Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Arbitration opened

Parties

• Nrcprm2026 / JamesS (talk)
• DV8 2XL (talk)
• Ten Dead Chickens (talk)
• Dr U (talk)
• Cadmium (talk)

Mediator

• Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Pages concerned

• Depleted uranium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uranium trioxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gulf War syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some ground rules

I don't want to be bossy in this mediation, so I think I should get one or two basic points clear right from the start. Obviously there are a number of serious disputes concerning these articles. The different parties each have strongly held (and expressed) views on the subject, which is in itself a Good Thing. What is a Bad Thing is the level to which the debate has sunk at certain points in the past, including serious personal attacks and a frequent lack of civility. The result is an article which comes nowhere near the standards that are expected on Wikipedia, dispite the large amount of time which editors devote to it. The ultimate aim is to produce an article (or articles) which explain(s) the subjects in a verifiable manner and from a neutral point of view. If together we can manage that, I will be happy, not least because I will have better articles for the WikiProject which I am involved with! If we cannot, I may be forced to take the dispute back to the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Procedure

1. If there are any articles which should be added to the list above, please leave a note on the Talk page (so that we get a chance for a quick discussion rather than having a fait accompli).
2. The next step, IMHO, should be to try to define the scientific points which are in dispute, as it is hopeless to try to attack the article structure while there is still so much disagreement about content. The parties are invited to list the points which they feel are in dispute below, in the form of questions. Please be as specific as possible! I have added one point from the {{dispute}} tag on depleted uranium, and two questions which were posted on my talk page.
3. I will link each question to a discussion page where the debate can take place. The discussion page is the place to post your detailed arguments, lists of references etc, not on this page please! That way we can keep an overview of the different discussions here.

Points for mediation

1. What is the importance of uranium trioxide vapor as a product of the combustion of uranium? [Discuss]
2. How accurately will isotope ratio urine studies which depend on particulate uranium aerosol remaining undissolved in the lung measure total inhalation exposure? [Discuss]
3. To what extent is uranium nephrotoxic? [Discuss]
4. To what extent is uranium neurotoxic? [Discuss]
5. To what extent is uranium teratogenic? [Discuss]
6. To what extent is uranium carcinogenic? [Discuss]
7. Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?
8. Can mention of a Freedom of Information Act request be included in an article?
9. Is DU toxic?
10. What is the definition of Gulf War syndrome?
11. Is there an established connection between Gulf War syndrome and depleted uranium exposure?
12. Can the symptoms of Gulf War syndrome be explained by uranium combustion product inhalation exposure?
13. In order to establish a connection between DU and Gulf War syndrome is it nessesary to prove that those who got sick were on average more exposed to DU than those who didn't get sick? (Note the difference in GW vets compared to their differently-deployed counterparts.)
14. Are there alternative explantions for Gulf War Syndrome?
15. Are there aspects of Gulf War syndrome inconsistent with DU exposure?
16. As nephrotoxicity occurs at uranium concentrations lower than that for any other uranium-related health effect, does the absence of kidney damage in Gulf-War veterans force us to conclude that whatever the uranium exposures might have been, they could not have been higher than the levels needed to damage kidneys?
17. Would the physiological reaction of shrapnel victims produce antibodies in the same sequence as they are produced in strictly inhalation exposure victims?
18. Is Sandia National Laboratories "Lockheed-funded"?
19. Can uranium combustion product inhalation exposure result in substantial harm? (Answer:Yes)
20. Can inhalation of every substance known to man cause harm, and is it different to say that something could cause harm than it is to prove that it did cause harm?
21. Is DU like Agent Orange and thalidomide, an accidental teratogen?
22. Does DU belong in Category:Uranium? (Answer: Yes)
23. Could this dataset be construed to show a decrease in birth defects following the Gulf War? In particular, why did birth defects decline in the years that DU vapors and aersols would have been at their highest concentrations?
24. Could Saddam Hussein's refusal to provide his citizens with adequate nutrition during the oil embargo account for the increase in anencephaly seen in Basrah in the late 1990's?
25. Were the congenital malformations observed in Basrah more consistent with malnutrition or uranyl poisoning?
26. Do the wildly different reported birth rates from year to year in Basrah indicate anything about the instability of the social situation in the region, or do they just indicate that data collection in the region is poor or inconsistent?
27. What is the ratio of U₃O₈ surface area in a flame to that of micrometer-scale ceramic partcles?
28. Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?