I don't think there are any areas of disagreement. Certainly people will interpret the same data in different ways. For instance, in the United States the army chose to just measure total uranium, except in the individuals who were caught in friendly-fire incidents. None of the military personnel showed uranium excretion levels falling outside the normal distribution of those within the population. That's reasonable because depleted uranium is less toxic than natural uranium. If somebody is excreting levels of total uranium that are within the normal band, then you haven't got any cause for concern. It suggests that even if they were excreting DU, the toxicity level would be lower than within that normal band.
I don't think there's any real disagreement. There was some disagreement at first about the use of isotopic methods. There were some early studies that were not very good because the method was being worked out. There was resistance from some sources because they thought that if we used these methods, then we might find things that we don't want to find. In the end, as I said, in the U.K. we do those isotopic measurements, and Americans do them as well. It makes sense.