Talk:Studies find radioactive material at Israel bomb site in Lebanon

Propaganda?

First of - old news. Second of all, as it says in Y! News article I posted a link to, UN commission found no evidence of urnaium munitions in South Lebanon. So... Is this an anti-Israel propaganda on WNews? TacticalSniper(talk) 14:48, 14 November 2006 (GMT+2)

more on this

[1], [2].  — Doldrums(talk) 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

and some more interesting [3], sources[4].  — Doldrums(talk) 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a conversation with a friend..

Its possible Israel used depleted uranium casings for bunker busters, but not likely as only the U.S. can usualy afford to do that. Even groups looking for Israel doing something wrong have not found them using depelted uranium like the U.S. does.

More likely, Israel just hit a bunker full of stockpiled minor radioactive waist. Apperently varioous groups in the middle east stockpile radioactive waist (even amazingly trivial shit) just because they hope it can be useful to someone who hates Israel. Never mind that infact a so called "dirty bomb" is a complete fiction used to scare american civilians but can not be made millitarily effective, nobody ever told the fanatics.

So somehow the article should reflect that there are two possibilities: deplete uranium casings and hitting a useless stockpile of minor grade waist. Nyarlathotep 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'd fix this myself, but I'm standing on a streat corner!! Nyarlathotep 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing...

...this article to reflect what you just said would be great, but I due to lack of free time, I couldn't find any based opinion on that. I can't just say: "Hey, it could be radioactive waste", cause then someone else could say: "Hey, aliens from Mars did that" :) Anyway, if I'll find someone's opinion based on facts, I'll change the article. But for now, it simply looks like a propaganda. --TacticalSniper 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Title is misleading

The article and it's sources are contrary to the title. No known weapon produces that result.

Stu

nanosieverts?

Why would this be measured in nanosieverts? I don't think that makes sense.

Stu

I'm with you, man

...all the way. Um... Just a question... What's "nanosieverts"?? :)

--TacticalSniper 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sievert. — Doldrums(talk) 07:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A nanosievert would be 10^-9 sieverts. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

parbox

why is the WMD parbox in the article, and so prominently placed? article does not say anything about WMDs.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does mention "uranium based bunker busters" doesn't it? Nuclear-fission based weapons are capable of causing mass destruction. Hence the infobox. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 10:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uranium based bunker busters are not necessarily nuclear devices, see w:Depleted Uranium, and the munitions section in that article. see also the legal status of DU weapons in the same article. DU weapons have not been classified as WMD, though moves are afoot to do so. to simply insert the WMD parbox in the article is to suggest either that Israel used WMD in the conflict, a suggestion which needs to be sourced, or that DU munitions, if that's what were used in the conflict, are WMD, which again needs to be sourced.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, passed two motions the first in 1996 and the second in 1997. They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

so if i list animals, birds, fruits, and vegetables and Tomato figures in that list, Tomato becomes a bird?  — Doldrums(talk) 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, now you're comparing yourself with the UN? Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't think u've understood the point i'm making. if DU weapons belongs to the set of { WMD, Weapons w/ indiscriminate effect, Weapons causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering}, it doesn't mean DU weapon is a WMD. it could equally imply DU weapons are "Weapons w/ indiscriminate..." or "Weapons causing superfluous...". to report as if DU is a WMD is to report unsourced material.  — Doldrums(talk) 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

from the bottom of the Legal status section of w:Depleted Uranium,

There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present. (Emphasis added)

– The Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Use of Depleted Uranium Projectiles

 — Doldrums(talk) 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium

– International peace and security as an essential condition for the enjoyment of human rights, above all the right to life Sub-Commission resolution 1996/16

[5] Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

there are several reasons for not including the parbox -

1. We don't know that this is about Israel's WMD at all, as opposed to radioactive material stockpiled by Palestinians. to place a parbox suggesting one explanation prominently and ignore the other is pov.
2. Whether DU weapons are WMD is not a resolved matter, as the quote i've posted earlier makes clear. PVJ's quote is a UN Subcommission's motion, not an UN Resolution passed by the General Assembly or Security Council and so does not authoritatively establish DU's status. when no such consensus exists about its status, it is not for wikinews (or individual editors) to decree that DU is (or is not) a WMD. if its status is not clear, then the parbox, which does not make clear this debate over status, shld not be used - it is pov because it appears to assert that whatever was in that site is an Israeli WMD.
3. the subcommitte's view is already mentioned in text and re-emphasizing it in a prominent parbox is to give undue weight.

 — Doldrums(talk) 09:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Who is opposed to including a parbox about the other theory? It's just that Wikipedia does not seem to have an article about "Palestine and WMDs". If you do find such an article, go ahead and add the parbox.
2. I apologise for allowing my other committments to keep me from researching the issue as thoroughly as certain other editors. I will agree to the parbox being removed if someone can explain to me why the UNHRC motion should not be taken into account, and, what sort of "consensus" must exist among the UN's organs about this matter for it to be resolved. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. since we have nothing to indicate whose radioactive material this is, let's leave out blaming one of "Israel" and "Palestine", and move the DU/dirty bomb parbox to the top, that meshes closely with what the article reports - speculation that this may be a DU weapn or a dirty bomb in the making.
2. The subcommittee view is taken into account in the text of the aricle. there is no reason to repeat it once more, leaving out all qualifiers, by using the parbox. A GA/SC resolution, or a widely signed treaty prohibiting WMD which labels DU weapons as WMD would be just fine for asserting that DU is WMD, thank you. as the Prosecutor's Report (compiled by people whose real-life commitment it is, to research such things) points out, neither of these exist. therefore, we shld not claim that what was found (or not found) in those sites were wmd.  — Doldrums(talk) 09:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The article reports the Jewish state's use of DU weapons on Lebanese civilians, not "speculation" about the same.
2. Thank you for explaining the basis of international consensus. Had this come a few years earler, thousands of lives might have been saved. Now, when exactly does a treaty become "widely signed"? Also, when did Wikinews start relying on UNSC resolutions while writing articles? Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 10:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. if u believe that article does (or should) report categorically that "Israel used DU weapons on Lebanese civilians", then i suggest u read the sources again.
2. If u want to report a determination ("DU is a WMD") as fact, then u'd better come up with sources substantiating a consensus view on the matter, such as a GA resolution or a widely-signed treaty.  — Doldrums(talk) 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained to me the basis for all this talk of GA resolutions. What makes the GA more of an authority on this matter than the UNHRC. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

the GA or the SC asks commissions or committees to come up with factual determinations or preliminary drafts of international agreements, etc, which are then used to build a resolution or an agreement between member states. but there is a wide gap between the two. just 'coz a commission asys "we shld have an international criminal court" or "we shld ban land mines" doesn't mean that such recommendations will be accepted or be binding on all members, far from it. sometimes, such recommendations are rejected by a number od GA membe,s sometimes rejected by a very few SC members, in both cases, we can't simply say "UN says <whatever the committee said>". we can only report "committee said such, so many agreed, so many digagreed, such-and-such action resulted".  — Doldrums(talk) 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So a nuclear weapon (or any other bomb containing a radioactive isotope) cannot be considered a WMD unless the GA says passes a Resolution to that effect? Does the same concept apply to, say, a new element recognised by the IUPAC? Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 11:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

publishing

article makes no mention of the UN teams finding (already sourced, see Yahoo news source) that categorically contradicts the substance of the article. pls fix this before publishing.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-published it. Articles can be edited while published can't they? I'll try to add the information if I find the time, otherwise please go ahead and do it yourself. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 11:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

fixed

Since this whole thing is my fault, I've now fixed it. Story is:

1. Maybe depleted uranium contradicting past U.N. findings.
2. One crazy enviromentalist thinks there is some new physical process
3. Maybe a dirty bomb warehouse
4. Dirty bombs don't really exist, they are ust a fiction the replublicans used to help scare people into voting for them

Okay, okay, I didn't really mention the republicans, but its true that dirty bombs are mostly a fiction, see wikipedia. Nyarlathotep 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sort of like the "WMDs" Bush was searching for in "eye-rack"? :-) Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

still no mention of the UN teams finding, which categorically contradicts the headline of this article. WN:NPOV anyone?  — Doldrums(talk) 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't quite realize that the UN report may be specifically about this one! I thought it was a more general past comment! Sorry, yeah, this oughta be fixed.. Nyarlathotep 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)