Talk:Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, and on those seeking to remove it.

This is posted to serve notice that as per the agreement at depleted uranium I will defend this article from any attempt to remove content that is properly referenced and verifiable as such. --DV8 2XL 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DV8, it looks like this is your show - I am new to wikipedia, so I dont know how to fix it, but it seems the links are a bit off... Link #53 sends the reader to the DU battlefield effectiveness story (although a secondary source) and link #52, in the area of the text dealing with the battlefield effectiveness of US DU tanks, sends the hapless reader (me) to a medical text. 17:00 CST, 6 February 2006.

This is not 'my show' I posted the above to remind others that may edit here that someone will be watching and reverting any attempts to remove properly sourced statements. There is much in this topic that is contentious and the old Depleted uranium suffered several edit wars as one side or the other on this issue sought to get the upper hand. We all finaly came to an agreement and keeping this article to the rules of content that are inforce was part of it. --DV8 2XL 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of FOIA

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the FOIA was considered original research. Ten Dead Chickens 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FOIAR abstract is published by the Navy monthly; this one ended up in their September, 2005 abstract. --James S. 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not establish its relevance. Ten Dead Chickens 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

To clear a few things up: Sandia is "managed" by Lockheed, not funded. Thats like saying the cafeteria at work is "funded" by Aramark when they just run it.

Secondly, I went over the CDC tox profile for sulfur mustard, and once again, the only referecnes to birth defects in humans I found was statment that there was no information available, and all information on birth defects was via animal studies. Please provide a "specific" page in which you found the material.

Lastly, with respect to the Marshal Study, you put in the follwoing text:

but did not consider any reproductive or developmental toxicity, immuniological effects, or neurotoxicity.

All these issues were in fact considered in the report. Have you read it? Ten Dead Chickens 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have read it. Have you? Let me help you. In section 1.2 on "Scope," it claims to include a complete evaluation of both radiological and nonradiological hazards. However, Section 5.2 on p. 72, "Other Heavy Metal Effects," reads:

"Some evidence has been reported for the possibility of other chemical effects associated with uranium internalization.... Among the tested veterans, McDiarmid s team observed a statistically lower score in [a] neurocognitive test for veterans with high uranium concentrations in their urine....

However, the slight neurocognitive effects did not appear to affect normal functioning; and the measured effect appears to be declining

"Veteran, animal, and in vitro testing suggests that a few other chemically induced health effects are possible, such as reproductive effects and chemically induced cancers....

"However, epidemiological data for humans with exposure to elevated levels of uranium

particulate do not show an increase in health effects of any type, relative to the general population (refer to Appendix D). The evidence for other chemically induced DU effects is not, at present, well established."

"Uranium is also deposited in the kidney, liver, lymph nodes, and other organs in small quantities....

"Some evidence has been reported for other chemical effects associated with uranium internalization. In vitro studies suggest that DU can induce malignant transformations with frequencies similar to those observed with the nonradioactive heavy metal carcinogens, nickel and lead. Studies by Benson et al. on female rats with DU implants have shown that uranium can cross the placental barrier....

This finding, however, was disputed by the National Academy of Science, and the possible association of DU with prolactin levels was not found during McDiarmid’s 2000 reassessment. Furthermore, no excess health effects of any type have been observed from epidemiological studies for uranium workers

And that is the full extent of Marshal's discussion of reproductive, developmental, immunological, and ~~neurological~~ chemical toxicities, none of which are factored into the risk ratios at all. The only reproductive hazard computed is the strictly radiological one, which is very low because uranium isn't very radioactive. Reverting. --James S. 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

once again, please stop cherry picking pieces of information, without providing the conclusions. And, by your own admission Marshall does investigate reproductive or developmental toxicity, immuniological effects, and neurotoxicity, although not his conclusions may not be satsifactory to you, he has covered these issues, and your text says the exact opposit.

Plus, you have not explained the "Lockheed Funded", when it is just managed by Lockheed, and the CDC tox profile, which does not mention human studies on birth defects. Ten Dead Chickens 16:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some fuel for the fire

Check out what GNC is selling: http://www.drugstore.com/qxp88904_333181_sespider/gnc/liquid_multi_colloidal_minerals.htm

They don't seem to be alone. I'm sure that it has as much uranium in it as a pinch of average topsoil, but the fact that they're able to market it as a health suppliment shows that Congress and the FDA are asleep at the wheel. Dr U 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back into mediation?

Unless I can convince myself that "Dr U" who claims to be an M.D. can justify any of the edits he seems intent on, then I will ask for a return to mediation. ----James S. 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, MY edits? The anonymous edits are the ones that substantially deviate from the original version. Each of mine were justified in detail, and made one at a time, and were primarily directed toward cleaning text or reducing reference to mustard gas, which is a strawman argument. SOMEBODY else, logging in anonymously made RIDICULOUS edits. Dr U 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These differences are primariliy yours, Du U, and since you are obviously so ashamed of them that you feel you need to lie about whether most of them were made after the compromise settlement shows the intellectual, moral, and scientific bankruptcy of your position. You claim an M.D.? This is the kind of scientific misconduct for which M.D.s licenses may be challenged in every state of the union. I challenge you to justify your changes; to wit, that:

DU is not toxic

That’s not the issue, anything is toxic in high enough levels. What the contention, and correct me if I am wrong here Doc U, but are exposure levels from DU weapons significant enough to cause toxic effects in exposed populations. Most studies say no. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are any reputable (e.g., peer-reviewed) sources after 2000 which claim nerve agents may be responsible for increases in the congenital malformation rate
Any government agency has ever disclosed anything more than "snapshot" information about the congenital malformation trends
"Any connection between Gulf War Syndrome and depleted uranium exposure is purely speculative...." versus "The symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome can be explained by uranium combustion product inhalation exposure. Until the extent of uranyl oxide gas vapor production is known, the amount of uranium in exposure victims bodies will only be measurable through invasive techniques. Metallic uranium(0) shrapnel exposure and uranium(IV) oxide exposure is qualitativly and toxicologically different than hexavalent uranium(VI) uranyl compound exposure."

James, all you can provide on this front is your own original research, and you cannot find even one peer reviewed source to back this, it’s a no brainer, gone.

Al Marshall's Lockheed-funded Sandia study considered any nonradiological reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, or immuniological effects.

For the last time, Lockheed does not “fund” Sandia, they manage the labs, big difference. 5.2 touches on nonradiological reproductive effects, 2.4 covers nonradiological developmental effects on offspring. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no proof that battlefield exposure to depleted uranium has caused harm, except to those targeted...." versus "The U.S. has admitted that there have been over 100 "friendly fire" DU victims, and an unknown number of inhalation exposure victims. Uranium combustion product inhalation exposure can result in substantial harm. No formal comparison can be made between the tactical advantages and the strategic drawbacks until the congenital malformation incident rate trend is known."

The proof that you have been editing against the compromise mediation settlement:

Your removal of "See also: Agent Orange"
Removal from Category:Uranium

Do you have any sources at all which support these absurd changes? --James S. 18:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, these anon edits are you James, are they not? Ten Dead Chickens 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; I shouldn't need to log in every time I edit. Who else? I went back and fixed my sig after I remembered my password. --James S. 18:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then don’t call it a “personal attack” to ask you to sign in when reverting. Ten Dead Chickens 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE BEEN LIED ABOUT: Here are my edits. The whole world can see that these are what I said they were. The only changes I made after these were wholesale REVERTS from the gutting of the article that was done after this. Anyone interested can look at the history to verify that I am telling the truth. Dr U 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, and in case anyone wishes to nit-pick, I also removed a graph that went to 2000, when the data referenced only went to 1998, and this was fully explained at the time. Dr U 20:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think you can hide from the plain evidence of the edit history? Please respond to the points above. --James S. 20:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Talk:Depleted uranium

I consider this voluntary compromise pre-mediation settlement spin-off article to have failed, and will be responding to points raised here on Talk:Depleted uranium. I would welcome a return to mediation, as I have stated in my demurrer to TDC's recent arbitration request. --James S. 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The mediation page is here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles --James S. 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]