Talk:Depleted uranium

Relative Toxicity

The non sequitur: "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury" is substantially irrelevant for the demographic of those exposed (our troops and multitudes of innocent civilians,) the multiple routes of exposure and multiple toxic effects. The only commonality is that they are all heavy metals. The extent of the public health burden of each contaminant is not known. It is unlikely to be either agreed upon by divergent interests associated with the problem, or ever accurately measured by those who depend on its useful properties. In fact those same interests have a great deal of motivation and ability to hide information on use and abuse. Arsenic is a poison which primarily leaches into municipal drinking water supplies via unsafe mining practices. Arsenic disrupts human cellular energy transfer at the mitochondria. Think sugar and energy metabolism. Mercury is a neuro-toxin when absorbed throught the skin or ingested, and DU emits alpha, gamma and beta radiation (all 3 types of ionizing radiation, and they can mutate your DNA.) You don't have to touch it to get radiated. But if you do, the Alpha particles (which can be) stopped by a sheet of paper are very dangerous to inhale or ingest. The statement "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury" is minimizing, misleading and should not remain in this article. New Orleans,RN (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

I don't think that we have to make the whole "relative" toxicity statement at all; a compound's toxic value is measurable, and it is not something that changes over time. The effects of the low radioactivity might be better understood in the future, but that does not mean that any statement about any substance has to be described as relative because a group of people expects to see different results in the future. I feel it is sufficient to say that no radiological effects have been seen in humans, as this is a statement of fact, and since there is a reference to lab tests on animals, I can't understand why there is so much contention over the issue. Mrathel (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re: comparison of DU to lead and mercury. I think that is a useful comparison. In fact, I believe that is a key purpose of such comparisons in a non-scientific setting such as wikipedia. I thought the idea was to provide meaningful references between a generally known toxin and something less generally understood? I mean, it's the same logic that has weather forecasters saying that "there was golfball sized hail in Smithville yesterday". Why don't they say "there was 1.68 inch diameter hail in Smithville yesterday"? Simple, because the visual aid of a common object, the golfball, is helpful to those who may not easily visualize the size of a 1.68 inch sphere. (again, I thought that part of the point of Wikipedia was to make complex subjects understandable to the masses!) But of course, if the intent of an particular contributor is to lend an air of credibility to a particular (perhaps politicized) position, then such handy clarifications are the antithesis of good rehtoric. We used to have an expression "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with b.s." anyway...enough speculation.

re: "a compound's toxic value is measurable, and it is not something that changes over time." Well, actually, it is not at all accurate to claim that materials toxicity is "the same" over time. Yes, in a strict laboratory sense, a particular substance may exhibit a fixed toxicity in its pure state at a given instant, but we must not forget that like just about every other metal, DU in the environment is constantly interacting with the oxidizer we call "air". Many subtances, (and especially metals) change in terms of their practical toxicity, as they oxidize. As metals corrode, the surface oxidation acts as a barrier which reduces or ends the release of said toxic metal into the environment. The very process of oxidation usually results in more stable compounds (remember your high school chemistry?) So in a practical sense, the DU in the ground in Iraq will not be as toxic in a few years as it was the day it was fired from the weapon, because the surface will corrode into relatively less toxic U02. Does this make it "safer"? Hard to say, but in any case, I think it is clear that DU metals are inherently more safe and stable than drums of liquid slurry UH...expecially when the slurry is in Paducah KY, and the DU is in the sand in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolBlueGlow (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was searching for more information about the toxicity / pyrophoric properties .. but it seems like it got killed out of the article and du being represented as harmless. The comparison with lead dragging it into ridiculous. For example the nanoparticle problem that when a projectile penetrates a tank nano particles are formed that have quite different properties than natural uranium (similar to carbon which by itself is harmless but as a nanoparticle quite toxic) as it's able to cross all the barriers in the human body even contaminating the gonades creating serious maladies in offspring. Also the aspect of the pyrophoric property was not really explained - that it creates temperatures of a 1000 degrees in the inside of a penetrated object and *burning* the people inside alive (tanks or houses). Ebricca (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment "Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure." is misleading in that it does not point out that the effects depend on the quantity internalized. The maximum quantity taken in by troops was extremely small in all military engagements and the internalized DU for post war exposure of civilians is even smaller. Mythphys (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Any time you see the phrase "can be affected," if it describes a dose response, don't you think everyone understands that depends on the quantity internalized? The problems that we have seen with the research have been both quantitative (nobody measured the teratogenicity even though it has been known since 1949) and qualitative (often documents say that uranium is only a toxic danger to kidneys, completely ignoring the genotoxicity.) 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to LEAD

I fail to see the point comparing DU to LEAD, as it is done in the article, especially where armor piercing and other effects are compared, a comparison to TUNGSTEN (WOLFRAM) would be much more sensible, with comparisons to LEAD only to give a common man, a idea of the WEIGHT. 91.154.204.152 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tribunal Service comment needs to be qualified in that they are not a scientific body and are not qualified to assess the depleted uranium issue.

The section on reproductive health effects is seriously out of line, including unverified reports and not including careful studies with the opposite conclusions. The citation described as "A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." The cited paper is an appalling example of a lack of scientific rigor and neutrality. When I read this report I was in a state of disbelief that this paper went through a peer review. I would be happy to elaborate on my review of the paper if anyone is interested.

For the Health considerations section the comment on cultured cells is misleading. Cultured cells do not reveal anything surprising with regard to depleted uranium. The question is not whether depleted uranium exposure can cause health effects, the question is what is the probability of health effects given the amount of depleted uranium internalized, and based on scientific investigations (Royal Society, Sandia Labs, the answer is extremely small. A few highly exposed soldiers (~3) in tanks hit by DU weapons have about a 1% risk of lung cancer (above the average risk for unexposed troops). These troops also were at risk of kidney failure from chemical toxicity;however, the toxic effect is an acute effect and was not observed for the highly exposed individuals. All other effects appear to be entirely negligible.

For the section on studies showing negligible effects: for the Sandia study, the comment "... but Marshall did not consider reproductive health effects." is incorrect. The study did, in fact, examine reproductive health effects due to radiation effects from DU exposure. In a later peer reviewed paper "Gulf war depleted uranium effects (jes 2008) the findings of the Sandia report were presented and updated to include possible chemically-induced reproductive health effects. Mythphys (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal

The phrase appears three times on the text.--79.111.171.43 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That appears verbatim in the abstract of the only secondary peer-reviewed literature review we have on the toxicity. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Separation of sources for depleted vs. natural uranium.

A number of the souces cited for health effects cover both the effects of DU and natural uranium. As the WHO states (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), this is not appropriate as natural uranium decay produces a sigificantly higher quantity of high activity radon gas.

I invite some of the original collaborators to help me clean up the citations concerning this. I will be starting some revisions on the article over this topic in the near future.

Cheers, Djma12 ^(talk) 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with depleted uranium. I noticed that http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ doesn't say, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," it says something quite different; specifically, "In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." There is no other mention of cancer on that WHO page.

Please note that does not consider the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity. I don't know if there's an easy way to explain all that in the intro. Maybe it could be explained in the body and summarized in the intro. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent response. I'll try to answer point by point. First, I don't think the uranium miner data applies as the WHO data states that the increased lung cancer risk was secondary to radon gas as a decay product rather than the uranium proper. (DU has very little radon as a decay product.) Second, you are correct in stating that "very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group." I will try to amend the intro in a concise manner to reflect this. (Help would be appreciated.) Finally, the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity is fair, but has not been demonstrated in any epidemiological setting. The only setting that has been postulated is in cell and animal studies, which is already in the lead. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if we replace, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," which is contradicted by the source cited, with a summary of that source and a summary of these statements pertaining to the WHO controversy? On the radon question, how much more radon does natural uranium produce? 76.254.66.122 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was unaware that there was a WHO controversy... Let me review that and I'll get back to you. I do think we should include a consensus statement from some credible international medical organization in the lead, but obviously we should also include the controversy if one exists.
• Concerning your other question, decay of U-238 only produces half of the radon that decay of U-235 produces. Furthermore, U-238 has a much lower activity. (It's half life is 4 billion years vs 700,000 years for U-235.) This means that much less decay occurs as well. Both of these factors contribute to the significantly lower radon yield of U-238. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at. The way I read it, the "definitive" recommendations are by WHO, but there are eminent scientists who believe that the WHO data is politically skewed. In my lit review, no quality epidemiologic review exists, but this is confounded by the fact that (relatively) small populations have been exposed to DU. (As opposed to, say, lead.) A growing body of cell and animal literature exists concerning toxicity, but its applicability to humans is (as of now) unclear.

My personal thought is that DU demonstrably causes chemical toxicty, likely causes teratogenicity (based upon other heavy metal data), and may increase carcinogenicity. However, the full data is rather sparse, so we should probably stick with what data and consensus statements are available for the lead.

Your thoughts? Djma12 ^(talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WHO ever made recommendations. The literature is strongly bifurcated in this area, as there are plenty of publications which say uranium exposure causes minimal risk, often simply to the kidneys, and the secondary literature which lists a whole lot of serious risks. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*No, that's fair. Let's just make the controversy a little more apparent in the lead then, and I'm happy. Djma12 ^(talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*One last point on the WHO report. It doesn't just target carcinogenicity d/t radiation, but it also explicitly covers chemical, reproductive, and developmental effects. Their review of the literature can be found at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/index.html. Djma12 ^(talk) 05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell when a report claims to cover chemical toxicity whether that means just nephrotoxicity (just the kidneys, which oddly enough build up a tolerance, per Pellmar et al 1999) or genotoxicity and associated effects, which the WHO has been accused of excluding. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem. When they talk about reproductive effects, you have to drill down through the source citations, and when you do, it's almost impossible to find studies on more than just mice. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Huge rise in birth defects and early life cancers in Falluja

I don't have the time to read enough of the relevant articles, and to integrate the info well into the Wikipedia article. So I thought I'd do a little bit of referencing and summarizing now, and maybe others can help out further.

Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja. By Martin Chulov in Falluja. 13 November 2009. The Guardian.

Doctors in Iraq's war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants, compared to a year ago, and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

The extraordinary rise in birth defects has crystallised over recent months as specialists working in Falluja's over-stretched health system have started compiling detailed clinical records of all babies born.

Deformed babies in Fallujah / Iraq Letter to the United Nations. October 14, 2009. U.N. Observer and International Report. The article was written by:

• Dr Nawal Majeed Al-Sammarai (Iraq Minister of Women's Affairs 2006-2009).
• Dr. David Halpin FRCS (Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon).
• Malak Hamdan M. Eng in Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering.
• Dr Chris Burns-Cox MD FRCP.
• Dr. Haithem Alshaibani (Environmental Sciences).
• Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (Author and Journalist).
• Nicholas Wood MA, RIBA, FRGS.

The article was addressed to Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, who is the President of the Sixty-fourth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed.

This can be compared with data from the month of August in 2002 where there were 530 new born babies of whom six were dead within the first seven days and only one birth defect was reported.

More info:

• http://www.veteranstoday.com/?s=falluja+uranium
• http://www.google.com/search?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://news.google.com/news?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://books.google.com/books?q=falluja+birth+defects

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, "No studies that have evaluated birth outcomes and birth defects among Gulf War veterans and their children have assessed whether there is any connection between reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure in the Gulf War." -- p. 96 (PDF p. 105) of this November, 2008 U.S. Veterans Administration report. 99.56.138.51 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Gulf War syndrome and soldier complaints (DO NOT DELETE)

This section diverges from a presentation of the facts regarding DU towards an opinion piece with selective referencing and unverified grey literature referencing. If the latter are to be presented they must be noted as such, and provided with balancing references. This section confuses two separate issues, but there is already a Wikipedia entry for Gulf War syndrome. Depleted uranium is one of many exposures that some people have claimed to be responsible for Gulf War Illnesses / Syndrome. A discussion of the relevance of depleted uranium to Gulf War Syndrome can only be made in the context of other exposures.

The most recent independent expert reviews on Gulf War Illnesses amongst veterans are from the VA Association and the IOM. These have not been referenced in either this section or the main Gulf War syndrome entry. These independent expert panels comprehensively reviewed all of the available literature and reached different conclusions to those that might be drawn from the selective referencing of the Wikipedia entries.

Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC).

For the health outcomes discussed in this chapter, the committee concluded that exposure to uranium is not associated with a large or frequent effect. Nevertheless, it is possible that depleted-uranium–exposed veterans will have a small increase in the likelihood of developing a disease. Typically, extremely large study populations are necessary to demonstrate that a specific exposure is not associated with a health outcome. The committee’s evaluation of the literature supports the conclusion that a large or frequent effect is unlikely, but it is not possible to state conclusively that a particular health outcome cannot occur.

There is an apparent bias in the presentation in at least one of the references in this section. For example no. 89, Doyle et al. 2004 was summarised as follows:

In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."[89]

This is one line from the paper, which then goes on to discuss recall bias. The paper actually concludes:

We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers' service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers' service in the gulf.

This section also confuses unverified grey-literature claims of birth defects in the Basra region with Gulf War Syndrome. These are separate issues. If this ‘information’ is to be included in the depleted uranium entry it must be with a caveat that the birth defect data has never been independently verified and that there is no evidence, except anecdotal, to connect these to depleted uranium exposure. The graph needs the caveat unverified data attached to the caption.

I suggest this section is substituted with a link to the main Wikipedia entry, e.g. “A number of studies on Gulf War Syndrome / Illnesses have considered depleted uranium exposure as one of several possible causes, but no conclusive connection has been made.” In fact the consensus is that a connection is unlikely, so this would be a very generous concession to the disputed POV.

--Du spécialiste (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The quoted portions of the sources you're disputing are consistent with the toxicologists' (Craft et al. 2004), the epidemiologists' (Hindin et al. 2005), the US Army's (Miller & McClain 2007), and the Dept. of Veterans Affairs' (Kang et al. 2001 and 2003.) Are you disputing those sources too? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that the present Wikipedia entry reflects a scientific consensus. I quote the conclusions of two recent and comprehensive, expert and independent reviews of the scientific literature. There are 1840 references in the VA report, including those that you cite in this discussion (except for Hindin et al.) The conclusions of those reviews are at odds with your beliefs.

Doyle et al. 2006 reached a different conclusion to Kang et al. 2001, i.e. there is no increase in birth defects amongst veterans’ offspring. Kang et al. 2001 did not even consider causes; on what basis do you connect their disputed conclusions to depleted uranium? Kang et al. 2003 does not investigate depleted uranium as a cause either! The papers by Craft and Miller are inconclusive. Hindin et al. used “thoughtful triangulation” to reach unsubstantiated conclusions. Yes, I do dispute your sources! You also make the mistake of thinking those authors represent the groups you state! How can you justify your point of view?

Collectively, the authors of the present Wikipedia entry have not made a comprehensive and unbiased review of the literature in selecting their references. One point of view is presented in the present entry, it is not neutral and it is not balanced.

I highlighted one quotation that is made in the present entry which is blatantly at odds with the conclusion of the citation’s authors. That selectivity can only be explained by a biased point of view.

--Du spécialiste (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the article should include this statement from page 96 of the VA report? "No studies that have evaluated birth outcomes and birth defects among Gulf War veterans and their children have assessed whether there is any connection between reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure in the Gulf War." Could that be the reason that Hindin et al. was not included in the VA report?

In fact, Doyle and Kang reported similar levels of birth defects present in veterans' offspring. For what reason do you say that they did not?

Craft and Miller both contain conclusions, and both cite DNA genotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity. For what reason do you say they are inconclusive? They are secondary peer-reviewed sources -- both of them are review articles, as is Hindin's -- from the academic literature, and therefore at least as authoritative as the VA report. Did the VA report undergo a peer review process? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure that I understand your first point. Hindin et al. did not assess a connection, except through “thoughtful triangulation” with the grey literature, which is not exactly scientific research.

I’ve already exposed your (?) miss-representation of Doyle et al.

Craft and Miller do not reach any conclusions regarding actual exposure to depleted uranium and human ill health. They are inconclusive with respect to your point of view, and the biased point of view of the entry. In vitro toxicity is already recognised in the main body of the entry, I don’t dispute that.

I think we can trust the VA and IOM to have made a more thorough and non-partisan literature review than has been made in the Wikipedia entry. The articles that have been selected are not representative of the peer-reviewed literature.

The entry includes “One particular subgroup of veterans which may be at higher risk comprises those who have internally retained fragments of DU from shrapnel wounds”. But it fails to mention the extensive research by MacDiarmid et al. into these individuals, which have no clinically significant relatable health effects.

--Du spécialiste (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My point of view is that government is not usually better at peer review than academic journals. You may find that is not an uncommon opinion now as ever. Craft, Miller, et al do in fact reach conclusions about exposure to uranium and human ill health. Do you agree with VA recommendations to study correlations and chi-squared statistics relating uranium exposure to cancer, birth defects, and immune system problems? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)