| Revision as of 11:00, 28 May 2003 editKorpo~enwiki (talk | contribs)109 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:49, 19 July 2003 edit undoDelirium (talk | contribs)Administrators51,621 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --] | Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --] | ||
| ---- | |||
| I think the article comes off too much on the side of opponents of DU usage, and downplays the evidence against its danger by falsely implying that such evidence comes only from the US and UK. I'd consider the International Atomic Energy Agency one of the more reliable sources of such information, and they claim that DU has little if any health risks. They're also hardly known as a US ally, being of the principal critics of the US's handling of the Iraq thing. Their information page about DU can be found here: . In particular, see their answer to the question "Is DU a health hazard", here: (the conclusion is "no"). --] 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:49, 19 July 2003
concern about chemical toxicity of depleted uranium munitions: is this about the remains of used munition or also about handling munition? - Patrick 08:05 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
Recent studies of scientific bodies outside the USA and the UK
Which studies? Where can one find them?
Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body as bigger doses may be. While bigger doses kill cells, smaller doses only damage them. While dead cells are replaced by the body, these damaged cells are a possible source of cancer.
As far as I know, that is nonsense. What kind of study said that? The more radiation you get (the integral), the worse it is. It is false that "big doses kill cells" while "smaller doses only damage them", both big and small doses kill and damage a certain amount of cells, but of course big do more of both, killing (some cellules) and damaging (many others).
I suggest this be removed, and the source for any other claims be verified. -- jbc May 27 10:14 UTC 2003
- This isn't nonsense, it's the basis for chemotherapy. That's why radiation is used to treat cancer - or maybe it's not used anymore, I'm not up on this. Strong doses of radiation will kill weak (e.g. cancerous) cells and leave healthy cells still alive, hopefully. I don't find this passage that ridiculous. Graft
- I think you mean 'radiotherapy', not 'chemotherapy'. A higher intensity of (normally local) radiation can be better than low intensity, and of course different kinds of radiation affect in different ways, but in the article it is said dose, which is just the total amount integrated. And for the same kind of radiation, the higher the dose the worse it is (you may still want a high dose to treat a cancer, but that's a very particular case, it's because it is more effective against cancer, not better for the rest of the body). By the way, I didn't say it was ridiculous! Change "nonsense" for "wrong" if you prefer a less loaded word, that's what I should have said anyway. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003
Article about the damage by radiation: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/lis/14534/1.html
And something in English as well: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/19/12220 .
The German article above seems to refer to the English article mentioned right after it. As far as I know, that is pretty good proof, especially when remembering my VERY conditional style when adding these things to the article, so suit yourself.
--Korpo
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14636/1.html German article about possible harm about DU ammunition,
http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/puma/radio/Uran_Munition.html#_3.4_Uranverbindungen about DU aerosols,
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12222/1.html refers to a UN study about DU ammunition. --Korpo
- Uhm, I didn't mean any personal attack or anything, sorry if it looked like that. Thanks for adding the links, I think that the article has improved much with them. About the effects of radiation, please see my reply to Graft a few lines above. And just in case you were wondering, I am as much against the use of DU as one can be. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003
Guess now I have the facts I need to supply for my claims added into the link section. --Korpo
Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --Korpo
I think the article comes off too much on the side of opponents of DU usage, and downplays the evidence against its danger by falsely implying that such evidence comes only from the US and UK. I'd consider the International Atomic Energy Agency one of the more reliable sources of such information, and they claim that DU has little if any health risks. They're also hardly known as a US ally, being of the principal critics of the US's handling of the Iraq thing. Their information page about DU can be found here: . In particular, see their answer to the question "Is DU a health hazard", here: (the conclusion is "no"). --Delirium 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)