Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence

A discussion was moved here by a clerk, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop#Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support while the discussion was still active and ongoing. Because the discussion was still ongoing when it was removed, I have returned it to the /Workshop page. --James S. 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned it here. The discussion is about evidence, so it goes on the evidence talk page. The workshop is for discussing possible principles, findings of fact, and remedies. It is not for long and drawn-out discussions over a point of evidence. These go here. James S. can move the table to the evidence page where it belongs if he so desires. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion follows)

Diffs to follow, if there is any challenge to this assertion. --James S. 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again this whole line of reasoning hinges on the unreasonable demand that counter reference be found to support a charge of error in interpretation, and this editors belief that he can unilateraly dismiss sources if the do not agree with his views dispite consensus among the other editors that the citations are valid. --DV8 2XL 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell from looking at the link provided by Ncprm2026, the crux of his argument is that Dr. U provided 16 references, but that Ncprm2026 thinks they are wrong, and therefore somehow shouldn't count. First off, this is irrelevant, since Arbcom is not here to decide on content disputes. More importantly: this finding of fact is phrased to mislead. To the extent that this phrasing is deliberate on the part of Ncprm2026 it serves as a precis of exactly why he has been brought before the Arbcom in the first place. Nandesuka 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of Dr U's references are reputable as the term is defined by the initial paragraph representing WP:RS in Wikipedia:No original research. Here is a table of his thirteen external references:

In contrast, at least sixteen of the more than 20 references I provided, including those that I scanned in from library editions, and the serveral I provided links to PDFs for, are peer-reviewed from the medical and scientific literature, and are therefore reputable per WP:NOR. --James S. 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This table would be very interesting if it reflected what is actually written in WP:NOR. Alas, it does not. Your willingness to reject reputable sources because they are "not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house", once again, speaks volumes about why, exactly, this case was brought. While WP:NOR certainly includes peer-reviewed and scholarly publishing houses, the idea that you would try to argue that these are the only reputable sources, when the text is perfectly clear that many other things beside are reputable is nothing short of astonishing. Nandesuka 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1999 news item and the title of this proposed finding of fact to address your concerns. --James S. 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another attempt to turn this case into a dispute on content. --DV8 2XL 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that DV8 2XL, Dr U, and TDC have removed my statements supported by, and the text of citations to, reputable sources, is a serious behavior issue on their part. The fact that they have done so while offering very few reputable publications on their own makes it even more serious. It must stop. --James S. 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James has got one thing very wrong, the IAEA is not a nuclear industry group it is a UN body whose role is to oversee the safe and peaceful use of both nuclear and radiation technology throughout the world. While they might provide help with nuclear power they also provide medical advice (and other advice) in the event of an accident and a whole load of other things. Overall the IAEA is an international body whose role is to help all the nations of the world. Hence like the EU's ITU it does not push a nuclear policy (other than to urge its members to use radioactivity/nuclear equipment in a responsible and safe manner). Overall I would say that the IAEA and the ITU are the closest things you will ever get to an informed expert NPOV on this subject ! Cadmium 08:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the WHO to the IAEA, because they have supported more detailed work such as A. Pfister's in Chapter 8, "The Chemical Toxicity of Uranium," of Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (World Health Organization, Ionizing Radiation Unit, 2001, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf page 103: "Until more information on the chemical form of uranium and DU in the environment is obtained, it would be prudent to assume that it is in a soluble form (ICRP Type F)." Remind me to add that one in if it isn't already. --James S. 10:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you trust the WHO more than the IAEA ? Both are part of the same UN. The IAEA have published plenty of material which considers the negative side of the nuclear industry, as well as plenty which paints the nuclear industry in a very good light. It is interesting to note that the EU's version of the IAEA (ITU) is both trusted by Greenpeace and the reprocessing industry (BNFL etc). If the reason you distrust the IAEA just becuase they have the words atomic energy in their name then I suggest that you should consider the mechanism by which you make your choices as to who to trust. If you are unable to give a good answer to this point then you are opening up a can of worms for yourself over sources of information. For the record I would like to point out that the IAEA have been involved in providing modern cancer treatments in the third world. The reasoning of the IAEA is that by saving a child's mother from an early death due to cervical cancer, that a great deal of suffering can be avoided for both the woman and her family. Such work has been done in north east africa. Such an activity is a world away from electric power generation and all the other activitys which are part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Also read their bulletin and you will see that they are NPOV. So I think that it is reasonable to assume that the IAEA are NPOV.Cadmium 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of an IAEA publication which "considers the negative side of the nuclear industry" -- I haven't seen one yet. --James S. 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about [1], here you will find reports on a range of misadventures involving nuclear and/or radioactive materials. The Tokaimura and Tomsk reports are on accidents in the nuclear fuel cycle, the majority of the reports on this page are radioactive source accidents, but to cap it off there is a report on Chernobyl which is a combined IAEA/WHO/EU report. I think that none of these events are exactly a recruitment advert for the nuclear/radiation industries but the IAEA still have published them. While the majority of the accidents were radiation events rather than nuclear events I would say that it is clear evidence that the IAEA is honest about the threat posed by radiation to people. Hence it is NPOV.Cadmium 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IAEA has never replied to my email, while I find it easy to correspond with reputable sources. Secondly, I don't think the IAEA has ever published anything on the chemical reproductive toxicity of uranium, while that information is easily available in the peer-reviewed literature. Furthermore, there aren't any IAEA publications dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste. But this is just a content dispute. That the IAEA is primarily composed of industry officials and the government officials who depend on them proves that they are economically conflicted; the fact that they don't perform anonymous peer-review processes in the production of their reports proves that they aren't reputable in the standard of the table above. --James S. 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have some strong charges against the IAEA, I think we have something in common. Years ago I e-mailed them asking for paper copies of their bulletin (a friend of mine had got his free subscription this way years ago), they did not mail me back but this does not change their NPOV or POV status. Also have you any evidence from a NPOV source that the IAEA is primarily composed of industry officials and the government officials who depend on them proves that they are economically conflicted ? Also many of their bigger reports are secondary sources (such as the Chernobyl report) and as these sources have been peer reviewed then the overall source has been through a peer review process. I have ready many of their reports and they have been NPOV in my experience.Cadmium 15:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can any authority that hasn't bothered to measure the gas condensates from the combustion products be considered truly authoritative? --James S. 15:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply by saying that it is unreasonable for us to expect the IAEA to have to publish the sum total of all that is known about actinide (or any other area of) chemistry. It is perfectly reasonable for the IAEA to simply cite articles which are published by others. I would also say that I have reason to think that James does not understand the nature of the IAEA. He said that there aren't any IAEA publications dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste but a quick yahoo search has revealed [2]. It appears that James is trying to discredit the IAEA as a NPOV information source.Cadmium 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That search result doesn't have much to do with long-term nuclear waste (e.g., >50 years) thus proving my point. --James S. 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about [3] this is a paper dealing with the entire process of dumping at sea. Which include both short and long term.134.225.1.162 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IAEA's discussion of dumping waste at sea it is purely academic and the IAEA knows it, because the practice is prohibited by the London Convention of 1972 treaty. The IAEA doesn't take any positions on legal methods of waste disposal, while the WHO discusses their implications at length. --James S. 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(back left) I am well aware of the London concention on sea dumping, it has existed for some time but it still does not prevent a group of experts considering the effects of sea dumping. Other werid and wounderful methods of waste disposal have been considered by the experts and then rejected (for instance loading waste onto rockets and sending it to the sun has been considered and then rapidly rejected). A consideration of a currently banned (or ill-advised) activity is sometimes part of role of an expert. From having read the sea dumping report (which is only an example rather being the entire output of the IAEA on waste disposal) I have come to the conclusion that it is a NPOV discussion of the implications which is not purely academic as some ilicit sea dumping has been done in the seas north of Russia.

A further point that I need to discuss with you is the fact that you take the view that In fact, the WHO reports are some of the best non-peer reviewed references because they specifically caution that uranium in the environment should be assumed to be soluble unless otherwise known. While I would always advise a healthy caution when considering irradation/possible contamination of humans/animals/any other life form, I think that trusting a source just becuase it always assumes the worst is not a good method of selecting one's source. For instance a range of spiders with toxic bites are known in south america, a chance (small) exists that such a spider could hitch a ride with some fruit to my house. This imaginary spider might then bite me and then kill me with its toxin. While this remote chance exists, it would be unreasonable for me to assume that all spiders (unless otherwise proven) which appear in western europe are examples of a nightmare spider from Brazil.

You might be interested to know that for actinides the soluble forms might be the most dangerous forms when eaten in one's diet, but the insoluble forms are the most dangerous when inhaled (becuase they can not be removed from the lungs). For the exposure of a human to DU from a tank buster shell I think that exposure to the lungs is the most important route by which the uranium might travel from the point of impact to the inside of a person. I think that you are considering health effects other than lung damage where uranium would need to travel to a site remote from the lung, but have you thought about insoluble U oxides in the lungs ?Cadmium 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that insoluble actinides are the most dangerous when inhaled at all, and there are already several citations to the contrary which I thought you had read up in articles. For Uranium(IV)-238, there is simply not enough radiation for the insoluble oxides, i.e., UO₂, to do any damage in the lungs, and Melissa McDiarmid, M.D., of U. Maryland medical center, has been following soldiers with insoluble uranium(0) shrapnel who are doing a lot better than some of their colleagues who were cleaning out the tanks where Salbu et al. say the UO₃ had condensed much later. Would you rather inhale the same mass of uranium-238 in (IV) dioxide or (VI) nitrate form? --James S. 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question as to which one would rather inhale, given the choice I would rather eat U as high fired UO2 as that would go straight through me. But if I was to inhale U, I would rather do so in the form of a soluble salt (followed by me taking sodium bicarbonate). Given another choice I would don a good dust mask ! and wrap my body up in plastic sheet (I might end up looking like some sort of freak). You might want to look at [4], this is a US DOE report but it does cite SAX’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials which is considered to be the ultimate reference on this sort of thing.

you might want to consult [5] which is on actinides.

I think that the uranium metal shrapnel is a special case, which needs to be considered in a section on its own.

I think that we need to separate the radioactive properties of uranium from the chemical effects, I consider that soluble uranium can be cleared from the lungs more quickly than insoluble uranium. But the soluble uranium in the lungs will cause the other internal organs of the body to experience a high peak concentration of uranium than the insoluble uranium will. I suggest that in an article on the health effects of uranium that the different exposure routes should be considered in turn.Cadmium 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U(IV)O₂ will go through you, too, even if you inhale it; it will just take a longer time to get from your lungs to your kidneys, and it won't hang around like the more soluble forms. The hexavalent uranyl compounds are much more likely to end up in your liver, spleen, white blood cells, and sex glands to a much greater extent. Their chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals through catalysis is about a million times more than what their alpha radiation does. You're right about the bicarb for uranyl poisoning, but there are some other esoteric sequestration agents which won't give you a case of alkalosis. --James S. 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider the work of Mary Neu, she has done some work on the bacterial biochemistry of Pu(IV). [6] She has claimed that Pu is more of a chemical poison to her germs than a radioactive poison. [7][8] while it is a different actindie with very different biochem it does prove a point that chemical toxicity of the actinides can be high.

I think that we are getting a little bit away from the question of Is the IAEA NPOV or not ?. Should we move some of the discussion to somewhere else ?

Another thing, I would like to know which uranium antidote you are thinking of.Cadmium 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pu is similar, but only 100,000 times as chemically toxic in terms of generation of hydroxyl radicals compared to from its radiation. As for the most popular non-alkaline antidote for administration to exposure victims within a week after exposure 3,4,3-LIHOPO seems to be the most popular, or seemed to be a few years ago. There are others, but 3,4,3-LIHOPO has a long track record and is apparently easy to synthesize. Still, it has side effects. --James S. 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the DU page is redone then a section devoted to the non radiological toxicity should be included. The work which you cited using Pu-244, and the work of Mary Neu should be included. I think that this proposal should be communicated to the other users who are debating the case.Cadmium 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my original point about sources, how are we going to choose which sources are NPOV and which are not? Cadmium 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disregard any source with an economic stake in a controversial topic in which large sums of money are involved, and even peer-reviewed research which is too old to take into account, e.g., recent sharp uptrends in the congenital malformation rates in the children of the exposed. I sure hope those level off, but if they don't, I'm not going to hesitate to say I told you so. --James S. 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest why do you think that the formation of a UO3 gas is important ? I know that even without gas formation an actinide metal can form fine solids which can be inhaled. The question of uranium oxide gas is the thing which attracted me to this debate. After looking at your user page I suspect that you are a left of centre person who is in favour of personal libertys, and that you are an enviromentalist. I suspect that you are anti-nuclear in outlook, and I know that you have formally requested infromation about uranium [9] from the DOE so I suspect that you consider uranium to be jolly nasty.

On the other side there are some people such as DV8 2XL who is very very pro-nuclear, I do not think that you going to be able to agree with DV8 2XL on much when it comes to nuclear subjects.

I think that the uranium trioxide gas is going to be a millstone which will weigh you down. I think that issues such as the neptunium (and other transuranium actinide) content of the DU shells should be considered [10] before the idea of a gas is considered.Cadmium 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Cadmium provided a reference, which I have added to Uranium trioxide, showing the free net negative energy of formation of UO₃(g) and UO₂(g). So I have asked for Cadmium's current opinion on this subject. --James S. 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never held or expressed the view that it is impossible to form a vapour of Uranium trioxide under any conditions. What I have expressed is the view that it is very unlikely that a long lived uranium oxide gas could exist at 1 Atomsphere and normal tempertures. Hence the chance that a human can be exposed to a uranium oxide gas. I consider the conditions under which a uranium oxide gas can be formed are very special conditions which are unlikely to be relevent to exposure to a human (at the time of exposure to the human).

I have used the thermodynamics source which James has reminded me of recently, I have calculated the gibbs energy of vapourisation for uranium trioxide from the gamma form at 1000K, and I have found it to be +211.21 KJ mol-1. I consider such a large +ve value for delta G makes it s very unfaverable reaction. The data which I have used from the report is

UO3 gas, ΔH_f -799.2 KJ mol-1,

UO3 gas, S 309.5 J K-1 mol-1,

UO3 gamma form, ΔH_f= -1223.8 KJ mol-1,

UO3 gamma form, S 96.11 J K-1 mol-1,

ΔG = ΔH - TΔS

Cadmium 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is misleading. Combustion is not vaporization. And the vaporization from U₃O₈ takes place closer to 1500 K, where 210 kJ/mol is much easier to come by. What is probability distribution of the oxides from ionized plasma after combustion? --James S. 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have held the view that it is possible to burn uranium to form the oxide, even if the oxide is formed as a gas it will very rapidly condense to form the solid. I can recalculate for 2000 K. Here ΔG = -2.18 KJ mol-1. While at 1500 K ΔG = + 104.515 KJ mol-1. So at the temperture which you assume for a uranium fire the vapourisation will be unfavoured. If you want I can try and work out how to work out the vapour presure of the UO3 from the ΔG but that might take some time.Cadmium 22:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please don't bother. The fact that vaporization from U₃O₈ actually liberates energy at 2000 K, well below the combustion temperature, says it all: any condensation will continue to burn if it doesn't cool below 2000 K first. What we need is an actual emperical modern spectroscopic measurement of the combustion fumes through their various stages of cooling. Know any grad students (in labs with really good fume hoods) who need a thesis topic? --James S. 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, when you say vaporization from U₃O₈ actually liberates energy at 2000 K what do you mean, are you considering the reaction of U₃O₈ with oxygen, its conversion to UO2 and UO3 gas or some other process ? If you give me an equation for the process that you are considering, I can then estimate the ΔG for the process. I may improve the ΔG values estimated above as they did not take into account the heat capacitys of the UO3.Cadmium

James S. has recently indicated he will only provide diffs if the assertion is challenged. I should note that the burden of proof in arbitration cases here lies on the person making the assertion, and not the other way round. The assertion will almost certainly not be considered by the arbcom unless there is evidence (almost always in the form of diffs) provided. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out; you are correct. However, the abundance of examples to choose from and the mere tangential nature of those premises to the case leave me ambivalent. If I have time I will select diffs. If the relevant assertions are challenged, then I will be more likely to do so. I am not entirely sure whether I will or not, or just delete them as only vaguely relevant since very similar support was subsequently found in policy and guideline text. An arbitrator asked for a longer evidence phase than my previous request, which would have closed things today. I am comfortable with the case. --James S. 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as too tangental; the text from the WP:NLT policy is far stronger. --James S. 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DV8 2XL complains that I have been negating the views of ArbCom parole violator User:TDC, User:Smokefoot, User:Stone, User:Polonium, User:Benjah-bmm27, "and myself User:DV8 2XL, all who have independently looked at the data in the available citations and determined that this gas does not form at standard pressures and temperatures."

While I have never claimed that uranyl oxide gas forms at room temperature, I am not saying that it doesn't in very small quantities. However, Wilson (1961) and the up-to-date thermodynamic data which Cadmium provided makes it abundantly clear that UO₃(g) is a major -- perhaps the major primary -- combustion product of uranium, based on formation energies.

I think that the attempt to misdirect by attempting to claim that I have been editing to include a view which I have not been attempting to include, during arbitration, is a serious behavior problem which should be corrected promptly. --James S. 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing but another pathetic attempt to rewrite the history of this debate in his own (favorable) terms. This diff posted 20 Feb. [11] and this one [12] edited on Feb 25 by DrU say differently. The passage written by James on this matter in the depleted uranium article speaks for itself:

"Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas, and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine, but those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas -- also known as uranyl oxide gas, or UO3(g) -- which is formed during uranium combustion (R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355, "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U3O8 with oxygen." U3O8 being the dominant aerosol combustion product.) Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets. UO3 gas remains dissolved in the atmosphere for weeks, but as a monomolecular gas is absorbed immediately upon inhalation, leading to accumulation in tissues including gonocytes (testes) and white blood cells, but virtually no residual presence in urine other than what might be present from coincident particulate exposure." [Emphasis added by James S.]

In fact this whole issue revolves around and has come here because James has been insisting that this gas is produced in volume at atmospheric pressure and at normal combustion temperatures. Wilson does not address this at all, nor does Cadmium'a data support this contention. --DV8 2XL 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs cited by DV8 2XL above are of ArbCom parole violator TDC deleting mention of the controversy about uranyl oxide gas "from the use of DU munitions and other uranium combustion scenarios," (emphasis added) and Dr U suggesting that I'm the only one who believes that uranium trioxide gas vapor is "formed during uranium combustion." Neither are my edits, and neither suggests that I have ever claimed that substantial quantities of UO₃(g) is produced at room temperature, contrary to what DV8 2XL insinuates that I have implied. I do agree with DV8 2XL that the situation is pathetic, but I am not to blame. I have been factually correct in my edits, and my behavior, at least the behaviors that I've not already apologized for, is justified. --James S. 01:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you deny that you wrote the above passage. --DV8 2XL 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! The passage also discusses combustion, not standard (room) temperature. --James S. 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inhalation, however, occurs under conditions which are very close to STP. Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is another way of saying that one way or the other this phase cannot be a factor in the exposure profile of humans to this compound. --DV8 2XL 15:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DV8: James claims the gas forms at room temperature.

James: No, I don't. It forms during combustion.

Physchim: Well, inhalation occurs at room temperature.

DV8: And so therefore nobody ever breathes the vapor.

Astounding! Try this experiment: Boil some water in a small room at 100 degrees and see if you can still breathe water vapor at room temperature. Use a mirror to see if the vapor still condenses at room temperature.

Folks, some of it condenses on to surfaces as U3O8 crystals, and some of it condenses on to alveoli where molecules less than several hundred AMU are absorbed directly into the bloodstream; no lengthy solubility period required, and no posibility of years-after-exposure detection. Sorry things didn't turn out the way we would all prefer if they had, but poison gas is poison gas. Period. --James S. 17:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to find some other encyclopedia, one that encourages and publishes original research. Nandesuka 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you claiming isn't supported by sources, or is that just a vague personal attack? --James S. 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument that begins "Try this experiment..." is almost by definition original research. Nandesuka 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the experiment has already been replicated in the literature. How long do you think it would take to find a reference in support of the fact that gas vapor cools in air? There are already several Wikipedia articles on the subject; many with canonical references. Please become familiar with them. --James S. 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave these calculations alone, if you want to comment please do so in the sub section marked comments. I am making a point of doing the calculations in plain sight.

For the conversion of uranium metal to the monoatomic gas at STP, DeltaH = 533.0 +- 8.0 KJ mol-1

If we assume the reaction 2U + 3O2 to make 2UO3 then we can assume that the oxygen atoms (arrnaged in molecules are already in the gas phase. So no heat is required to form the oxygen gas.

Using Hess's Law, as the Delta H of formation of UO3 gas (from metallic U) is listed at -799.2 KJ mol-1, we can assume that the energy for the conversion of the monoatomic gas to the UO3 gas is 1332.2 KJ mol-1. This has allowed us to get to the point where we can draw a simple Born Haber cycle. This is rather mundane.

The next step is more interesting, assume that a uranium fire occurs in air (20% O2 and 80% N2). For the purposes of the calculation assume that the uranium oxide product is in the form of a gas.

2U + 3 O2 + 12 N2 --> 2 UO3 + 12 N2

We can expect that the reaction will generate 799.2 KJ mol-1

If we assume that no heat is transfered (adiabatic) system the it is possible to eastimate the flame temperture. I hope to goodness that this does not start a flame war, dire pun

The molar heat capacity of UO3 gas listed in my fav. source is 64.5 (plus minus 2) J K-1 mol-1

[13] states that the molar heat capacity of nitrogen is 20.8 J K-1 mol-1

So the heat capacity of 2 UO3 + 12 N2 will be (2 x 64.5) + (12 x 20.8) J K-1 mol-1

Which is 189.3 J K-1 mol-1 for each mole of uranium which burns. Call this Cx

Each mole of uranium which burns to make the gas, will give out 799.2 KJ (Delta H)

T = 298 K + (Delta H/Cx) = 298 + 4222 K = 4520 K

This is going to be very hot, and could cause uranium oxide gas to form for a moment. As the mixture is cooled by mixing with more air, the uranium oxide will then condense. The calculation which I have done is for a rare case of uranium being vapourised and then oxidised, this would happen in reactive spluttering where in an argon/oxygen gas at low preasure uranium atoms are spalled off of a surface by plasma discharge. So I think that it is reasonable to assume that uranium trioxide gas can be formed (for a moment) by burning uranium under a set of idealised conditions, but I expect that it will rapidly condense onto a surface.

Anyone who wants to is welcome to check my maths:) Cadmium

Flame temperature data. --James S. 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the reported flame temps. are about 1000 K lower than the value I predicted for the highest possible temperture which the reaction in air could create. I would consider that the calculation which I did to be in reasonable agreement with the literature source quoted by James. The data quoted by James will always give a lower temperture becuase heat is lost from the point of reaction by conduction, radiation and convection.Cadmium