Talk:Depleted uranium

Generation of Thorium?

The article mentions this:

"However, in a matter of a month or so, depleted uranium generates amounts of thorium-234 and protactinium-234 which radiate beta rays at almost the same rate as that of the alpha rays from the uranium-238."

Please correct me if I am wrong and this applies differently to depleted Uranium, but isn't the half life of Uranium 2.3*10^7 years? Thorium and Protactinium should therefore certainly be generated, but only in miniscule quantities. It would be interesting to compare the quantity of Thorium generated after a month by long term retained DU following inhalation, with the amount of Thorium ingested through natural sources. I am also not sure where the "in a matter of a month or so" comes in - decay should be continuous.94.196.179.244 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume it's talking about the buildup of Th-234 and Pa-234 in a sample of U-238, till the equilibrium level is reached, at which Th is decaying as fast as it's created. Th-234 has a half-life of 24.1 days. "Miniscule quantities", yes, because the ratio of the decay rates of Th-234 to U-238 is about 700 million to one.

(U-238 has a half-life of 4.5×10^9 years; it's U-236's which is 2.3×10^7 years.)

—WWoods (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clarify. Because production of decay daughters is essentially constant (too slow to affect the amount of U-238), when this process is started, the amount of them starts from zero and then goes up as an inverse exponential to an equilibrium quantity which is set by the ratio of half-lives-- in the case of Th-234 it is 681 million to one. But since Th-234 is exactly that much more radioactive, after it has hit equilibrium it is contributing almost exactly as much to the disintigration rate as the U-238. This is easier to see if you imagine for a moment that Th-234 decays instantaneously when formed-- in that case it's easy to see that it would be as though the U-238 decayed twice whenever it did decay, and thus your total decays would be double that from pure U-238. Something much like this DOES happen with Pa-234, which decays within hours of being formed from Th-234, so once the Th-234 has hit equalibrium, the Pa-234 has done so long before, and the total decay rate in curies is TRIPLE that of the pure U-238 (of course, only 1/3rd of this is alphas, and the other 2/3ds of decays are the betas from the other two isotopes). Basically, the radiation goes up from baseline x amount of U-239 alpha, to x alpha + eventually 2x beta

Now, the only question left is how fast does the Th-234 build up, since this controls that extra 200% beta emission. The answer is (I'll save you the math for now) that it builds up to the maximum as this function of time: Amount = MAX ADDITIONAL AMOUNT • 1-[exp^-λt)]. Where the exp-λt is the usual 2^{(-t/halflife)}, and the controlling halflife is that of the Th-234. So after 1 halflife of 24.1 days, the extra 2x double beta contribution from the Th and Pa decays is 1-1/2 = half of the eventual extra of 2x baseline, so it's a total of twice the baseline (baseline plus half of twice baseline = 2 times baseline). After 2 halflives of 48 days, this goes up to x alpha plus [1-¼](2x)beta = 1+(3/2) = 2.5 times baseline total. Eventually it reaches 3 times, but it takes forever to do so. After a conventional 5 halflives (120 days = 4 months or so) we're up to baseline times 1+2(1-2^-5) = 2.9375 baseline. That surely happens before the ammo is used. This is all "original research" sort of like doing your own multiplication, but perhaps enough that you'll agree to tweek the text a bit. I may do so in the U-238 article. SBHarris 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also remember that the dose to an organ is a function of the type of particle and not just the number of particles. Dose tables already include the dose from daughter products. Starkrm (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. SBHarris 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for a moratorium on military use

I have just edited a paragraph and deleted a paragraph. I think that this source may be of some use if someone wishes to reinstate the paragraph but please note that the source has a strong POV and should be used with care. It would be much better to find a more neutral source. --PBS (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] appears confirmed by http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10792.doc.htm 69.228.197.162 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"It then adopted draft XIV on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium with a vote of 141 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (Annex XIII)." --PBS (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I added the par about the new UNGA resolution. I am a campaigner but I felt that it was pretty balanced reportage, there's more detailed info here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/215.html

I think that the changing position from several EU states is particularly significant. In particular the change from the Dutch government who last year voted against a DU resolution only to support it this year. The par on the 2007 resolution is incorrect in that the resolution called for a debate in 2008 (during the 63rd GA session) it also seems weighted in favour of the US and UK as it ignores the overwhelming majority of states that supported both texts. On both resolutions Russia abstained and China (although in the room) recorded an absent vote because the resolution was submitted by the NAM group. I would replace with:

In December 2008, 144 states supported a resolution requesting that three UN agencies: UNEP, WHO and IAEA update their research on the impact of uranium munitions by late 2010 - to coincide with the General Assembly's 65th Session (A/C.1/63/L.26). The resolution was supported by the Netherlands who voted against a resolution highlighting health concerns in 2007 and by other NATO members including Germany, Italy, Finland, Iceland and Norway. Four states voted against the text - the UK, US, France and Israel. ICBUW (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against adding the piece but it must have a source and the facts that are added must be in the source. Yes it may be significant that Netherlands have changed their position but there has to be a source that says it is significant (otherwise just report the fact and leave it at that). Have Germany, Italy, Finland, Iceland and Norway altered their positions since 2007? It is also significant that none of the 5 permanent members of the security council have yet to endorse the resolution, because unless some of them do there is no chance of a new treaty that has any bite. Again there is no need to say that unless there is a source that does. --PBS (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I will add the suggested neutral par above with a link to the UN Department of Public Information. WRT to a treaty, you are getting a little ahead of yourself, this is only the second time the UNGA has passed a DU resolution, typically at least three are needed before the issue is passed to the UN body most suited to deal with it, in this case the CCW. Although given its past history with mines and clusters it is unlikely that it will be able to deal with the issue effectively. Never the less this was the biggest thing to happen internationally with DU in 2008.ICBUW (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that when reading the section the emphasis had changed from EU to NATO, so I have copied edited it to keep it consistent. I also added names to the acronyms. If there is anything you disagree with then please feel free to edit it and before I make any changes I'll bring them here for discussion first. --PBS (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope that looks grand, cheers. Will try and add some bits on the Oct 08 US Congressional review of veterans' studies and the Dec 08 Italian Government's confirmation of compensation for veterans who served overseas when I get a minute. ICBUW (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Effects on children in Iraq

hello

I'm a little surprised that there is no mention of the effects that the use of DU in the Gulf War supposedly had on children born during the 1990s. In the Basra hospital, photos of genetic malformations were readily shown to visiting reporters, and physicians told them that the incidence of such malformations had increased in a way that suggested an external cause, for which use of DU ammunition in the Gulf War was proposed (the zone depicted on the map for use of DU is consistent with the region of people giving birth in the Basra hospital).

I'm aware that there is probably not a single serious study to scientifically link the DU to the malformations in Basra, but I wonder if WP should mention that there is a debate ongoing on that. Should I search for a good source (which would reflect this as an debate, not as a fact) or would it be wiser not to mention it at all as long as there is no serious study about the subject? Thanks for any opinion. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness to Iraqi healthcare professionals and the many civilians they treat I think it is important to find adequate sources for a mention in this article. It doesn't need to dominate the article and you won't be removing contrary information. Because the content is so specific (and pertinent) it can be done with neutrality, especially as the source and context is explained. The voice of Iraq's MD's are valid. They have doctorates in science and have the benefit of direct observation of carefully counted (and photographed) clients on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. The reference in the lead section that disclaims the relationship of DU to cancer is from Force Health Protection & Readiness. This could be seen as biased and it has its place in the article. So, yes, you should search for a good source. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Studies missing

The World Health Organization in conjunction with the United Nations Joint Medical Staff, has reviewed health and medical concerns for depleted uranium. It is found at [2]. The same group also did a complete review of the literature and science on the subject and developed a substantial report. It is found at [3].

More recently, Sandia Labs studied the same issues and produced another lengthy report with many graphs, equations and scientific results. The press release announcing this report includes a link to the report itself. It is found at [4].

These are both highly reputable sources and the scientific work is detailed and thorough. But instead of using these sources as primary information, this article uses less reliable information and more sensational reports, and uses them in great detail and the header of the article focuses exclusively on the articles that describe great health risks and ignores these more reliable sources. That is called "bias". I am putting a neutrality tag on the article.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2000 and 2005 sources are already summarized and cited in the article. That short 2003 source isn't, but if you look a few talk sections above, you will notice that the U.N. General Assembly just ordered WHO, IAEA, and UNEP to update their studies because of problems as described, for example, in this interview. Also, the peer-reviewed secondary literature review sources (e.g. [5] and [6]) are the most reliable according to Wikipedia's criteria. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is one of bias. As the wikipedia's policies on NPOV say, bias is introduced by undue reliance on certain sources and subordination of others. This has nothing to do with how reliable your two sources mentioned are. It has to do with the fact that those two sources do not conclude anything but the article bends over backwards to give that perspective more air than the most dominant scientific perspective. Again... its a matter of bias. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Those peer-reviewed secondary sources don't conclude anything? They both have "conclusion" sections. In the case of the Hindin et al (2005) paper the conclusions are a single sentence which is already included in the article. The conclusions of the Craft et al (2004) paper cite this table. I would agree that the information in that table is not yet fully represented in the article, and in that sense the article is indeed biased. 69.228.211.161 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The WHO 2001 report concludes only that more research is needed. The WHO guidelines state they are based on this same report. The only stated additional research data was an environmental study done by the UNEP (members from WHO and IAEA) in Bosnia 2003. The relationship between the WHO and IAEA is also a subject of controversy.[7][8] The decisions on which the WHO guidelines are based are not congruent with the previous 2001 report from the same agency. This too could be placed in this wiki article, exposing the topic's controversy further. My vote: this wiki article currently retains adequate neutrality. - Steve3849 ^talk 17:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: Unlike the epidemiological studies, the Sandia study does not appear to be peer reviewed, only contracted. From the Sandia website: "Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness." Again, these do not appear to be unbiased sources. Yet, I think including them contributes to golden calf of neutrality. Why not include them, rather than the NPOV banner? - Steve3849 ^talk 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Marshall's 2005 Sandia study is in the article already, both as reference 98 at present, and in the external links. The WHO report on Bosnia is reference 89, and the 2001 WHO study Blue Tie suggests is the first link under "United Nations" in the external links. 69.228.211.161 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unstudied effects" as a section

The information in this article is obviously controversial. Controvery however does not make it unencyclopedic. This is the advantage to an online encyclopedia; it has a greater chance of not being censored for political reasons. The section "unstudied effects in Basra" was revoved for the rationale of being "unencyclopedic" and "unsubstantiated news article".[9] The rationale for its inclusion is in the quote from the British Royal Society. Articles are viable if they are major news sources (which these are). - Steve3849 ^talk 22:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that the information "in this article" is controversial but I agree that controversy does not make it unencyclopedic. What does make the information I removed unencyclopedic is that there was no verifable peer reviewed information in that section. I would stand by my removal of any section titled "unstudied <anything>" from any article. The place to debate the article is on the talk page. I think it is very important to stick to the known facts and I would welcome a rational discussion here with anyone on any DU subject. However, I have been following this article for years and I will not sustain adding hyperbole or unscientific political agendas to shape it. Starkrm (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the Sandia study peer reviewed? It appears to be reviewed only by empoyees of Sandia. The Royal Society is mentioned as contributing "comments and suggestions", but not review. Also there is this: Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review - Steve3849 ^talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, neither the Australian Defense Ministerium nor the IAEA produce peer-reviewed studies. But their opinions are included. It is not true, I think, that in WP any not peer-reviewed information is forbidden. Take a look at the pages about any political organization, a war, a religion... You'll find plenty of opinions sourced to politicians, journalists and priests, these are not considered facts but well-attributed opinions. They have their place in an encyclopedia. It is a fact that there is a debate ongoing about Basra. Not the effects are a fact, but the debate, I repeat. And as such, the debate has its place in WP, I'd consider. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons has asked for a study in Basra, so there is an interest to address the subject, regardless of the final verdict.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a health section already in the article that could have this information added in a brief statement and I think that would be a good compromise. The problem is that there are many, peer reviewed studies of the effects of U on the human body that show little or no effect. The news articles that were cited in that section largely relied on agenda driven political figures rather than science. Starkrm (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "unstudied" part, but we also have a graph from a scholarly monograph concerning the question of Basrah hospital births. I was surprised to see that an editor claiming proficiency removed so many of the best sources from the introduction's discussion of the controversy, including the only literature review (WP:SECONDARY) sources we have. Also, you completely removed the excerpt from Veterans Administration epidemiology director Dr. Kang, including the citation to his work. Isn't that going way overboard? The removals seem considerably more agenda-driven than the sources I replaced. 209.11.184.10 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, I would say, a subject which has been published in a medical journal (we can't exclude it just because it's from Basra) and written about in a newspaper which has been awarded 20 Pulitzer Prizes (The Boston Globe) shouldn't be just deleted as if it were crap. Thanks for putting it back. As I said: having this section here DOES NOT MEAN that the peer-reviewed studies are untrue. It does just mean that there are physicians and journalists out there talking about the subject. And that is a piece of information which I would expect to find in Wikipedia when researching about DU. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of a sentence about the idea. I think that would be a good compromise. The article already has a health section. The section I deleted certainly did not have "many of the best sources" since the sources were mainly newspapers who relied on agenda driven political activist rather than scientists. In any case I DID NOT remove the material from the introduction, I MOVED it to the health section where it belonged. I stand by not having a section in an encyclopedic article titled "Unstudied <anything>." If you want a well written encyclopedic article then bring the discussion here and answer my points. A sudden reversion of edits by someone from an IP address brings immediately to my mind a sock. Regarding Dr. Kang - the reference was not actually a citation from his work. The removals are agenda-driven only in the sense that I would like to see this article driven by a scientific agenda. Starkrm (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have integrated a shorter version - omitting perhaps unnecessary details - of the article back into the text. Please check if you are okay with it. Yo claim that you don't object to the inclusion of a sentence about the idea, but strangely enough, the only sentence you left in the text was "Despite the visual impact of photographs from Basra, experts claim that not a single serious epidemiological study has been undertaken in the region and the link between DU and genetic malformations is far from proven", without any reference to what photographs, what malformations and what visual impact the sentence referred to. That is, to say the least, very very odd a sentence. I hope the shorter version is neutral enough to just show that there is a debate going on on that subject, which is an undeniable fact supported by reliable sources. You can't exclude minority views, if echoed by reliable sources - and the Boston Globe is one - just because they don't fit the mainstream view. That's against WP:Neutrality. A scientific agenda is not against mentioning minority views.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with some earlier statements regarding "non controversy" and that there are numerous peer reviewed studies that show little or no effect implying that all studies agree. There are numerous peer reviewed studies that show a significant effect (observe the references at this link). "Politically driven", as Starkrm termed, is the center of the controversy. The Sandia study (again) does not appear to be peer reviewed and is by a company self described as having "major R&D responsibilities in... economic competiveness" and is directly parented by one of the world's leading military contractors while funded by U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. How much more political can one get? Its like paying the wolf to check on the safety of the sheep. Also, as stated in the discussion preceding this one, the relationship of WHO and IAEA has been questionable. Peer reviewed studies are likely plentiful on the physical properties of the metal. The human element requires disciplines of biology and medicine with settings both clinical and field. Again, present these "numerous peer reviewed" studies please. The potential effects of thousands of tons of depleted uranium dispersed into human habitat is unstudied. It does not require a peer review study to state that something important is unstudied. Yet, the linked peer reviewed study (in this paragraph) has actually done this: "There is a serious need for careful epidemiological research that can elucidate the relationship between DU exposure and specific classes of birth defects." - Steve3849 ^talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did Starkrm delete Dr. Kang's study again, and try to make the intro say it is a metal? DUF6 is not a metal. He also changed "lasting kidney damage" to "lasting health effects." 64.9.241.27 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "lasting kidney damage" it was "...no lasting kidney damage." & I edited to say "...no lasting health effects." Quite a different meaning from what you are implying. Starkrm (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the description of Dr. Kang's study? 69.228.211.251 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The links in Reference 15 are broken, here's a fix for it: http://www.artikel-software.com/blog/2006/10/09/primer-on-spontaneous-heating-and-pyrophoricity/ Pulu (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Table inclusion

How much of this table do people think needs to be included in the article? 69.228.82.0 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I cant access that link b/c my CalNet Authentication died years ago. Don't y'all hate that?! Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? It works just fine without a login for me. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So it does for me. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was fairly simple to convert that to this wikitable:

Compilation of 2004 Review Information Regarding Uranium Toxicity
Body system	Human studies	Animal studies	In vitro
Renal	Elevated levels of protein excretion, urinary catalase and diuresis	Damage to Proximal convoluted tubules, necrotic cells cast from tubular epithelium, glomerular changes	None
Brain/CNS	Decreased performance on neurocognitive tests	Acute cholinergic toxicity; Dose-dependent accumulation in cortex, midbrain, and vermis; Electrophysiological changes in hippocampus	None
DNA	Increased reports of cancers	Increased urine mutagenicity and induction of tumors	Binucleated cells with micronuclei, Inhibition of cell cycle kinetics and proliferation; Sister chromatid induction, tumorigenic phenotype
Bone/muscle	None	Inhibition of periodontal bone formation; and alveolar wound healing	None
Reproductive	Uranium minors have more first born female children	Moderate to severe focal tubular atrophy; vacuolization of Leydig cells	None
Lungs/respiratory	No adverse health effects reported	Severe nasal congestion and hemorrage, lung lesions and fibrosis, edema and swelling, lung cancer	None
Gastrointestinal	Vomiting, diarrhea, albuminuria	n/a	n/a
Liver	No effects seen at exposure dose	Fatty livers, focal necrosis	None.
Skin	No exposure assessment data available	Swollen vacuolated epidermal cells, damage to hair follicles and sebaceous glands	None
Tissues surrounding embedded DU fragments	Elevated uranium urine concentrations	Elevated uranium urine concentrations, perturbations in biochemical and neuropsychological testing	None
Immune system	Chronic fatigue, rash, ear and eye infections, hair and weight loss, cough. May be due to combined chemical exposure rather than DU alone	None	None
Eyes	None	Conjunctivitis, irritation inflammation, edema, ulceration of conjunctival sacs	None
Blood	None	Decrease in RBC count and hemoglobin concentration	None
Cardiovascular	Myocarditis resulting from the uranium ingestion, which ended 6 months after ingestion	No effects	None

Since that source is about the best in the article, I'm including it under chemical toxicity. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information in intro

The introduction is quite lengthy and contains a lot of redundant information. The last paragraph sticks out especially as unnecessary because it repeats the health effect section's negative adverse health effect's verbatim. We shouldn't need all that information or really even that third paragraph at all but it defiantly needs some fat trimmed. Another issue with this that I see is the article subjects controversial use; the large length of of that paragraph appears the shift the entire article toward it's use as a weapon and violate POV. Any thoughts on what should stay or about removing the last intro paragraph in its entirety? -- $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin ^(talk)(?)  22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The redundant info (copy/pasted) is actually in the health effects section as it was originally written into the intro. The third paragraph of the intro does stick out because the subject of the article is controversial. Removing it entirely would not be appropriate. Trimming doesn't seem like a bad idea. Rephrasing the health effects section and allowing it to have more detail also makes sense as the introduction should be an "introduction" only. As far as the weight towards weapons use in the article: this is precisely why the subject of the article is controversial and to shift the article away from weapons use also risks violating NPOV. The article is about a controversial topic as many of it's references show. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I moved some health effect info that was in the intro down to the health section and removed some of the less relevant copy/paste health effect verbage from the intro into the appropriate section. I kept the controversial statement and general weaponized health effects to give a more introductory paragraph. -- $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin ^(talk)(?)  01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well now the problem is that the controversy is glossed over in the intro, without stating the specific health concerns. WP:LEAD says that the intro should summarize the controversy, not just say that there is one. It also states that three paragraphs isn't too long of an intro for an article of this size. Furthermore, it basically says that the intro is actually supposed to be redundant, because the lead can't have anything in it which doesn't appear in the article body. That third paragraph was trimmed not too long ago. Because I'm a little concerned about the abundance of slanted ideological issues in your edit history, I reverted. 208.54.4.66 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I left the specific health concerns in clearly and provided general context for the health concerns. I would like you to expand upon why you believe the controversy section is glossed over. I know what WP:LEAD says and it does not say that the intro is supposed to be redundant. It says that the intro should provide a general context and summary of the article(exactly like you first stated in the sentence with the wikilink) not repeat verbatim/copy paste a section - in this case, health concerns. Anyone can view my contributions but I don't know who would view my edits as "slanted". That is obviously loaded and has no basis in fact. In addition, as anyone can see most of my edits are aimed at cleaning up POV issues with wikipedia and from my experience this article and your post are both extremely fishy. As an anonymous poster with only 7 edits, 4 of which were in the last week(and 1 vandalism edit on the Aeromexico article) referencing the wiki MOS screams of a wikipedia activist trying to hide his previous POV edits. Sock puppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and I will not be bullied by misguided internet activist. I am restoring the edits unless you can give a valid to delete all my edits. Oh and if you do post again, why don't you use your real account instead posting anonymously since were attacking edit history. That's just bad taste. -- $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that you left "specific health concerns in clearly" -- but this is what you edited the intro to say:

The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of numerous unanswered questions about potential long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. However, it is weakly radioactive and remains so because of its long half-life. The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel.

How does that summarize the controversy? There is no mention of any specific health concerns like reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, or any of the other specific concerns that you deleted. The sentences about "less toxic than other heavy metals" and "weakly radioactive" are now unbalanced -- and unsourced -- in contrast to the specific health concerns sourced to the WP:SECONDARY peer-reviewed source citations you removed. 207.62.246.65 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Radioactivity and toxicity(reproductive/immune) are both listed health concerns. See WP:COMMON for how the new intro summarizes these two things. The only controversy here now is in your purported specific health concerns and suspicious unyielding need to have them plastered one-by-one in the introductory paragraph. Passing off a large negative list of specific medical studies that are themself controversial does not help to address to the controversy surrounding the article itself. Or specifically, the use of DU as a weapon and it's ethical talking points for it's disuse. I could understand your rationale if the article was about it's use as a weapon but even then it would be unbalanced. Common protocol would dictate a compromise on content but I'm just not sure it would be worth my time considering your use of tmobile and university networks to disguise your identity and your wild accusations of bias. -- $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't want to cite WP:COMMON when you remove peer-reviewed secondary (literature review) sources, saying they, "are themself controversial," when all you are leaving are unsourced opposing statements in their place. Please have a look at WP:PSTS -- peer reviewed literature reviews are the least controversial and the most reliable of all the science sources possible. It looks like you've been removing reference to two of them and deleting one secondary source entirely. That's not improving the quality of the encyclopedia, and it's unlikely to stick, especially in a controversial article. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relative Toxicity

In the article it is stated, "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury.", I think this should be rewritten: "The immediate and short term toxicity of DU is less than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury." As, in the previous sentence of the article it is implied that the long term effects are not known. Of course, everyone should do their own research and ask their own questions as many have - a little googling will demonstrate to most that the questions this article describes as 'unanswered', have likely been answered.

-Tyler Jordan http:earthsociety.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.117.24 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a [citation needed] tag to the unsourced relative toxicity statement and removed "unanswered," although I would point out that "unanswered" appears in the Miller & McClain (2007) source from where that sentence was taken. However, assuming the remainder of the summary is allowed to remain in the intro, it hardly matters whether the questions have been definitively answered, and based on the table being discussed a couple sections above, it seems that the truth of the matter is that the questions have been answered for some animals but not for humans. (Also, please note that new talk page sections go at the bottom, not the top.) GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)