Talk:Depleted uranium: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:28, 14 January 2020 editSteel1943 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors196,777 edits Fix/combine archive templates← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:29, 19 June 2020 edit undoJusdafax (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,858 edits Add talkheaderNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{talkheader}}
	{{Calm}}		{{Calm}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=		{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=

Revision as of 19:29, 19 June 2020

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Depleted uranium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment: Sustainability High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Studies indicating negligible effects

It is somewhat concerning that most of the quoted studies appear to be from sources that - to put this politely - have a direct interest in the outcome of their work. That is, the quoted entities are:

A literature review by Rand Corporation
An editorial paper (i.e. not a study) in the Archive of Oncology (this in turn states that " a considerable part of the research work presented here has been sponsored by local government authorities.") It also appears from the editorial that the entire edition of that publication was to discuss this concern - but unfortunatley the rest of the edition is not available at that link.
A study "from the Australian defense ministry".
The International Atomic Energy Agency (no study, just a statement).
A study by Sandia National Laboratories, which in turn is "a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International" and "is one of three National Nuclear Security Administration research and development laboratories".

Rand Corporation, the Australian Defence Ministry, and Sandia are all reliant on the largesse of governments that support the use of depleted uranium and thus non-neutral parties. The Archive of Oncology seems to be a more promising source, but the provided link is not to anything evidentiary. Similarly, the IAEA makes a statement rather than a study (and in some eyes may be considered less than entirely neutral).

To summarise, I suggest that either better sources are found or that appropriate caveats are added to this section of the article. The title does not reflect the current usefulness of the content, but I am sure that subject matter experts will be able to find some more reliable sources. Perhaps those used in the final sentence of the article's introduction might be a useful start - especially as they contradict the tone of this section. A brief survey also finds a Scientific American article (again, not a study), though I am sure experts will have much more useful information to add. I realise that care must be taken in this area, as there are clearly many extremely interesting opinions 'out there'.

In relation to other parts of this article, experts may wish to refer to this US Department of Energy site, advertising/advocating for uses of DUF₆.

Finally, in writing this comment I stumbled upon something about depleted uranium having been used in the past in dentistry. This paper touches on its use, while this web page provides some additional information on its history and this 1976 US Government publication advises against its use. Could someone who has some expertise in this area possibly add some dentistry to the history? (It is briefly mentioned in section 3.2 of the article, but if it has been discontinued then perhaps this should be moved - and I suggest expanded.)

Thank you from someone who has no clue. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Depleted uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

World depleted uranium inventory, this list seems almost worthless.

The list doesn't seem useful. Almost all the major players in depleted uranium inventory haven't stated their inventories in 17 years in many cases. It really needs to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornersss (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Hand Grenades

This line: "DU was used during the mid-1990s in the U.S. to make hand grenades, and land mines, but those applications have been discontinued, according to Alliant Techsystems."

Has no citation, and I can find little evidence for it online. The only references that I can find are a wikileaks reference:

https://wardiaries.wikileaks.org/id/F5D58A9C-6290-4F77-A390-763EFB496391/

and another reference here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_a_grenade_cont

Should these references by cited in the article, or should that line be removed?

JackStonePGD (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Both sources go back to Wikileaks, which is a single sentence without context let alone editorial review. I'd say remove it. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Intercept story and journal article

"Some of the negative health effects of the American war in Iraq can be put down to U.S. forces’ frequent use of munitions containing depleted uranium." Hussain, Murtaza (25 November 2019). "Iraqi Children Born Near U.S. Military Base Show Elevated Rates of "Serious Congenital Deformities," Study Finds". The Intercept. That cites Savabieasfahani, M.; Basher Ahamadani, F.; Mahdavi Damghani, A. (29 August 2019). "Living near an active U.S. military base in Iraq is associated with significantly higher hair thorium and increased likelihood of congenital anomalies in infants and children". Environmental Pollution: 113070. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113070. ISSN 0269-7491. "Our study has established the presence of uranium and of thorium, a direct depleted-uranium decay-product, in Nasiriyah children. We also report on an association between residential proximity to a US army base,Tallil Air Base, and the risk of congenital anomaly. We show that such proximity is associated with higher levels of uranium and thorium in the biological samples of the study participants. At the same time, we found an increased risk of congenital anomalies associated with higher hair levels of these metals." 107.242.121.6 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories: