Sorry James, but I am afraid that your latest reincarnation will be found out as quickly as your others. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC needs people to think that he honestly thought you were me, or else he will be in more trouble for reverting you on depleted uranium, where I am not allowed to edit. I am, however, able to edit Gulf War, and I will be correcting some of your mistakes there. In particular, you seem to imply that DU's radiological hazard is significant. In quantities which can be inhaled, it is not. Please see this report for the reason why -- the chemical toxicity is literally one million ("106" in the report) times worse in terms of producing DNA damage than its radiation. unsigned by user:SeparateIssue
In order to clear your name and keep people from reverting you, you need to go to WP:RFCU and request a checkuser on you and me, and then publish the results (e.g., on your user page, and User talk:Physchim62).
Another thing, on talk pages, for articles and users, new comments always go at the end.
SeparateIssue
16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to apologize for thinking you were a sock puppet for another user. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A good recent inhalation pathology study (including a short general review) which you can currently find in a medical library is PMID 16221956. They found that the chemical toxicity is apparently exacerbated by the radiation. Some of the most interesting work is coming out this October: PMID 16864406.
Most of the animal studies are going to be using the same DU as everyone else, so it will have the same U-235 and daughter products as military exposure victims.
As for the percent aerosolized, the big assumption for 30 mm ordnance (the majority of DU munitions used in combat) is whether the rounds that miss ignite. If, in the case of the 1991 Gulf War, the background was mostly sand, 5% might be reasonable. I think 30% is closer to the accurate value. The Sandia study is terrible, because they only looked at cancer risk, which has not been a problem for Gulf War veterans.
I recommend trying to add stuff to the existing articles in new subsections with clear headings. Most importantly, be sure to cite sources with each insertion. Your work is much less likely to be reverted that way. However, be prepared for people claiming that you are misinterpreting or even misrepresenting your sources. Certain people around here with links to the nuclear industry are very sensitive about the issue.
Have you seen the discussion at Talk:Uranium trioxide? I'm trying to get the skeptics there to talk to Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, who has more than 45 years of experience in uranium trioxide gas thermodynamics, who agrees with me that the gas products (which have never been measured, if you can believe that) are perhaps the most significant. SeparateIssue 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not received a response regarding old code related to a false sockpuppet charge on my user page, so I have just deleted it. I preserve it here for posterity-
![]() | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a
sockpuppet of
Nrcprm2026 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs). Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Sorry James, but I am afraid that your latest reincarnation will be found out as quickly as your others. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC needs people to think that he honestly thought you were me, or else he will be in more trouble for reverting you on depleted uranium, where I am not allowed to edit. I am, however, able to edit Gulf War, and I will be correcting some of your mistakes there. In particular, you seem to imply that DU's radiological hazard is significant. In quantities which can be inhaled, it is not. Please see this report for the reason why -- the chemical toxicity is literally one million ("106" in the report) times worse in terms of producing DNA damage than its radiation. unsigned by user:SeparateIssue
In order to clear your name and keep people from reverting you, you need to go to WP:RFCU and request a checkuser on you and me, and then publish the results (e.g., on your user page, and User talk:Physchim62).
Another thing, on talk pages, for articles and users, new comments always go at the end.
SeparateIssue
16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to apologize for thinking you were a sock puppet for another user. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A good recent inhalation pathology study (including a short general review) which you can currently find in a medical library is PMID 16221956. They found that the chemical toxicity is apparently exacerbated by the radiation. Some of the most interesting work is coming out this October: PMID 16864406.
Most of the animal studies are going to be using the same DU as everyone else, so it will have the same U-235 and daughter products as military exposure victims.
As for the percent aerosolized, the big assumption for 30 mm ordnance (the majority of DU munitions used in combat) is whether the rounds that miss ignite. If, in the case of the 1991 Gulf War, the background was mostly sand, 5% might be reasonable. I think 30% is closer to the accurate value. The Sandia study is terrible, because they only looked at cancer risk, which has not been a problem for Gulf War veterans.
I recommend trying to add stuff to the existing articles in new subsections with clear headings. Most importantly, be sure to cite sources with each insertion. Your work is much less likely to be reverted that way. However, be prepared for people claiming that you are misinterpreting or even misrepresenting your sources. Certain people around here with links to the nuclear industry are very sensitive about the issue.
Have you seen the discussion at Talk:Uranium trioxide? I'm trying to get the skeptics there to talk to Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, who has more than 45 years of experience in uranium trioxide gas thermodynamics, who agrees with me that the gas products (which have never been measured, if you can believe that) are perhaps the most significant. SeparateIssue 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not received a response regarding old code related to a false sockpuppet charge on my user page, so I have just deleted it. I preserve it here for posterity-
![]() | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a
sockpuppet of
Nrcprm2026 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs). Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |