Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
US rejects Iraq depleated uranium clean-up
The US says it has no plans to remove the debris left over from depleted uranium (DU) weapons it is using in Iraq.
It says no clean-up is needed, because research shows DU has no long-term effects.
It says a 1990 study suggesting health risks to local people and veterans is out of date.
A United Nations study found DU contaminating air and water seven years after it was used.
DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and very effective for punching through armoured vehicles.
When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Risk studies
Both the US and the UK acknowledge the dust can be dangerous if inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation.
But a study prepared for the US Army in July 1990, a month before Iraq invaded Kuwait, says: "The health risks associated with internal and external DU exposure during combat conditions are certainly far less than other combat-related risks.
"Following combat, however, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU."
A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel David Lapan, told BBC News Online: "Since then there've been a number of studies - by the UK's Royal Society and the World Health Organisation, for example - into the health risks of DU, or the lack of them.
"It's fair to say the 1990 study has been overtaken by them. One thing we've found in these various studies is that there are no long-term effects from DU.
"And given that, I don't believe we have any plans for a DU clean-up in Iraq."
Part of the armoury
The UN Environment Programme study, published in March 2003, found DU in air and groundwater in Bosnia-Herzegovina seven years after the weapons were fired.
The UN says the existing data suggest it is "highly unlikely" DU could be linked to any of the health problems reported.
But it recommends collecting DU fragments, covering contaminated points with asphalt or clean soil, and keeping records of contaminated sites.
Reports from Baghdad speak of repeated attacks by US aircraft carrying DU weapons on high-rise buildings in the city centre.
The UK says: "British forces on deployment to the Gulf have DU munitions available as part of their armoury, and will use them if necessary." It will not confirm they have used them.
Many veterans from the Gulf and Kosovo wars believe DU has made them seriously ill.
One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner.
In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer.
"Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."
Ray Bristow was tested in Canada for DU. He is open-minded about its role in his condition.
But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used.
"But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2946715.stm
It says a 1990 study suggesting health risks to local people and veterans is out of date.
A United Nations study found DU contaminating air and water seven years after it was used.
DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and very effective for punching through armoured vehicles.
When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Risk studies
Both the US and the UK acknowledge the dust can be dangerous if inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation.
But a study prepared for the US Army in July 1990, a month before Iraq invaded Kuwait, says: "The health risks associated with internal and external DU exposure during combat conditions are certainly far less than other combat-related risks.
"Following combat, however, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU."
A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel David Lapan, told BBC News Online: "Since then there've been a number of studies - by the UK's Royal Society and the World Health Organisation, for example - into the health risks of DU, or the lack of them.
"It's fair to say the 1990 study has been overtaken by them. One thing we've found in these various studies is that there are no long-term effects from DU.
"And given that, I don't believe we have any plans for a DU clean-up in Iraq."
Part of the armoury
The UN Environment Programme study, published in March 2003, found DU in air and groundwater in Bosnia-Herzegovina seven years after the weapons were fired.
The UN says the existing data suggest it is "highly unlikely" DU could be linked to any of the health problems reported.
But it recommends collecting DU fragments, covering contaminated points with asphalt or clean soil, and keeping records of contaminated sites.
Reports from Baghdad speak of repeated attacks by US aircraft carrying DU weapons on high-rise buildings in the city centre.
The UK says: "British forces on deployment to the Gulf have DU munitions available as part of their armoury, and will use them if necessary." It will not confirm they have used them.
Many veterans from the Gulf and Kosovo wars believe DU has made them seriously ill.
One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner.
In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer.
"Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."
Ray Bristow was tested in Canada for DU. He is open-minded about its role in his condition.
But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used.
"But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2946715.stm
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
That's because the racists who architected this war don't give a damn about Arab lives and want to see them suffer from cancer because of the DU contamination.
Arabs, Americans, British soldiers, and all other people who were in the vicinity of the depleted uranium contamination are threatened with death or permanent disability from this deadly poison. There are now over 200,000 American veterans who are permanently disabled after being exposed to depleted uranium in the First Persian Gulf Massacre. Thousands more Americans have died. The same is true for the people of Iraq; cancer has proliferated in Iraq. The ruling capitalist class is doing its best to exterminate the workingclass of the world rather than provide jobs. The capitalist class only cares about maximizing profits, not sharing the wealth that labor creates to maximize the benefits to all. People like Bush and his gang are never exposed to depleted uranium as they never fight any war. They know very well that depleted uranium is poison, and they are using it to kill as many people as possible as they have nothing to offer any of us, demonstrating once again that capitalism is a bankrupt social order.
With regard to the first Gulf War and the action in the Balkans, such a clean-up would be impossible. DU rounds ar relatively small to start with, and their tactical usage means there is no real way to pinpoint the location of evey round, much less every fragment. You migh as well ask for a lead clean-up of Europe for every musketball, miniball, and bullet fired from the 15th-20th centuries. As for the second Gulf War, DU has been phased out in favor of tungsten. War is a dirty, destructive, and painful endevor. No one knows this better than the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who do the job. We do it for our country and our way of life. We are not brainwashed or mindless killers like you would like to believe. We do it because we have seen an uglier side of the world than you allow yourselves to see through your rose colored glasses. A world you don't have to see or be subjected to because we do our jobs very well. Many of the people in Congress believe exactly as you do, but they see information that you aren't privy to, and their conscience demands they support the war. Please consider this before you organize your next protest.
Way to go, Wesley. Whenever we conservatives don't have an argument, we can always resort to rationalization. Great job!
DU is uranium, but the radiation emitted by it is far less energetic than from other sources, which means that the potential for damage is far less. Not only that, but it is primarily in the form of alpha particles (which are just helium nucleii without the electrons), which are unable to penetrate skin. So the biggest danger comes from getting DU *into* your skin. However, studies done of American soldiers who were hit by DU rounds (in "friendly fire" incidents) in the first Gulf War show that there was very little increased radiation exposure even when parts of DU rounds were embedded in the skin.
As someone said, DU is a much more dangerous chemically than it is radiologically. So stay away from those heavy-metal sandwiches, kids!
As someone said, DU is a much more dangerous chemically than it is radiologically. So stay away from those heavy-metal sandwiches, kids!
Dang. I'll go back to eating lead then.
so why are the rates of leukemia so ridiculously high in Iraq since Gulf War 1?
it has nothing to do with the use of deplete uranium munitions by US forces?
it has nothing to do with the use of deplete uranium munitions by US forces?
Why are rates so high? The first thing that comes to my mind is the undisputed fact that Iraq manufactured thousands of tons of chemical weapons, and used them extensively in the years prior to the statistical increase.
Consider the fact that neither Gulf war syndrome nor high cancer rates occur among people who work with DU munitions, Uranium mining, or among populations living near those facilities.
How would you reconcile that DU poisoning only occurs in the one country that has large amounts of other toxins?
Until this question is resolved, I don't buy it.
Consider the fact that neither Gulf war syndrome nor high cancer rates occur among people who work with DU munitions, Uranium mining, or among populations living near those facilities.
How would you reconcile that DU poisoning only occurs in the one country that has large amounts of other toxins?
Until this question is resolved, I don't buy it.
A solid chunk of DU is relatively harmless unless you hang around it a long time. The problem is that DU ammo smashes to dust which is then inhaled and ingested. Then it's deadly.
I've read some of the reports, and they are lacking in scientific rigor.
Can someone point me to a study of DU effects that includes:
1) Toxicology reports of victims showing high levels of easily-detectable DU?
2) Studies eliminating what seems to me the most obvious cause of GWS -- Iraq's large-scale chemical weapons programs which are known to have leaked into the environment?
Can someone point me to a study of DU effects that includes:
1) Toxicology reports of victims showing high levels of easily-detectable DU?
2) Studies eliminating what seems to me the most obvious cause of GWS -- Iraq's large-scale chemical weapons programs which are known to have leaked into the environment?
Selected Quotes From Government Reports on Depleted Uranium
Assembled by Dan Fahey, Swords to Plowshares
1. Pre-Desert Storm Reports:
"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
(Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environmental and Health Considerations, July 1990: Vol. 1, 4-5; included as Appendix D in US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command report Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990).
"Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably the ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armor-piercing munitions, either on foot or motorized transports."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 2, 3-4).
"We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of [DU] exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations."
(SAIC. July 1990, Vol. 1, 4-5).
"Following combats however, the condition of the baffiefteld, and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptitbility of the continued use of DU kinetic energy penetrators for military applications."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 2, 3-4).
Depleted uranium is a "low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 1, 2-2).
"Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long terrn effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 1, 4-12).
"Personnel in or near (less than approximately 50 meters) an armored vehicle at the time these vehicles were struck by depleted uranium munitions could receive significant internal DU exposures (i.e. those in excess of allowable standards)."
(Statement of Col. Eric Daxon, Radiation Protection Staff Officer. US Army Medical Command,
summarizing the results of a December 1989 report from the Ballistic Research Laboratory, Radiological Contamination From Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Filszar. el. al.. Col. Daxon's statement was made in a July 19, 1996 letter to Dan Fahey, Swords to Plowshares).
"Our conclusions regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetratois assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. Individuals consulted have generally responded to this issue by saying it is irrelevant, or insignificant compared to the other risks of combat. However, environmental issues will arise if DU is used in combat." (SAIC, July 1990. Vol. 1, 4-5).
II. Post-Desert Storm Reports:
"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal ... I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at mind when after action reports are written."
(Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn. Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum. March 1, 1991),
"When DU is indicted as a causative agent for Desert Storm illness, the Army must have sufficient data to separate fiction from reality. Without forethought and data, the financial implications of long-term disability payments and health-care costs would be excessive."
(Lt. Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences or Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army: Technical Report, June 1995. P. 4).
"U.S. service personnel also could have been exposed to DU if they inhaled or ingested DU dust particles during incidental contact with vehicles destroyed by DU munitions, or if they lived or worked in areas contaminated with DU dust from accidental munitions fires. Thus, unnecessary exposure of many individuals could have occurred.''
(Presidential Advisory Committee on GuIrWar Veterans' Illnesses (PAC). Final Report, December 1996, p.99
"Army officials believe that DU protective methods can be ignored during battle and other life threatening situations because DU-related health risks are greatly outweighed by the risks of combat." (US General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination. GAO/NSIAD-93-90. Januarv 1993, p. 4).
"Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental exposure from dust or smoke." (AEPI. June 1995. p.102).
"Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market, DU weapons will be used in future conflicts ... The number of DU patients on future battlefields probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU."
(AEPI, June 1995. 119-120).
"DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed in a licensed repository.'' (AEPI. June 1995. P. 154).
"No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate Persian Gulf War battlefields.'' (AEPI, June 1995. p. 154).
"Depleted uranium is more of a problem than we thought when it was developed. But it was developed according to standards and was thought through very carefully. It turned out, perhaps, to be wrong." (Brent Scowcroft. former National Security Advisor to President Bush, from a British documentary titled "Riding the Storm." which aired on ITN TV. Ch. 4, in the United Kingdom. on January 3, 1996).
To obtain the reports and documents cited above. contact Dan Fahey at (415) 247-8777.
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm
Assembled by Dan Fahey, Swords to Plowshares
1. Pre-Desert Storm Reports:
"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
(Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environmental and Health Considerations, July 1990: Vol. 1, 4-5; included as Appendix D in US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command report Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990).
"Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably the ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armor-piercing munitions, either on foot or motorized transports."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 2, 3-4).
"We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of [DU] exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations."
(SAIC. July 1990, Vol. 1, 4-5).
"Following combats however, the condition of the baffiefteld, and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptitbility of the continued use of DU kinetic energy penetrators for military applications."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 2, 3-4).
Depleted uranium is a "low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 1, 2-2).
"Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long terrn effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
(SAIC, July 1990, Vol. 1, 4-12).
"Personnel in or near (less than approximately 50 meters) an armored vehicle at the time these vehicles were struck by depleted uranium munitions could receive significant internal DU exposures (i.e. those in excess of allowable standards)."
(Statement of Col. Eric Daxon, Radiation Protection Staff Officer. US Army Medical Command,
summarizing the results of a December 1989 report from the Ballistic Research Laboratory, Radiological Contamination From Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Filszar. el. al.. Col. Daxon's statement was made in a July 19, 1996 letter to Dan Fahey, Swords to Plowshares).
"Our conclusions regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetratois assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. Individuals consulted have generally responded to this issue by saying it is irrelevant, or insignificant compared to the other risks of combat. However, environmental issues will arise if DU is used in combat." (SAIC, July 1990. Vol. 1, 4-5).
II. Post-Desert Storm Reports:
"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal ... I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at mind when after action reports are written."
(Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn. Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum. March 1, 1991),
"When DU is indicted as a causative agent for Desert Storm illness, the Army must have sufficient data to separate fiction from reality. Without forethought and data, the financial implications of long-term disability payments and health-care costs would be excessive."
(Lt. Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences or Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army: Technical Report, June 1995. P. 4).
"U.S. service personnel also could have been exposed to DU if they inhaled or ingested DU dust particles during incidental contact with vehicles destroyed by DU munitions, or if they lived or worked in areas contaminated with DU dust from accidental munitions fires. Thus, unnecessary exposure of many individuals could have occurred.''
(Presidential Advisory Committee on GuIrWar Veterans' Illnesses (PAC). Final Report, December 1996, p.99
"Army officials believe that DU protective methods can be ignored during battle and other life threatening situations because DU-related health risks are greatly outweighed by the risks of combat." (US General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination. GAO/NSIAD-93-90. Januarv 1993, p. 4).
"Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental exposure from dust or smoke." (AEPI. June 1995. p.102).
"Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market, DU weapons will be used in future conflicts ... The number of DU patients on future battlefields probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU."
(AEPI, June 1995. 119-120).
"DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed in a licensed repository.'' (AEPI. June 1995. P. 154).
"No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate Persian Gulf War battlefields.'' (AEPI, June 1995. p. 154).
"Depleted uranium is more of a problem than we thought when it was developed. But it was developed according to standards and was thought through very carefully. It turned out, perhaps, to be wrong." (Brent Scowcroft. former National Security Advisor to President Bush, from a British documentary titled "Riding the Storm." which aired on ITN TV. Ch. 4, in the United Kingdom. on January 3, 1996).
To obtain the reports and documents cited above. contact Dan Fahey at (415) 247-8777.
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm
Again, I see no toxicology reports on the Iraqi children who died of birth defects. Isn't that central to the cleanup argument?
If you want rfeal toxicology studies perhaps you should talk to a toxicologist? Arguing technical details of DU poisoning on here seems a little pointless. One would think there would be studies on Iraq and Serbia which show a result one way or the other...Since the UN went out of its way to condemn DU use I would guess they based that off some study but I (or the people posting in either direction on this board) am not really the one to say since popularized verions of reports can often get confused (Is it the Uranium itself that is poisonous or other waste mixed in with it? iS it only dangerous if inhaled or ingested etc...)
Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium.
Excess leukemia incidence among those exposed to radiation (atomic bomb survivors) has been recognized only with doses in the range of 1 Sievert (100 rem) or more to the bone marrow. In the body, uranium concentrates on the bone surface rather than in bone marrow. Under these conditions irradiation of bone marrow by uranium’s alpha particles would be almost impossible. The scenarios for the highest potential exposure to DU in the Gulf War (friendly fire incidents, Level I) had estimated doses in the range of 0.05 Sv (5 rem).
Level I is the highest exposure group, including 102 soldiers in the Gulf War who were in, on, or near combat vehicles at the time they were struck by depleted uranium rounds, and an estimated 30 to 60 soldiers who entered these vehicles immediately afterwards to perform combat rescue. Depleted uranium metal fragments struck a number of soldiers, and some of these still retain embedded depleted uranium fragments. Others inhaled or ingested depleted uranium particles, or had depleted uranium contaminate their wounds. The U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine preliminary estimate of the highest exposure level were based on test data that assumed two depleted uranium rounds impacted and penetrated the depleted uranium armor of an Abram's heavy armor model tank. The estimated radiation dose was less than the 5 rem per year limit for workers. The theoretical kidney concentration could have exceeded the maximum permissible concentration guideline of 3 µg of uranium per gram of kidney. However, it is unlikely. These highest exposure estimates were based on two perforations of DU armor by 120mm DU rounds. The Department of Defense used the DU on DU exposure data because it had no exposure data on DU rounds penetrating non-DU armor. It should be noted that there were no penetrations of DU armor during the Gulf War and only two Abrams tanks were actually penetrated by two DU penetrators. In addition, the amount of DU aerosol generated by a DU round penetrating a Bradley Fighting Vehicle would be much less than that produced by a DU round penetrating an Abrams tank because the armor of the Abrams tank is harder to penetrate than the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Department of Defense used the DU-on-DU exposure data because it had no exposure data on DU rounds penetrating non-DU armor.
The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up program remains the most important source for identifying potential untoward health effects in those friendly-fire victims who have retained DU fragments. About a quarter of the over 60 Level I exposed individuals who have been evaluated still carry DU fragments in their bodies, and they have elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War. The present health status of this cohort shows they have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome.
Excess leukemia incidence among those exposed to radiation (atomic bomb survivors) has been recognized only with doses in the range of 1 Sievert (100 rem) or more to the bone marrow. In the body, uranium concentrates on the bone surface rather than in bone marrow. Under these conditions irradiation of bone marrow by uranium’s alpha particles would be almost impossible. The scenarios for the highest potential exposure to DU in the Gulf War (friendly fire incidents, Level I) had estimated doses in the range of 0.05 Sv (5 rem).
Level I is the highest exposure group, including 102 soldiers in the Gulf War who were in, on, or near combat vehicles at the time they were struck by depleted uranium rounds, and an estimated 30 to 60 soldiers who entered these vehicles immediately afterwards to perform combat rescue. Depleted uranium metal fragments struck a number of soldiers, and some of these still retain embedded depleted uranium fragments. Others inhaled or ingested depleted uranium particles, or had depleted uranium contaminate their wounds. The U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine preliminary estimate of the highest exposure level were based on test data that assumed two depleted uranium rounds impacted and penetrated the depleted uranium armor of an Abram's heavy armor model tank. The estimated radiation dose was less than the 5 rem per year limit for workers. The theoretical kidney concentration could have exceeded the maximum permissible concentration guideline of 3 µg of uranium per gram of kidney. However, it is unlikely. These highest exposure estimates were based on two perforations of DU armor by 120mm DU rounds. The Department of Defense used the DU on DU exposure data because it had no exposure data on DU rounds penetrating non-DU armor. It should be noted that there were no penetrations of DU armor during the Gulf War and only two Abrams tanks were actually penetrated by two DU penetrators. In addition, the amount of DU aerosol generated by a DU round penetrating a Bradley Fighting Vehicle would be much less than that produced by a DU round penetrating an Abrams tank because the armor of the Abrams tank is harder to penetrate than the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Department of Defense used the DU-on-DU exposure data because it had no exposure data on DU rounds penetrating non-DU armor.
The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up program remains the most important source for identifying potential untoward health effects in those friendly-fire victims who have retained DU fragments. About a quarter of the over 60 Level I exposed individuals who have been evaluated still carry DU fragments in their bodies, and they have elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War. The present health status of this cohort shows they have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome.
America’s Dirty Bombs
By Dan Miner-Nordstrom, NIRS/WISE Ukraine, February 12, 2003
Dr. Helen Caldicott, the founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's action for Nuclear Disarmament, said in 1997: "The United States has conducted two nuclear wars. The first against Japan in 1945, the second in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991." Since then we have to add, Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, Yugoslavia in 1999, and Afghanistan again beginning in 2001. Are we now expected to stand idly by again while the United States plans to disperse its radioactive waste in the form of Depleted Uranium bombs again on Iraq?
Depleted uranium, or DU, is used as an armor-piercing metal casing, originally designed to penetrate tanks. In 1990, the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command stated that DU is a "low-level alpha radiation emitter, which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, (and) chemical toxicity causing kidney damage." In addition, the name depleted uranium is actually a misnomer since the uranium used in the manufacture of DU shells is the by-product of highly enriched uranium used by the Department of Energy in the making of bombs and the production of nuclear energy.
Even now that scores of U.S. and NATO soldiers, as well as civilians, complain of illnesses possibly related to DU, the U.S. has taken the position that there is no danger from depleted uranium whatsoever. President Bush of the United States reiterated this position last month. What the White House website calls a ‘scare,’ the United Nations Environmental Program calls an environmental concern and a risk.
These conclusions are to be released by the UNEP in a March 2003 report. Furthermore, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the issue in a speech on November 6, 2002, saying that depleted uranium weapons threatened the environment., while observing the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.
The reports about DU are extremely troubling: a Jan. 17, 2001, Associated Press report stated that DU bombs dropped on Yugoslavia may have contained plutonium. "Plutonium is about 200 thousand times more radioactive than uranium (and) less than a thousandth of a gram of plutonium in the lungs could cause serious health problems," the article stated. The tonnage of depleted uranium armaments are staggering as well: In March 2000, the United Nations announced that NATO aircraft pounded Serbian tanks with 31,000 rounds of DU ammunition, exposing the local population, aid workers and the KFOR troops to a known health hazard.
In the Gulf War alone, the United States and Britain used 860,000 DU rounds, equivalent to 300 tons. DU spontaneously burns on impact, creating aerosolized particles that can be inhaled or carried across long distances. These rounds have been linked to thousands of illnesses generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. These illnesses include skin, kidney, and respiratory disorders. In Iraq, cases of leukemia, birth defects and cancer among children skyrocketed after the use of DU shells.
Amazingly, it was only after the Gulf War that the Pentagon instituted new precautions for soldiers working with DU armaments. Ironically, the US Department of Veterans Administration stated on July 6, 2001, they would refuse treatment to veterans suffering any alleged DU related illnesses, based on studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS limited their research to naturally occurring uranium and the health of uranium plant workers, also claiming that not enough studies have been done on DU armaments. Britain’s Royal Society has taken a similar position. But the data continues to come out.
A study was done in England last fall showing children of soldiers who served in DU wars were more likely to suffer genetic diseases. Another study in the United States found half of veterans with gulf war illness tested positive for depleted uranium. (Military Medicine 2002;167:620-627)
The United States and Britain are wrong to expose soldiers and victims of war to cancer and genetic-defect causing weapons. It is hypocritical for these two nuclear powers to unleash the dangers of radiation upon a country they accuse of possessing weapons of similarly sinister weapons.
Sources: For more information, please contact: Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of UNEP DU Projects, pekka.haavisto [at] unep.ch, See also http://postconflict.unep.ch or http://www.unep.org
Other sources http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/index.html#DU (WISE Uranium Project) and the http://www.cadu.org.uk (Campaign Against Depleted Uranium)
By Dan Miner-Nordstrom, NIRS/WISE Ukraine, February 12, 2003
Dr. Helen Caldicott, the founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's action for Nuclear Disarmament, said in 1997: "The United States has conducted two nuclear wars. The first against Japan in 1945, the second in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991." Since then we have to add, Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, Yugoslavia in 1999, and Afghanistan again beginning in 2001. Are we now expected to stand idly by again while the United States plans to disperse its radioactive waste in the form of Depleted Uranium bombs again on Iraq?
Depleted uranium, or DU, is used as an armor-piercing metal casing, originally designed to penetrate tanks. In 1990, the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command stated that DU is a "low-level alpha radiation emitter, which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, (and) chemical toxicity causing kidney damage." In addition, the name depleted uranium is actually a misnomer since the uranium used in the manufacture of DU shells is the by-product of highly enriched uranium used by the Department of Energy in the making of bombs and the production of nuclear energy.
Even now that scores of U.S. and NATO soldiers, as well as civilians, complain of illnesses possibly related to DU, the U.S. has taken the position that there is no danger from depleted uranium whatsoever. President Bush of the United States reiterated this position last month. What the White House website calls a ‘scare,’ the United Nations Environmental Program calls an environmental concern and a risk.
These conclusions are to be released by the UNEP in a March 2003 report. Furthermore, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the issue in a speech on November 6, 2002, saying that depleted uranium weapons threatened the environment., while observing the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.
The reports about DU are extremely troubling: a Jan. 17, 2001, Associated Press report stated that DU bombs dropped on Yugoslavia may have contained plutonium. "Plutonium is about 200 thousand times more radioactive than uranium (and) less than a thousandth of a gram of plutonium in the lungs could cause serious health problems," the article stated. The tonnage of depleted uranium armaments are staggering as well: In March 2000, the United Nations announced that NATO aircraft pounded Serbian tanks with 31,000 rounds of DU ammunition, exposing the local population, aid workers and the KFOR troops to a known health hazard.
In the Gulf War alone, the United States and Britain used 860,000 DU rounds, equivalent to 300 tons. DU spontaneously burns on impact, creating aerosolized particles that can be inhaled or carried across long distances. These rounds have been linked to thousands of illnesses generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. These illnesses include skin, kidney, and respiratory disorders. In Iraq, cases of leukemia, birth defects and cancer among children skyrocketed after the use of DU shells.
Amazingly, it was only after the Gulf War that the Pentagon instituted new precautions for soldiers working with DU armaments. Ironically, the US Department of Veterans Administration stated on July 6, 2001, they would refuse treatment to veterans suffering any alleged DU related illnesses, based on studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS limited their research to naturally occurring uranium and the health of uranium plant workers, also claiming that not enough studies have been done on DU armaments. Britain’s Royal Society has taken a similar position. But the data continues to come out.
A study was done in England last fall showing children of soldiers who served in DU wars were more likely to suffer genetic diseases. Another study in the United States found half of veterans with gulf war illness tested positive for depleted uranium. (Military Medicine 2002;167:620-627)
The United States and Britain are wrong to expose soldiers and victims of war to cancer and genetic-defect causing weapons. It is hypocritical for these two nuclear powers to unleash the dangers of radiation upon a country they accuse of possessing weapons of similarly sinister weapons.
Sources: For more information, please contact: Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of UNEP DU Projects, pekka.haavisto [at] unep.ch, See also http://postconflict.unep.ch or http://www.unep.org
Other sources http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/index.html#DU (WISE Uranium Project) and the http://www.cadu.org.uk (Campaign Against Depleted Uranium)
Persons Affected from Depleted Uranium Weapons
Source Term
The depleted uranium (DU) used by the U.S. Department of Defense contains approx. 0.2% U-235 and 0.0003% of U-236 [AEPI1995 p.23]. The DU penetrators are made of an alloy of 99.25 weight-% of depleted uranium and 0.75 weight-% of titanium.
Exposure of Persons Affected
External radiation
The maximum radiation dose from DU armor and DU ammunition received by a crew member sitting inside an M1A1HA tank would be 1.3 µSv/h [AEPI1995 p.123].
On direct contact with a DU penetrator, the skin dose rate from gamma and beta radiation is 2 mSv/h [AEPI1995 p.107]. With ICRP60's tissue weighting factor for skin of 0.01, this results in a committed effective dose of 20 µSv/h. (The tissue weighting factor is quite low, since ICRP uses US data for adults showing that skin cancer can be treated and only 0.2% of the cases are lethal). ICRP60's annual skin dose standard of 50 mSv for the public is equivalent to an exposure time of 25 hours.
The gamma dose rate from a 30 mm DU-bullet (271 g) at a distance of 1 m is 7 nSv/h (hardly to distinguish from background of typically 100 nSv/h; in the very long term, however, the dose rate would rise to a maximum of 544 nSv/h after 2 million years; see also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator).
For the gamma dose rate from DU dispersed over soil of a target area, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.61]: 10 kg DU dispersed over 1000 m2 result in 4 µSv/a.
Inhalation of DU dust
The effective dose from inhalation of 1 mg uranium depleted to 0.2% is 0.12 mSv. The 1 mSv annual standard for the public is equivalent to 8.3 mg. For continuous exposure, this corresponds to a uranium concentration in air of 1.05 µg/m3. (See also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator)
If the uranium were recycled from spent fuel, the inhalation dose from 1 mg were 0.19 mSv. The 1 mSv annual standard for the public were equivalent to 5.3 mg. For continuous exposure, this corresponds to a uranium concentration in air of 0.67 µg/m3.
(based on ICRP72 dose factors for insoluble compounds for adults, breathing rate of 0.9 m3/h, burnup of 39 GWd/tHM, storage time of 5 years after unload, tails from enrichment to 3.5%)
There is, however, evidence that DU metal forms ceramic oxide particles on impact, the lung retention times of which are twice as long as for normal oxides covered by the ICRP dose factors. The dose coefficients for such ceramic DU therefore would be higher. [Bertell1999]
The UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessments for inhalation exposure from depleted uranium weapons use [BTF1999 p.58]:
instantaneous inhalation of DU dust after an attack:
BTF assumes a max. intake of 100 mg of DU (close to the target and immediately after the attack), "which might lead to acute chemical toxicity and a total effective radiation dose caused by inhalation of less than 10 mSv".
inhalation of resuspended DU
BTF assumes 6 µg DU per mg dust in a target area of 1000 m2. Depending on the dust concentration in air, this corresponds to DU concentrations in air of 0.3 µg/m3 (normal) to 30 µg/m3 (very dusty). For continuous exposure, this results in an effective dose from inhalation of 0.3 to 30 mSv/a.
ingestion of vegetables contaminated with DU dust
For consumption of leafy vegetables with surface contamination from DU dust, grown in a target area during the first week after an attack, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.59]: the intake of DU during this week may reach some 100 mg DU. "That amount is absolutely significant from chemical risk point of view. The resulting radiation dose will be of the order of 0.1 mSv." (See also Uranium Toxicity)
ingestion of contaminated groundwater
For consumption of groundwater contaminated from DU dust in a target area, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.60]: the DU concentration in groundwater may reach 1 mg/l. "At this level chemical toxic effects cannot be excluded. The annual radiation dose caused by consumption of that water will be about 1 mSv." (See also Uranium Toxicity)
U.S. EPA standard for uranium in drinking water (65 FR 76707, Dec. 7, 2000):
30 µg/l
WHO guideline for uranium in drinking-water [WHO1998]
2 µg/l
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ruxd.html
Source Term
The depleted uranium (DU) used by the U.S. Department of Defense contains approx. 0.2% U-235 and 0.0003% of U-236 [AEPI1995 p.23]. The DU penetrators are made of an alloy of 99.25 weight-% of depleted uranium and 0.75 weight-% of titanium.
Exposure of Persons Affected
External radiation
The maximum radiation dose from DU armor and DU ammunition received by a crew member sitting inside an M1A1HA tank would be 1.3 µSv/h [AEPI1995 p.123].
On direct contact with a DU penetrator, the skin dose rate from gamma and beta radiation is 2 mSv/h [AEPI1995 p.107]. With ICRP60's tissue weighting factor for skin of 0.01, this results in a committed effective dose of 20 µSv/h. (The tissue weighting factor is quite low, since ICRP uses US data for adults showing that skin cancer can be treated and only 0.2% of the cases are lethal). ICRP60's annual skin dose standard of 50 mSv for the public is equivalent to an exposure time of 25 hours.
The gamma dose rate from a 30 mm DU-bullet (271 g) at a distance of 1 m is 7 nSv/h (hardly to distinguish from background of typically 100 nSv/h; in the very long term, however, the dose rate would rise to a maximum of 544 nSv/h after 2 million years; see also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator).
For the gamma dose rate from DU dispersed over soil of a target area, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.61]: 10 kg DU dispersed over 1000 m2 result in 4 µSv/a.
Inhalation of DU dust
The effective dose from inhalation of 1 mg uranium depleted to 0.2% is 0.12 mSv. The 1 mSv annual standard for the public is equivalent to 8.3 mg. For continuous exposure, this corresponds to a uranium concentration in air of 1.05 µg/m3. (See also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator)
If the uranium were recycled from spent fuel, the inhalation dose from 1 mg were 0.19 mSv. The 1 mSv annual standard for the public were equivalent to 5.3 mg. For continuous exposure, this corresponds to a uranium concentration in air of 0.67 µg/m3.
(based on ICRP72 dose factors for insoluble compounds for adults, breathing rate of 0.9 m3/h, burnup of 39 GWd/tHM, storage time of 5 years after unload, tails from enrichment to 3.5%)
There is, however, evidence that DU metal forms ceramic oxide particles on impact, the lung retention times of which are twice as long as for normal oxides covered by the ICRP dose factors. The dose coefficients for such ceramic DU therefore would be higher. [Bertell1999]
The UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessments for inhalation exposure from depleted uranium weapons use [BTF1999 p.58]:
instantaneous inhalation of DU dust after an attack:
BTF assumes a max. intake of 100 mg of DU (close to the target and immediately after the attack), "which might lead to acute chemical toxicity and a total effective radiation dose caused by inhalation of less than 10 mSv".
inhalation of resuspended DU
BTF assumes 6 µg DU per mg dust in a target area of 1000 m2. Depending on the dust concentration in air, this corresponds to DU concentrations in air of 0.3 µg/m3 (normal) to 30 µg/m3 (very dusty). For continuous exposure, this results in an effective dose from inhalation of 0.3 to 30 mSv/a.
ingestion of vegetables contaminated with DU dust
For consumption of leafy vegetables with surface contamination from DU dust, grown in a target area during the first week after an attack, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.59]: the intake of DU during this week may reach some 100 mg DU. "That amount is absolutely significant from chemical risk point of view. The resulting radiation dose will be of the order of 0.1 mSv." (See also Uranium Toxicity)
ingestion of contaminated groundwater
For consumption of groundwater contaminated from DU dust in a target area, the UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force (BTF) made the following theoretical assessment [BTF1999 p.60]: the DU concentration in groundwater may reach 1 mg/l. "At this level chemical toxic effects cannot be excluded. The annual radiation dose caused by consumption of that water will be about 1 mSv." (See also Uranium Toxicity)
U.S. EPA standard for uranium in drinking water (65 FR 76707, Dec. 7, 2000):
30 µg/l
WHO guideline for uranium in drinking-water [WHO1998]
2 µg/l
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ruxd.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$470.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network