
BTW why did you chose DV8 2XL as a username ?
Cadmium 12:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, thanks for the insight into your user name. I have added some graphs to the PIE section of nuclear fuel. I think that you might want to read this section, what do you think of it ? I would be interested to know if these ideas apply to many things other than fuel. The graphs are not perfect (thermal conductivity is a function of T) but they do explain something important. Cadmium
With regards to the used nuclear fuel, I wanted to get all the used fuel material onto its own page as it was split between several pages. I have added a short section on the joys of used fuel. Does this make it OK to have made the fork ?
About the MOX, I think that the forked MOX page is less detailed than the MOX section in the nuclear fuel page. I think that the MOX page should be enlarged a bit. Cadmium
Hi again, I have 'attacked' the MOX page. Please take a look and tell me what you think. By the way what do you think of the graphs in the PIE section of nuclear fuel ? Cadmium
About the matter with Simesa and Benjamin Gatti, I am horrified at the mock medal which Benjamin Gatti "awarded". Do you know what is likely to happen to Benjamin Gatti ? and when we will find out. There is Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence which is in progress. Cadmium
Since James cannot have his way on Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium he has decide to scrap the outcome of the mediation. [3] [4] , [5], [6], [7] [8]. I see little other option at this point. Ten Dead Chickens 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
Here is the posting for the RfArb [9]. Ten Dead Chickens 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "... this phase exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all."
- Source? -- James S. 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- ... Cd and I are chemists, our source is common sence. --DV8 2XL 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So, do you have any reasons in support of that opinion at all?
For the record the above was a conversation on my talk page between myself and
User:Cadmium which James was not a party of. I have addressed his claims elsewhere in detail. Also reediting your contributions of an exchange after the fact as he has on his talk page, is dishonest, and I believe a violation of policy---
DV8 2XL 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You claim to be a chemist: what are your credentials, and how can they be verified? I will no longer tolerate unverifiable assertions of authority by anonymous editors unwilling to put their name behind their edits. If you are a chemist or a metallurgist, then either prove it or stop trying to claim the benefit of what you are unwilling to own up to. -- James S. 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do not respond to this sort of arbitrary demand. I do not care what you think of me or my qualifications. This will be decided on the facts, which are in my favor. --
DV8 2XL 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have any facts in your favor, why haven't you been able to state them after repeated requests over a period of several weeks? You are indistinguishable from any other pretender, and the content of your argument makes it clear why you refuse to associate your name with your edits to Wikipedia. --
James S. 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, I've stated them over and over again - you will not listen - you are misinterpreting the science - it is that simple. Now that we are going into mediation, I will not engage you privately until this is over. --
DV8 2XL 00:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, why not scan you primary source and make it available for all of us to see so we can humble you publicly.
Ten Dead Chickens 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have already read it and several citators, and have cited them for you. If you are too lazy to visit a library to come up with any peer-reviewed sources pro or con, then we don't need your credentials, identity, or qualifications to know that you are insufficiently equipped to participate in this debate. --
James S. 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- What’s wrong, afraid it might not pan out? My source was an engineer with 15 years experience modeling gas dynamics, but I know, I know, you doubt his credentials.
Ten Dead Chickens 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- About one's qualifications or credentials. I hope that you will understand that I value my privacy so I will not be using my real or legal name. Those who know me from the chemical community may well be able to work out who I am, but I would rather not give out my name and address because while it is likely that you may be a nice and decent person there are some nasty sharks on the web. I do not wish to be pestered by cranks or other irksome types. I have over 40 papers to my name, a PhD (which did not come out of a cornflake packet !), a degree in chemistry and a healthy dose of common sense. I have looked at the entry for Morrow, P.E et. al. Health Phys. 1972, 23, 273-80 at [10] and this appears to be a paper on the retention of UO3 in the lungs of dogs (the UO3 is retained in the lungs suggesting that it is a solid). I know that actinide oxides are much worse when inhaled as powder than they are when taken by mouth. It is important to understand that something does not have to be a gas for you to inhale it. Silica powder and coal dust cause lung damage, but neither are gases. I have looked in yahoo for "uranium trioxide gas" and I have found nothing other than James Salsman's petition to the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and wikipedia. Cadmium 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- What’s wrong, afraid it might not pan out? My source was an engineer with 15 years experience modeling gas dynamics, but I know, I know, you doubt his credentials.
Ten Dead Chickens 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have already read it and several citators, and have cited them for you. If you are too lazy to visit a library to come up with any peer-reviewed sources pro or con, then we don't need your credentials, identity, or qualifications to know that you are insufficiently equipped to participate in this debate. --
James S. 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, why not scan you primary source and make it available for all of us to see so we can humble you publicly.
Ten Dead Chickens 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- James, I've stated them over and over again - you will not listen - you are misinterpreting the science - it is that simple. Now that we are going into mediation, I will not engage you privately until this is over. --
DV8 2XL 00:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have any facts in your favor, why haven't you been able to state them after repeated requests over a period of several weeks? You are indistinguishable from any other pretender, and the content of your argument makes it clear why you refuse to associate your name with your edits to Wikipedia. --
James S. 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If you need to, you can request an injunction I believe against User:Nrcprm2026 as part of the arbitration process. The warning I gave User:Nrcprm2026 on their talk page applies in general against personal attacks regarding credentials... I enjoin all parties in the arbitration to remain civil and limit your contact with the opposite side to keep friction minimal. -- Syrthiss 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, shortcut WP:RFM/DU: I look forward to your contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No prob w/ revert, I was in the process of collapsing it to a redirect at the time, so I barely noticed :) -- Saswann 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thank you for your help with UO3 report. I am trying to get the inorganic chemistry straight, but the ore processing and the reprocessing and the ceramics/glass business is out of my realm.-- Smokefoot 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the UO3 gas, the idea of UO3 gas wizzing about as a 'creaping death gas' at 760 mmHg and 20 oC is so silly that it irks me. I wish this dire idea would die out as it is so silly. Please do try to keep up the good work, you might want to look for other chemists (ones with degrees which did not come out of breakfast food packs) who could read the UO3 gas papers and then offer their thoughts on the subject. I feel that the more chemists who agree on the subject the more likely that we are to deal with the subject. Cadmium 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week. Stone 15:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have joined you to our arbitration request. -- James S. 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV,
you are more experienced in the ways of wikipedia than I am, please could you tell me what is likely to happen next. I thought that after I added my thoughts that we could lay the idea of the creeping uranium trioxide death gas to rest. But it seems to have started all over again.
By the way the barnstar looks nice on your page, pitty no one has ever stuck one on my page (I am envious). I think that the design should be somewhat different. I think it should be related to the kiddy game of 'Wack a rat'. One has to sometimes play 'wack a rat' and be ready to deal rapidly with silly ideas and bad science where ever it shows it's face. The problem is you can never know where it will appear. Hence I think it is more like 'wack a rat'. Cadmium 20:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to DrU. I hope I can live up to his high expectations -- DV8 2XL 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL,
Recently I accused you of impersonating User:Smokefoot based on a suspicious edit resulting from multiple unexplained reversions and a suspicious pattern of account creation in relation to the two account's edit histories. I believe this accusation was entirely justified given the information available to me at the time.
I am sorry. My views on taking personal responsibility for one's actions, including edits on Wikipedia, have not changed. Please accept my apology.
In order to prevent such misunderstandings in the future, I will try to limit my interactions with you.
Sincerely, James S. 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. -- DV8 2XL 20:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, I have examined the pages in question. I think that I might have something with which to add to some of it. I need your advice about something, is the trial of James about his conduct (eg did he threaten xyz with a high court writ) on wikipedia or is it about the facts (eg can UO3 creeping death gas do xyz blagh blagh abc). I look ofrward to hearing from you. Cadmium 08:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about by dissapearing act, but I am ass deep in a particularly difficult optimization in Ohio, but God willing, it will all be over in a day or two. Ten Dead Chickens 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have added something to the workshop page, I am sure that James is trying to wrongly discredit the IAEA as a source. How well am I doing, I have noted that sometimes he makes a statement which can then be shown to be false. Cadmium 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Give James enough rope and he'll hang himself with it: he seems to be doing a very good job of it for the time being. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to thank you again for your contributions. I have added to the workshop page again. Several 3rd parties have made many of the points that needed to be made there, they continue to do so in your absence, and I don't think that reiterating points that have already been made ad nauseum bolsters our cause. I have no beef with James as a person, just with his recent conduct, and felt that saying more than the minimum that needed to be said would make this look personal, which it isn't. I think we said most of what needed to be said in our statements requesting arbitration. I am more new to Wiki than you and didn't realise there would be workshop pages, prolonged debate, etc.; I was under the impression that arbs just looked at the edit histories in question and made up their own minds after an issue was put on the table. Anyway, your tone suggests that you are fatigued and maybe a bit hurt that others did not engage as much as you. I can't speak for the motivations of others, but I have limited my engagement because I thought it was the right thing to do, and not with the intention of letting you feel like a dangling meatpuppet. I sincerely apologize if I have wronged you in any way. I have admired your spirited and sincere approach to these issues since the beginning, and if we ever cross paths in the real world, I'd like to buy you a cold beer. Peace. Dr U 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear DV8 2XL, I have recently attempted to open a less heated discussion with James. I think that I am less pro-nuclear than you and I have had less involvement in the recent trouble so I reasoned that I might be in a better position to reason with him. I would like to know if you think if James is likely to be more reasonable an editor than Benjamin Gatti, I think that the conduct of Benjamin Gatti (The mock medal he awarded) was very much out of order. I have asked James the question of why does he consider the UO3 gas to be so important ? but I have not heard anything from him. Do you have any ideas why he considers the UO3 gas to be so important ? My main complant against James is that he keeps dragging up the idea of the uranium oxide gas (which I think is a red herring issue). What do you think of the way that things are going ? Cadmium 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear DV8 2XL, thanks for your thoughts I am trying my best with James. James has just said that UO3 gas can condense, it now appears that he might be changing his point of view. I do not know how to do this but someone editing one of the DU pages has added some text which suggests that a long lived uranium oxide gas is wizzing about as the creeping death gas which then harms people. Do you know how best to find out who added this text ?
- On the subject of DU, I think that your point of view is similar to mine. I would say try not to panic (aberdeen for instance is packed with rock which has plenty of U) but it is best to err on the side of caution. I would say that under exposure to uranium will never do any harm, but over exposure can do real harm. Cadmium 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi DV8 2XL, James seems irate currently. I hope that I have not stirred up a wasp's nest. I have noticed something which might be of note. A great question in science is does the dog wag its tail or does the tail wag the dog ? I had suggested to James that he might consider spending some time on the enviromental behaviour of some radionasties other than uranium. I assume that a person with an genuine interest in radiochemistry, even a person with the same outlook as greenpeace, would feel happy about writing about other common actinides such as Th and Pu. But James appears to be interested only in uranium which suggests to me that he has set out on a mission of some sort. I suspect that he has made up his mind that he wishs to push forward a conclusion and that he is then seeking evidence that suits his POV. Cadmium 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank-you for the information, I will keep that in mind ..but I just wanted to tell you that I was working on disambiguation (fission) and was only changing links ...next time I see two links to the same article I will remove one. Good bye and Take Care
Wolverine
talk 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"the current most popular third language in the Provence is now Spanish." This ist nur reccent, nicht wahr? Ach nein, das Amerikanische imperialism. Nehm any famous Canadian you kenst of, das Deutsch as ein drittesprache spricht. Brauchen Kanadiens Spanisch as much as die US Amerikanen, nicht wahr? - This is only reccent, right? Oh no, American imperialism, I don't soppose Canadians *need* spanish as much as the Americans, do they? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)
Ah, ich bin surprised. W'rum would Spañarden mirgate as fern Nors as Kanada, i'dacht, dass they mainlich to der US migrated. - Ah, I am surprised. Why would they migrate as far north as Canada, I thought it was mainly to the US. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)
Hi; I checked out the article, and it didn't seem to say anything about the passages I had a problem with, so I'm going to remove them and rephrase the section. I'm also going to ask for an expert review of the article, so we can get all this sorted out by someone who does this for a living. Cheers Tlogmer 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi DV8. Thanks for your message on my user page. I don't want to get caught up in the argument about uranium trioxide gas - my life isn't worth it! However, I'm happy to support the article in any way I can. Looking at the talk page there, it seems only James S. really believes in or cares about UO3 gas :). I've looked at his scans of 1960s papers, but I just can't be bothered to spend hours trying to understand them. I'll leave the arguing to you guys and I'll keep the article readable and tidy where possible.
Cheers,
Ben 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I read a view papers on this topic! The Ackermann is only chemical transport without any prove for the stuff in the gasphase UO3 postulated. The mass-spectroscopy article I have to read but what I think it will be the same. I will try further to fight for science untill the article is on the level that all of the chemists agree with it! -- Stone 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on a template to try to help better catagorize the various nuclear technologies. I would like some comment on it before putting it on any pages though. If you have the time could you look at it and perhaps comment on what you think I've missed and its general format? Thanks. Lcolson 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Its a fairly rare known bug that I'm working on that causes it to switch the last two contributors when someone edits the page when the bots doing its revert cycle, it seems to happen extremely rarely but I'm working on a fix, sorry about that -- Tawker 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The term indeed commonly addresses phone calls.
Thus the article needs urgent edit!
It is not obvious, if it is about disposeable batteries, or rechargeable batteries.
(Because the term "old" is used).
My information is true for rechargeable batteries.
As long as the sets keep together, and the discharge is not complete, it does not matter, and a "reverse charging" does not take effect.
More, leaving batteries (for months) into appliances gives far more unpleasant results.
In case of ignorance, i declare to add this information again (in better quality).
alex
11:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Never do something without thinking! was a sentence a wise man once told me I sometimes ignore it!-- Stone 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I realise you're a frequent contributer to this article, and not a vandal, but do you realise that you're reverting to a duff version? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nuclear_power&diff=44678093&oldid=44675849 - you're adding some SWANSON comment and removing a load of ext links and international language tags. Thought you ought to know! --
OscarTheCat
talk
16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We should mke clear that the gas is disputed. Is there an easy methode to stick a disputed tag to the UO3 sections in the differnt articles?-- Stone 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to congratulate James on provoking controversy - I'm just trying to be diplomatic. I don't want to attack him personally because it will only weaken the prosecution in arbitration. Let them decide if James is wrong and POV from his contributions. On James' talk page, I was thanking him for the references that I can use to add chemical data on UO3. I was thinking of the Cotton reference, because I want to add the structure of the molecule.
My personal feeling is that James is making a crusade against science, trying to prove DU and its compounds are causing Gulf War Syndrome and that there's a massive cover-up by the US Government. My own view on DU is that I don't know very much about it and the chemistry of uranium oxides is very complicated, but that UO3(g) probably has nothing to do with Gulf War Syndrome. Occam's razor - why invoke theories on UO3(g) when dust particles of solid UO3 can perfectly well explain human exposure.
Anyway, give me a break. My concern is to make uranium trioxide a good chemical article.
Take it easy, I hope you don't feel angry towards me. I like the way you stick up for the other side against James.
Ben 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I just reverted the deletion of sources on the above section. Please add full reference data to the article for your citations. Thanks, Vsmith 14:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know enough about this topic to have anything helpful to say one way or another, but the broad trend of it (one guy pushing a very specific agenda, linked explicitly to his own private campaigns against the NRC, against the disapproval of three or four editors who are clearly well educated in these sorts of subjects) raises my eyebrow. But I don't know enough about the subject or its literature to tell what's OR and what's not, but the fact that there are lots of back-and-forth equations is never a good sign in my opinion. -- Fastfission 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am so grateful and appreciative for your edits this morning. Thank you very much. -- James S. 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem James, I know when I'm on the wrong side of an argument. I'm thinking now that some of the toxicology data you've posted elsewhere needs wider distribution, eh?. -- DV8 2XL 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
James has cited a paper which I have read and I think that it may be flawed. Please could you take a look at the paper by Busby which is in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles. Cadmium 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your writing style's pretty good I think - a bit like mine!. Keep it up!-- Light current 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"the Hispanophone population in Montreal, in fact may well surpass the Anglophone numbers in the very near future." That is if the trend continues, do you have any idea what the most common third language may have been historically. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk)