Talk:Uranium trioxide/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

(from Hillman)

LossIsNotMore dropped by my user talk page to ask me for help. Nobody likes feeling manipulated under false pretenses, so I was a bit startled to find that in the past, LossIsNotMore (talk · contribs · block log) has stated that he is none other than James Salsman, who as Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · block log), his previous user account, has been banned by the ArbCom from editing articles relating to this topic. I don't know what to think, but certainly LossIsNotMore should have mentioned these facts. ---CH 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stopped using Nrcprm2026 in protest over that arbcom decision. I was completely clear that I am the same person, both on CH's talk page as well as here, stating that I have been involved in the controversy for several months. The question is: Are Wikipedia editors interested in creating an accurate encyclopedia enough to ask the foremost expert to settle this dispute, even against the previous decision of the arbcom? LossIsNotMore 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely clear. And it's also clear that the ban isn't to the Nrcprm2026 account, but to all accounts of the actual person. Switching to another account to evade a block is itself a blockable offense. In fact, LossIsNotMore (talk · contribs · block log) has previously been blocked specifically for this issue. DMacks 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

James--I thought that you were more interested in verifiability than truth, as you stated above. In that case, you are the last person to be able to state something about "accuracy" in this realm. Furthermore, it was not clear when you started editing as LossIsNotMore here that you were the same person, although it became clear shortly soon after--at least to me, who is intimately involved in this talk page. Olin 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One fact I like is that James never tried to pretend to be somebody else and to edit the article itself. The try to convince somebody on the talk page to do the edits for him is critical close violating his block, but still better than and blunt edit war with a sock puppet army. The criticism of the facts he presents and the way he interpretes facts which are disputed are a total other point and I will try in good faith to help the articles on uranium compounds to stay on proofen ground!--Stone 06:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will concur with that point. On this page at least, he has stayed off editing the main page and has not, to my knowledge edited it. You are allowed to have separate accounts in some cases, if you have them to edit for different reasons. (Philosophically, I wouldn't change names because I was blocked, "protest" or not, but hey, that' just me.) Olin 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Schuenemana et al. (2003), Ansoborlo (1998), and Stradling (2003) and (2000)

Does anyone object to the inclusion of any of these three statements?

1. During nuclear fuel fabrication or reprocessing stages of a nuclear fuel cycle, it is possible for small particles of uranium oxides including UO₃ to escape into the environment.<ref>Schuenemana RA, Khaskelisa AI, Eastwooda D, van Ooijb WJ, Burggraf LW (2003). "Uranium oxide weathering: spectroscopy and kinetics". Journal of Nuclear Materials. 323: 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2003.07.003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

2. Urine assay for UO₃ exposure can be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake.<ref>Ansoborlo E (1998). "Exposure implications for uranium aerosols formed at a new laser enrichment facility: application of the ICRP respiratory tract and systemic model". Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 79: 23–27. full text</ref><ref>Stradling N (2003). "Optimising monitoring regimens for inhaled uranium oxides". Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 105: 109–114. full text</ref>

3. Treatment for UO₃ inhalation primarily involves decorporation therapy.<ref>Stradling GN (2000). "Treatment for Actinide-bearing Industrial Dusts and Aerosols". Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 87: 41–50. abstract, full text</ref>

If so, please state the objections. Thank you. LossIsNotMore 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been a month, and there are no objections here. Would somebody please add those facts to the article? LossIsNotMore 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A month's wait does not good sources make. Olin 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are direct quotes from peer-reviewed journals. Do you have objections or not? LossIsNotMore 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I searched the two on-line articles. They are not direct quotes.
• I do not have access to the first one, so I cannot verify that "nuclear fuel fabrication or reprocessing stages of a nuclear fuel cycle" is in that article; the words "it is possible as suspiciously weasel-wordy.

• It is a direct quote.

• What does "can be useful" mean anyway? Do you mean "can be effective"? Olin 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is concluded that ... urine assay could be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake.... The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days. Provided that the detection limit in urine using a kinetic phosphorescence laser is 0.5 mg.1-1, acute intakes of 112 mg (ALI for S3) could be easily assessed up to 100 d after exposure. However, if urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable(14)." -- http://www.bovik.org/du/Ansoborlo98.pdf

"In principle, the mass of biologically soluble uranium deposited in the lungs could have an important effect on the efficacy of decorporating agents as a consequence of precipitation as phosphate after phagocytosis by alveolar macrophages(11) or nephrotoxic effects in the kidneys(17,18). However, as yet there are no effective agents available using realistic treatment regimens even for radionuclides of high specific activity.... Uranium present in most of the compounds formed in the nuclear fuel cycle (uranyl nitrate, uranium tributylphosphate, ammonium diuranate, uranium trioxide, uranium hexafluoride and tetrafluoride) is absorbed into blood at a rate which ranges from fast to moderate(5,6,23). Hence, decorporation therapy should be considered when serious nephrotoxic effects are possible, or when dose limits are likely to be exceeded appreciably after intakes of highly enriched forms. Unfortunately, as noted above, no effective chelation treatment is available at present when reasonable delays between exposure and treatment are considered. Even if there was a soluble agent for uranium, treatment for uranium octoxide and dioxide would be ineffective due to their slow dissolution in vivo(5,6,23). This would not be the case if the aerosol contained a substantial ultrafine component resulting in enhanced absorption to the blood(41,42).... The effective decorporation of uranium remains an outstanding problem in radiological protection.... Uranium inhaled as ultrafine particles of the metal or oxide is also rapidly absorbed into the blood, and after large intakes, treatment designed to reduce the likelihood of radiation dose and nephrotoxic effects should also be considered. However it should be stressed that no effective agents for uranium decorporation are available at present." -- http://www.bovik.org/du/Stradling2000.pdf

Okay, those are direct quotes, as is the one you can't read. How about them? LossIsNotMore 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

James, give it up, no one wants to hear it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to everyone, but your dismissive response and failure to address the above doesn't reflect well on you as an editor. When you say "No one wants to hear it," why not instead say "I don't want to hear it" (maybe because you don't want to read and evaluate the material, as it might conflict with your preconceptions?). It is presumptuous of you to speak for all editors, and lends suspicion to the decision to block this editor, as it may be because you simply don't like the sourced conclusions for a POV reason. I certainly hope this is not the case but when you come up with gems like that you said just above (rather than actually refuting the conclusions), one really has to wonder. Badagnani 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Several editors knowledgeable in chemistry, some with PhD's [1] have weighed in on James' material and has found it to be lacking or worse, deliberate distortions of the source material. Far too many times, James has attempted to cobble together dozens of secondary sources to back up his home brewed conclusions, failing every time because he cannot digest the material he is using. You do yourself and your reputation as an editor a disservice with your continued advocacy for James and his junk science. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The text in the above seems quite clear about the oxide particles and it seems you feel if fitting to spill yet more ink without addressing it at all. Badagnani 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Olin has addressed it on several occasions. I am just expressing my desire to see James go away and never return as he chased off a very valuable and knowledgeable editor, you know, like the kinds Wikipedia needs if it is ever going to be a real repository of kn0wlegdege and not just a collection pseudo-science from shut ins and pre-pubescents. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The continued failure to respond to the issues raised above is quite shocking to me and does tend to reinforce my suspicions, at best showing a lack of seriousness on your part to a thorough treatment of this subject. The source quoted above does seem quite clear. Badagnani 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As "shocking" as you think it might be, the only thing I find "shocking" is anyone is still listening to James after all these months. With his prior shenanigans, there is no way I can trust a single thing he contributes. Credibility is everything, and given James' track record, there is no way we can rely on his presentation of this source. But at least he is no longer arguing that "uranium gas" is killing millions of people. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I read these closer now. What I would conclude is that:

(1) I am not comfortable with the phrasing "it is possible" still (I still haven't read the article, admittedly, as I do not have access). It is possible I could drown in my shower too. Hence, I ask, what does this contribute to an article, other than making the uranium processing "look bad"? How does it contribute to the article about UO3 in an encyclopedia? It seems if the dangers of uranium processing are to be assessed, that is more appropriate on a page on uranium processing rather than here.

(2) I suppose I have no real objection to the second statement, although it does seem like the article is focused on aerosal mixtures of various uranium oxides, not pure UO3. If it is to be included, I would be sure to include that it is uranium trioxide in a mixture of other uranium oxides. I guess it would go under health effects, correct? I would phrase it, "Exposure to aerosol uranium oxides can be detected by urine assays using a kinetic phosphorescence laser." I still do hesitate as to what the need is for such a specific toxicological assay in the article, why needs to be included, as the toxicological effects of UO3 are already present in the article. (This is not an annotated bibliography of all article with the text UO3.)

(3) I still object to last statement, as "article 3" has the sentence "However it should be stressed that no effective agents for uranium decorporation are available at present." That would suggest that the proposed sentence "Treatment for UO₃ inhalation primarily involves decorporation therapy" is incorrect, and the what I am assuming is an interpretation of that article by LossIsNotMore is contradicted in the very source he proposed to include.

Hence, if a justification as to the relevance to UO3 can be provided, I have no specific objection to the second proposed addition. Olin 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the quote that James is suggesting that we add based upon the first paper is somewhat misleading, if you read the abstract of the paper it is a paper about the oxidation of uranium dioxide. The oxidation of uranium dioxide can be extreamly slow, I think that the best place for the paper would be on the page on uranium dioxide. I think that the paper could well add something to the uranium dixoide page, I worry that the UO3 page is not the right place becuase lots of different uranium oxides exist (such as U3O8) and from reading the abstract it is not 100% clear in my mind that the paper is about UO3 formation. It is important to note that Pb(IV) is found in "red lead" (Pb3O4) but read lead is not lead(IV) oxide (lead dioxide).Cadmium

Another analogy from a completely different element posted by a self-described Ph.D. who refuses to pick up the phone and talk to a guy who has been studying uranyl oxide gas for more than forty-five years. If you read the abstract of the paper it is quite clear that it discusses uranyl complex compounds in detail. Don't you have access to the full text? If not I can probably put it online. LossIsNotMore 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

Here is a quote from the article, "It is a poisonous, radioactive substance, which may cause shortness of breath, coughing, acute arterial lesions, and changes in the chromosomes of white blood cells and gonads leading to congenital malformations if inhaled.[1][9]"

Is the article referring to contaminated uranium trioxide from reprocessing or uranium trioxide made using natural uranium? Are the chromosome changes due to uranium trioxide's chemical or radioactive properties? Natural uranium is not very radioactive, so I would expect that uranium trioxide's significant health effects to be due to it's chemical properties. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the references, so I cannot check them myself. If the effects are for reprocessed uranium, the article should say that, although I do not know if that should go in the article at all, since it would not be the uranium trioxide doing the damage. If reprocessing is a major source of the uranium trioxide that is made, stored or transported, then I guess it would be relevant. -- Kjkolb 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The DNA damage due to the chemical catalytic properties is about a million times worse than from the alpha radiation in vivo.[2] LossIsNotMore 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Intellecutal honesty

Since July, all of the people who have been arguing with me for the prior seven months have had the opportunity to pick up the phone, call +1-614-424-5233, and speak with Dr. Carl Alexander, the foremost expert on uranium trioxide gas, who has published peer-reviewed papers on it as early as 1960 and as recently as 2005. Dr. Alexander agrees with me that the gas is the primary combustion product of uranium burning in air under standard conditions, that the gas is stable and-long lived, that substantial amounts do not condense and decompose into U3O8, and he has personally offered to field calls or emails from anyone about why he knows these facts. I have diligently requested that a skeptical third party talk to him and report his statements so that I could not be accused of twisting or selectively editing it as I have been accused with so many other sources. Yet all of the people who spent what -- solid months collectively? -- arguing with me here, dragging me before the ArbCom, and supporting my sanction haven't even bothered to pick up the phone or send an email to talk to the world-renowned expert on the subject. Why is that? After having all that time to argue they suddenly don't have any more spare time? Is the phone call too expensive?

Or, are educated professional people who have taken a stand against an amateur, after having resorted to personal attacks, invective, and innuendo implying political motivations on my part, simply unwilling to swallow their pride and face the fact that they are, and have always been, exactly wrong? Is that so hard to live with?

Wouldn't it be easier to live with yourself if you know and can prove to the world that you can admit your mistakes and correct your errors?

The telephone is probably in reach right now. Please. LossIsNotMore 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I sleep very well at night. Olin 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone's missing comma theory

File:PvTdUOs.png

In Levinskii, Y.V. (1974) "p-versus-T Phase Diagram of the Uranium-Oxygen System" Atomic Energy 37(4):1075-6, there is plenty of reason to believe that the gas is pure as UO₃(g) at and above the temperatures and pressures above the curve indicated, and a mixture of UO₂(g) and UO₃(g) at any of the ",G" lines below it. Even if this is not the case, the fact remains that the comma is missing, and the interpretation is verifiable even if it is not the truth. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. LossIsNotMore 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So there is a gamma-U, G written in the text if you are right you have gas with a certain crystal structure. This is stupid! The whole article shows clearly that they had no method neither intention to do any reasearch about liquids or gas. So they were not able to do a clear identification which molecules are there in gasphas. Determining some physical properties of the gas at this temperatures which would lead to the exact chemical formula I simply cann't find in the text. So a missing comma is the only plausible explanaiton for this diagramm.--Stone 09:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense. According to Stone's interpretation, "gamma-U, G" means the solid gamma form AND an unknown gas mixture, not the gamma polymorph as a gas, which of course is nonsense. Never has this pathetic attempt at subterfuge been so transparent than in the above edit. LossIsNotMore 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Stone. It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I thought that we were in agreement that uranium burned above 1000 degrees (in some unit or another), so once were about 1000 degrees, it is definitely ambiguous. Again (again, again, again, again) Russian sources are notoriously poor, there's no indication of how this data was collected in the article, and there is no references in this source. It's a bad source. It's just intellectually dishonest to include it. Furthermore, there should be no interpretation, no synthesis of results (original research), so it doesn't make sense. We're going around in circles, circles. Olin 13:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The diagram reports the non-combustion oxidation products, not the combustion products. WP:RS makes no mention of the validity of sources relative to their national origin. If Russian sources are so poor, then why do they have a reliable means of reaching the ISS when we often do not? There is no synthesis in reading the graph -- the only interpretation involved would be insisting there is a missing comma just because someone feels, for no good reason, like there should be. That kind of editing is shameful, and I see no reason that it is not being continued only to protect the egos of those who have taken a position which has shown to be wrong by the peer-reviewed literature and the experts on the subject. LossIsNotMore 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The one G in the red box is the only G or L which is not seperated by a ,' (comma) from the text befor. This means all other gases and liquides are not specified in any way. For me it makes only sense if all other stuff is solide and if liquides or gases occure they make this G and L.

• Lets put it a simple way: All UO₂ or γ-U or and even UO₃ solide! The rest is G and L with unknown composition!

Show it to anybody used to work with phase diagramms and the answer will be clear!--Stone 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the "G" must be oxygen. You can't go from a ratio of more than 2 oxygens to 1 uranium at a lower temperature to 2 oxygens and 1 uranium and not have oxygen to be produced--simple stoichiometry. And it makes sense from thermodynamics, increasing entropy. If it's ambiguous it is intellectually dishonest to use the source. I would write "Never has this pathetic attempt at subterfuge been so transparent than in the above edit," but I would call that a personal attack, or a not-so-cleverly disguised version of one. Olin 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxidation comes from oxygen in the atmosphere. You knew that, right? Or am I missing some subtle nuance? LossIsNotMore 20:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. If I wrote in a paper "On the basis of analysis and generalization of the experimental data, the earth is the center of the universe" and provided no other information on how I collected the data, you wouldn't believe me. There's no real experimental content in this paper. It's bad. Really bad. Olin 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you will be responsible and take up the question with the journal editors who may or may not, along with their designated reviewers, have examined the data during the review process. Ha! You won't even call Dr. Alexander in Ohio. LossIsNotMore 20:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How would we go about finding someone in Russia with access to the diagram before Springer translated it to see whether the comma is "missing" there, too? Of course, it wouldn't make any difference to my detractors who probably believe it's an author error, but it would make a difference to me, and I'm willing to try just on principle. LossIsNotMore 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)