Talk:Depleted uranium

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 (18:05, 15 May 2006) 7 (09:29, 15 June 2006) 8 through September 2006

Banned user's version much better than existing article

I like the "banned user" version better: 50 more references, 12 more kilobytes, and more honest. James, Black Omega, or whoever you are, don't let them get you down. WP:IAR applies here if it applies anywhere. --Chaim in Tel Aviv 212.199.91.98 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do ya now James? You know what I love most about this? Every sockpuppet you use never forgets to mention that they are most definitely not you!. What a hoot! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC, is there anyone who has edited the article in the past week that you are not accusing of being James? Those kind of accusations are one of the reason that so many people edit this article anonymously or under seperate accounts--we don't want our reputations sullied by baseless accusations. I agree too much stuff has been cut since he's been banned. Lots of people take things out, but he was the only one who consistently added material which doesn't show DU in a purely positive light. I'm adding a POV tag. -Alex- 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm blocking your account indefinitely as a sockpuppet used to evade an arbcom ban, James. Nandesuka 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you and TDC have such a grudge about this article that you see James in anyone whoever tries to add some truth? You just banned an "unrelated" user. Are you going to go and ban Al Marshall too because he admits he did not consider and reproductive or nonradiological toxicity even though the sorry excuse for this current article implies that his study "concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics" -- how easy is that if you only look at radiation, which is a tiny fraction of the chemical risk?!? Look at the Black Omega version; look at its references; please compare them to the current version! Whoever did it has far more respect for both the truth *and* the style guidelines than the legions of censors who chop the facts out of this article and then accuse whoever dares to put them back in as being someone who they are not.

Where is the line between following the rules like a good little soldier in lockstep and supporting the obvious truth? Is this pattern not the ultimate justification of WP:IAR? If the censors want to delete the bulk of this article then make them say why.

Responsible admins need to step in here and replace the Black Omega version. And if others don't like it, then let them justify their deletions with science instead of personal attack accusation. --Chaim, glad he did not make -Alex-'s mistake of using an account to post here instead of logging out! 212.199.91.98 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am Black Omega

I am not the person who was banned from contributing to this article. I simply went in and corrected some strange punctuation after reading through it.

I suffer from a genetic disease that causes damage to my metabolism. This disease came as a result of my parents being too close to Hiroshima during the time of the blast and their exposure to the area while participating in the subsequent medical relief efforts.

Something that didn't hit the news in the United States is the amount of genetic illnesses that have resulted from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are real and some of them indeed have resulted from exposure to depleted uranium.

I invite the scholars here who frequent wikipedia to take a look at the unpopular reality presented by those two events. And the persistant consequences still at play from them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Omega (talk • contribs) 15:40, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

I am not any of these people

I have not edited Depleted uranium, and certainly not to the extent that User:71.252.225.61 recently did. Nor did I edit as Peter Cheung when he was accused and convicted--by a single administrator--of being me while editing through an open proxy (which certainly looks to me like it was part of a DSL DHCP pool and thus would be very unlikely to host a proxy) some months ago. I note that IP address is in Dallas, Texas, which is very near Plano, where Dr. Cheung claimed to be from.

At the time I thought someone was going to absurd lengths to set me up, but now I think I had better talk to whoever did the checkuser on Peter Chung's IP address, calling it an open proxy.

TDC, you said you had an email address for Dr. Peter Cheung. What is it? LossIsNotMore 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of the two versions

I hadn't realized just how much had been removed over the past several months. Here's a comparison:

Section	Current version	71.252.225.61/Black Omega version
Health considerations	starts out with an italicized discussion of the radiological hazard, which is known to be much less than the chemical hazard, then refers to a lengthy article with only a few paragraphs on uranium; 10 paragraphs and 1 sub-section total	17 paragraphs total, introduced by a much more general paragraph, with 5 sub-sections
Chemical and radiological hazards	no such section -- the pertinent discussion is disjointed in several paragraphs spread throughout "Health considerations"	2 paragraphs, one for chemical and the other for radiological
Birth defects and other affects	no such section -- 1 paragraph mentions the problem in passing with a single reference	7 paragraphs and a graph, including a quotation proving that the number of observed birth defects in children of Gulf War veterans is sharply increasing over time; 15 references, almost all from the peer-reviewed medical literature. ("Affects" should be "effects")
Patterns of exposure	no such section	3 paragraphs, a map, and 8 references, mostly from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature
Gulf War syndrome	2 paragraphs and 1 reference (note that Al Marshall admits that he did not consider reproductive and chemical toxicity)	3 paragraphs and 6 mostly peer-reviewed medical references
Soldier complaints	3 sentences as a top-level section, 1 link to a news report	2 paragraphs including 6 sources in the peer-reviewed medical literature, under "Health considerations"
Footnotes	12 in inconsistent formats, mixed in with 22 bare URL links	62, almost all with named links

Survey

Which version is the best article? Please vote below in this format: #...optional text...~~~~

The current version

The 71.252.225.61/Black Omega version

1. See table above. LossIsNotMore 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Them

Instead of just picking one, they should be merged. I don't think there are too many references. I don't think you CAN have too many references. This is an online Encyclopedia. No limits. Anyone who would use the references would probably like more instead of less (I being one of them). This encyclopedia should say everything in the most beneficial format that it can. Also, references prove what is writen (at least to a certain degree). Thus, more is better (if they are all valid references). SadanYagci 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• 62 footnotes is overdoing it. Why exactly are we voting on article content? It would seem that a more productive approach would be to edit the page to use the best of both versions. (Radiant) 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

During FAC they want at least one footnote per paragraph, so it's seems about right to me. Wikipedia is not paper, and the footnotes are small. I found most of those which were replaced, and they are almost all from the peer-reviewed literature.

This is a survey because those who have been removing the content from the article hauled me in front of the arbcom and got me prohibited from editing this because I told a military doctor that his denial of uranium's teratogenic properties bordered on malpractice. Since then, those who have been removing things from the article have accused at least ten people of being me, and have in at least two cases succeded in blocking people who are not me because they were adding things -- most recently as small as an {{POV}} tag, to this article. Because, according to one editor who is running for Arb Com, the guy who added the POV tag is an "obvious sockpuppet" even though checkuser says we are "unrelated." LossIsNotMore 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment from Black Omega

I did not add one word to the article I edited. I simply corrected some of the punctuation. Nothing more, nothing less. So anyone calling that version "the Black Omega version" is 100% incorrect. Because it simply was not my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Omega (talk • contribs)

Interwiki

We have begun the writing an article on the same subject in the Turkish Wikipedia. As I can't edit this page without an account, can you please add it to the links availible: Zayıflatılmış uranyum Thank you. --85.101.166.106 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

I added a brief intro section from an Argonne lab study for context, and a link to a summary of that report
KonaScout 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another discussion of the small amount of radioactivity and how harmless it is, without any mention at all of the very much more significant chemical toxicity or its implications. Doesn't the current version of the article already have enough of that? I'm sure Al Marshall and the rest of the military industrial complex are thrilled to have an Encyclopedia-of-Earth link spammer (who, ironically, doesn't disclose his or her identity or credentials) following in their footsteps. LossIsNotMore 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed my qui tam action in federal district court last Monday. I urge replacement of the article by the clearly superior 71.252.225.61/Black Omega version, per the table above. I would do it myself if I were allowed to edit this article. LossIsNotMore 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This link should be included: Determining the chronic biological health effects of depleted uranium among civilian populations

"Soldier Complaints"

This section isn't acceptable, even by its own admission. If there are no objections, it will be removed. Haizum 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "even by its own admission"? I prefer expansion, e.g.,

Current version

71.252.225.61/Black Omega version

American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. The correlation has not been confirmed and the hypothesis ignores the multitide of other exposures that soldiers in a war situation are likely to receive. Visit this article for more info http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71585-0.html

American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning. The US and UK governments have been attempting to monitor Gulf War veteran uranium exposure using urine tests. Urine assay for uranium inhalation exposure can be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake. The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days. If urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable. Exposure to teratogens may be measured by karyotype tests such as those most often provided for biopsy and amniocentesis. Soluble and most partially-soluble uranyl compounds affect gonadal chromosomes in proportion to the extent that they affect white blood cell chromosomes. Uranyl poisoning causes immune system disorders and may cause cancer.

LossIsNotMore 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro problems: "high strength", "radioactive"

Uranium is not particularly strong, and it spalls when milled or bent (which has also been removed, even though I distinctly remember adding that fact before I was banned, from a uranium metallurgy reference source in Stanford Libraries' archives.) The only properties upon which its widespread applications depend are its density and pyrophoricity. Strength should not be mentioned in the intro because it doesn't correspond to anything in the article. (See WP:LEAD)

Secondly, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the fact that depleted uranium is weakly radioactive is of little consequence unless it is inhaled or ingested, and even then, the hazard from its chemical toxicity is several orders of magnitude worse than its radioactivity. So the intro shouldn't say that the controversy is because of the radioactivity. A little bit of it is, but the primary controversy is the toxicity, which generally includes the radiological hazards of absorbed radioisotopes, anyway. The intro should say instead that the controversy is because DU is toxic.

Finally, until the other content disputes above pertaining to the "Health considerations" section are resolved, I think article should have a {{totallydisputed}} tag at the top. Even if the changes to the intro are made, the article remains factually incorrect in several respects (the current version of "soldier complaints" being just one obvious example) and biased in the manufacturer's favor. LossIsNotMore 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The properties of pure depleted uranium are like you describe them, but addition of titanium and niob change the situation drastical. [1] There are other metals with poor properties like iron and titanium and they are claiemed to have a high strength.--Stone 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the alloys not burn? LossIsNotMore 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strength and burnig are no opposit properies. Most of the magnesium alloys burn the same way pure magnesium burns, so with good luck Uranium alloy burns the same way like uranium, but is less likely to fragment or fall apart. --Stone 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Towards A-class

This is the improved version of the health considerations section. I want to replace the existing health considerations section with this one to see if that would make A-class, but this version uses the new reference formats so we can't just drop it in without reverting to the Black Omega/IP version which is getting old and doesn't have the anonymously-suggested link. How long are we going to have partial protection for this article? Unstable articles are never featured. LossIsNotMore 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Health considerations

The health effects of DU are determined by factors such as the extent of the exposure and whether it was internal or external. Three main pathways exist by which internalization of uranium may occur: inhalation, ingestion, and embedded fragments or shrapnel contamination. Properties such as phase (e.g. particulate or gaseous), oxidation state (e.g. metallic or ceramic), and the solubility of uranium and its compounds influence their absorption, distribution, translocation, elimination and the resulting toxicity. For example, metallic uranium is relatively non-toxic compared to hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds such as uranyl nitrate.

Chemical and radiological hazards

The chemical toxicity of uranium salts is about a million times greater than their radiological toxicity. Uranium is pyrophoric when finely divided. It will corrode under the influence of air and water producing insoluble uranium(IV) and soluble uranium(VI) salts. Soluble uranium salts are toxic. Uranium accumulates in several organs, such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The World Health Organization has established a daily "tolerated intake" of soluble uranium salts for the general public of 0.5 µg/kg body weight (or 35 µg for a 70 kg adult.)

The radiological dangers of pure depleted uranium are 60% lower than those of naturally-occurring uranium due to the removal of the more radioactive isotopes, as well as due to its long half-life of 4.5 billion years. Depleted uranium differs from natural uranium in its isotopic composition, but its biochemistry is for the most part the same. Its radiological hazards are dependent on the purity of the uranium, and there has been some concern that depleted uranium produced as a by-product of nuclear reprocessing may be contaminated with more dangerous isotopes: this should not be a concern for depleted uranium produced as tailings from initial uranium enrichment. However, when alpha emitting radionuclides are taken into the body they become the most serious of all types of radiation hazards.

Birth defects and other effects

File:Basrah birth defects.gif

Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq, as reported by I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, (see Table 1 here). This version from data by same author(s) in Wilcock, A.R., ed. (2004) "Uranium in the Wind" (Ontario: Pandora Press.)

Children of British soldiers who fought in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used are at greater risk of suffering genetic diseases such as congenital malformations, commonly called "birth defects," passed on by their fathers. Veterans of the conflicts in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo have been found to have up to 14 times the usual level of chromosome abnormalities in their genes.

Early scientific studies usually found no link between depleted uranium and cancer, and sometimes found no link with increases in the rate of birth defects, but newer studies have and offered explanation of birth defect links. There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans, but it induces them in several other species of mammals, and human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU. Environmental groups and others have expressed concern about the health effects of depleted uranium, and there is significant debate over the matter. Some people have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions, because of its proven mutagenicity, teratogenicity, in animals, and neurotoxicity, and its suspected carcinogenic potential, because it remains radioactive for an exceedingly long time with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and because it is also toxic in a manner similar to lead and other heavy metals.

A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects. After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."

In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."

In 2001, doctors at the hospital in Kosovska Mitrovica reported that the number of patients suffering from malignant diseases increased by 200% since 1998. In the same year, The World Health Organization said there has been no reported increase in cancer among the civilian population in Kosovo.

By contrast, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage."

Patterns of exposure

Approximate area and major clashes in which DU bullets and rounds were used in the Gulf War

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas, and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine. Burning uranium droplets violently produce a gaseous vapor comprising about half of the uranium in their original mass. Uranium trioxide is produced when uranium burns. Uranyl ion contamination in uranium oxides has been detected in the residue of DU munitions fires.

DU can disperse into the air and water. The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The munition tips recovered by the United Nations Environment Programme team had already decreased in mass by 10-15% in this way. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis.

In October, 1992, an El Al Boeing 747-F cargo aircraft crashed in a suburb of Amsterdam. After reports of local residents and rescue workers complaining of health issues related to the release of depleted uranium used as counterbalance in the plane, authorities began an epidemiological study in 2000 of those believed to be affected by the accident. The study concluded that because exposure levels were so low, it was highly improbable that exposure to depleted uranium was the cause of the reported health complaints.

For further details see Actinides in the environment.

Gulf War syndrome

Main article: Gulf War syndrome

Increased rates of immune system disorders and other wide-ranging symptoms have been reported in combat veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. It has not always been clear whether these were related to Gulf War service, but combustion products from depleted uranium munitions is still being considered as a potential cause by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, as DU was used in tank kinetic energy penetrator and machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War.

Some experts in health physics consider it unlikely that depleted uranium has any connection with the Gulf War Syndrome, if such an illness exists at all. A two year study headed by Sandia National Laboratories' Al Marshall analyzed potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis and are not supported by veteran medical statistics. The Sandia study was not comprehensive because it considered only the radiological risks of depleted uranium exposure, but not the substantial toxicological and reproductive risks.

In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were found to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims.

Soldier complaints

American soldiers are complaining of injuries that they attribute to depleted uranium. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.

The US and UK governments have been attempting to monitor Gulf War veteran uranium exposure using urine tests. Urine assay for uranium inhalation exposure can be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake. The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days. If urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable. Exposure to teratogens may be measured by karyotype tests such as those most often provided for biopsy and amniocentesis. Soluble and most partially-soluble uranyl compounds affect gonadal chromosomes in proportion to the extent that they affect white blood cell chromosomes. Uranyl poisoning causes immune system disorders and may cause cancer.

Legal status in weapons

In 1996 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion on the "legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons". This made it clear, in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56, that international law on poisonous weapons, – the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 – did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate. This ICJ opinion was about nuclear weapons, but the sentence "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate." also removes depleted uranium weaponry from coverage by the same treaties as their primary use is not to poison or asphyxiate, but to destroy materiel and kill soldiers through kinetic energy.

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, passed two motions the first in 1996 and the second in 1997. They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. The committee authorized a working paper, in the context of human rights and humanitarian norms, of the weapons. The requested UN working paper was delivered in 2002 by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub-Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the United Nations Convention Against Torture; the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I; the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980; and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yeung Sik Yuen writes in Paragraph 133 under the title "Legal compliance of weapons containing DU as a new weapon":

Annex II to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 (which became operative on 8 February 1997) classifies DU as a category II nuclear material. Storage and transport rules are set down for that category which indicates that DU is considered sufficiently "hot" and dangerous to warrant these protections. But since weapons containing DU are relatively new weapons no treaty exists yet to regulate, limit or prohibit its use. The legality or illegality of DU weapons must therefore be tested by recourse to the general rules governing the use of weapons under humanitarian and human rights law which have already been analysed in Part I of this paper, and more particularly at paragraph 35 which states that parties to Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have an obligation to ascertain that new weapons do not violate the laws and customs of war or any other international law. As mentioned, the ICJ considers this rule binding customary humanitarian law.

In 2001, Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime. Louise Arbour, del Ponte's predecessor as chief prosecutor, had created a small, internal committee, made up of staff lawyers, to assess the allegation. Their findings, that were accepted and endorsed by del Ponte, concluded 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. (Emphasis added)