BBC NEWS: US used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Uranium levels up to 400 times normal.

Uranium and nuclear are not the same. Inflamatory headlines do not do you any good.

Great story, based on a press conference by Dr. Asaf Durakovic. We interviewed Dr. Durakovic two days before the press conference at his hotel in London. To learn more on this issue, and hear from the source himself, go to http://traprockpeace.org/durakovic19may03.mp3
For more on depleted uranium, and the national tour that we are organizing with Doug Rokke, see our website.

There is a history of DU weapons used in Afghanistan since the war against Russia from 1979-1989.

DU weapons were used in Afghanistan by the Russians - the first time ever for those weapons.

This would be another momento left by the Russians, along with millions of landmines. Estimates by the Hazardous Area Life Support Organization also known as (HALO Trust's), predicts it to be ranging as low as 640,000 to as high as 20 million.

Depleted uranium, an extrtemely "heavy" metal, is used to harden the shells of conventional munitions to enable such weapons to penetrate armored vehicles and underground bunkers. Depleted uranium is radioactive and such weapons are thus classified as "nuclear" and illegal under numerous international agreements. If this were not the case, your government would not be denying its use, my naive little friend.

Shouldn't there have been an earth-shattering KaBOOM?

No?

Hmmm.

Depleted uranium is radioactive and such weapons are thus classified as "nuclear"
Most everything is radioactive. A human body receives over 10 percent of its yearly dose of radiation from the potassium that exists in every cell. The mere fact of being radioactive does not classify something as "nuclear". In the case of Depleted Uranium, the metal is used because of the physical properties rather than for any "nuclear" reason. And DU is mostly U-238, which has an extremely long half-life of about 4 billion years. The half-life of a radioactive substance is roughly inversely proportional to the strength of the radiation source. In other words just because DU is mildly radioactive does not make it a "nuclear" weapon, nor does it present any great danger via radiation.

An IPPNW Assessment
The US-led military coalition that fought the 1991 Gulf War is reported to have used about 300 tons of ammunition containing depleted uranium (DU) against Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles. During the 1999 war in the Balkans, NATO forces used about 11 tons of DU in missiles that were fired into the former Yugoslavia [1]. DU weapons have military utility because the density and tensile strength of uranium (which is relatively cheap and abundant) give it unusual armor-piercing capabilities. Concerns about the potential health effects of DU weapons arise primarily from immediate and long term uranium contamination in the areas where they are used. On penetration, for example, about 20% of the DU burns spontaneously, creating a fine aerosol smoke of uranium oxide that can be easily inhaled and lodge itself in the lungs. Fragments of DU weapons are scattered around battlefields, and can become embedded as shrapnel in human and animal flesh.

In the months and years following both of these armed conflicts, a large number of soldiers, UN peacekeepers, and civilians have exhibited unexpected and unexplained health problems, including excess leukemias and other cancers, neurological disorders, birth defects, and a constellation of symptoms loosely gathered under the rubric "Gulf War Illnesses." Depleted uranium, because of its radioactivity and chemical toxicity, has been linked to these acute health effects in the press and in public forums. Some opponents of DU weapons have categorically asserted that exposure to depleted uranium is the direct cause of these excess cancers. US and NATO officials, citing the published research on the health effects of uranium, have dismissed DU as a potential cause of the acute health effects for which it has been blamed.

IPPNW deplores the use of depleted uranium weapons and supports the calls in the European Union and elsewhere for a ban on their use. We urge caution, however, in making categorical assertions or denials about health effects until systematic, independent, peer-reviewed studies of depleted uranium exposure have been conducted. The US government and NATO have an absolute obligation to provide independent, unbiased researchers with the funding, data, and access required to conduct such studies. The World Health Organization has requested $2 million as an immediate payment toward a four-year $20 million clinical study of DU health effects in Iraq and the Balkans. The US and NATO have an obligation to promptly and unconditionally fund the WHO's work in this area.

While the peer-reviewed studies of health effects from natural uranium exposure are weighted against the probability that DU exposure, in and of itself, is likely to have caused an increase in leukemias or other cancers in the relatively short time since it has been dispersed in the Balkans environment, the science is controversial and the possibility cannot be ruled out. The Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, which reports to the US Department of Defense, has itself stated that DU can pose a chemical toxicity and radiological hazard under specific conditions [2]. Moreover, any impurities that may have found their way into the DU munitions used in either the Gulf or the Balkans -- including plutonium, actinides, and the highly radioactive manufactured isotope U-236 [3] -- pose unquestionably serious health threats, and the extent to which at-risk populations may have been exposed to these substances must be studied promptly and thoroughly by unbiased investigators.

Allied soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians were exposed to many other health hazards before, during, and after the Gulf War. These included multiple vaccines, insecticides, and chemical weapon protectives. Any chemical weapons released as a result of the bombing of Iraqi munitions-dumps would be an additional hazard (as would chemical weapon residues from the prior Iran-Iraq war). The petrochemical fires that raged for weeks at the conclusion of the war added to the toxic burden. In the former Yugoslavia, chemical factories were targeted and destroyed during NATO air strikes, and large amounts of toxic chemicals, some of them known carcinogens, were released. Risk factors can interact (e.g., smoking compounds the risk of radiation exposure among uranium miners).

The British Medical Journal, in a recent editorial, concluded that "the argument for uranium being the cause of leukaemia in peacekeeping forces is thin, notwithstanding the short latencies implied, even by the standards of haematological malignancies," and that, with regard to non-cancer illnesses, "no single candidate hazard...serves as its unifying explanation, depleted uranium included" [4]. To point to these other exposures as possible contributors to post-war health problems is not to exonerate DU weapons in the absence of independent clinical study of the populations that were actually exposed.

Depleted Uranium: The Facts in Brief
Natural uranium is composed of three isotopes: U-238 (99.3%), U-235 (0.7%), and U-234 (0.006%). These isotopes decay at different rates, expressed in scientific parlance as half-lives. A shorter half-life means more intense radiation and, in general, greater potential to damage or destroy cells. The half-life of U-238 -- the time in which its radioactivity is reduced by half -- is 4.5 billion years; that of U-235 is 710 million years; and that of U-234 is 250 thousand years. For comparison, the half-life of plutonium -- which can be lethal in even microscopic amounts -- is 24,000 years [5].

Depleted uranium is the byproduct of a process known as uranium enrichment -- the manufacture of uranium with a concentration of highly radioactive U-235 for use in nuclear weapons and in nuclear power plants. DU, which has been depleted of its U-235 and U-234, is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. Most of that radiation -- about 95% -- is emitted as alpha particles that cannot penetrate the skin. A minute amount of beta and gamma radiation could strike deeper cell tissue were fine particles of DU inhaled or ingested, as they could easily be by any soldier or civilian in the vicinity of a recently exploded DU shell. Even low doses of low-level radiation can cause some damage to the DNA in living cells. Whether that damage is enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer and other acute health effects is a matter of much debate, and up until now there has been no conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to natural uranium. We cannot emphasize strongly enough, however, that an absence of evidence about health effects is not evidence that there are no health effects.

DU is no different from natural uranium in its chemical toxicity. It is a heavy metal that, in its soluble form, accumulates in the kidneys (the primary target organ for uranium) and that, in sufficient quantities, can increase the risk of renal damage. The scientific evidence to date suggests that ingestion of uranium, even in unusual amounts, does not by itself cause serious or enduring health problems due to chemical toxicity. Nevertheless, like all heavy metals, DU is a risk factor that cannot be casually dismissed.

Uranium Health Studies
Studies conducted over several decades have found that populations with well-above-average occupational exposure to inhaled or ingested uranium do not suffer from increased rates of the cancers most likely to be associated with radiation, nor do they exhibit the blood disorders that might be expected as a result of chemical toxicity. Other causes, such as radon exposure among uranium miners and mill workers, have been pinpointed for certain specific illnesses [6,7]), but these studies do not account for new experimental data suggesting a role for dust toxicity in the lung. The aerosol particles generated by DU weapons are in a very hard "ceramic" state, so are likely to be retained in the lung and its regional lymph nodes for a prolonged period, increasing the risk of cellular damage from alpha radiation. The main risk from internal radiation, whether the exposure is due to manufacturing processes or DU weapons, is from this inhaled dust.

As mentioned earlier, there is evidence that the DU munitions used in the Gulf war and in the Balkans were tainted with plutonium, U-236, and other substances far more intensely radioactive than U-238. Recent studies have pointed to the possiblility of genetic damage resulting from exposure to some forms of radiation emitted from particles such as those deposited by DU weapons [8]. Any such genomic effect, if substantiated, could point toward increased risk of cancer or leukemia in the lung or regional lymph nodes above the standard -- and controversial -- predictions of radiation protection models [9]. It is simply too early to say. Precisely for that reason, the health of military and civilian populations that have been exposed to DU in the Gulf and in the Balkans should be monitored closely in the years ahead.

What Should Be Done About DU Weapons?
While IPPNW generally concurs with the BMJ's assessment that the jury is still out on DU, and that the other hazards to which civilians and military personnel were exposed, individually and in combination, are themselves very likely causes of the kinds of post-war health problems from which civilians and military personnel have been suffering in the aftermath of these conflicts, we condemn the use of DU weapons and support the calls for a ban on their use.

A basic principle in radiation protection is that all exposures should be justified; that is, the benefit for those exposed should exceed the risk. This is the standard for medical radiography. The military utility of DU weapons for the users does not justify any added health risk for non-combatants, no matter how small. The precautionary principle states that in the absence of convincing proof that a substance or process is harmless, the presumption must be risk. This principle applies clearly to the use of DU weapons. Furthermore, DU weapons indiscriminately contaminate the places in which they are used, and the contamination persists long after the conclusion of hostilities, adding to the radioactive and toxic burden imposed upon civilians, wildlife, and ecosystems. From this perspective, DU weapons should be considered a form of ecological warfare prohibited by the Geneva Conventions [10].

DU weapons may already be illegal under international law and international humanitarian law, and this case is being made in compelling fashion by members of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who have formed a working group to study this issue. The damage caused by DU weapons cannot be contained to "legal" fields of battle; they continue to act after the conclusion of hostilities; they are inhumane because they place the health of non-combatants, including children and future generations, at risk; and they cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment 11].

The fact that military authorities in both the US and NATO advise their own soldiers to take precautions when handling DU munitions and have prepared detailed training manuals and videos to ensure troop safety [12], while issuing blanket denials of health risks to the public, strikes us as hypocritical at the very least, and reinforces our judgment that these weapons should be withdrawn from service.

Whether or not DU weapons are ultimately shown to have the health effects for which they have been blamed, they are only one example of the continuing ways in which militaries pollute our planet. They are emblematic of the unacceptable costs of contemporary armed conflict to civilian populations, who were the predominant casualties of war in the 20th century, and are likely to remain so in the 21st. They are on the spectrum of indiscriminate and inhumane weapons that includes landmines and biological and chemical weapons, and that, at its most devastating end, includes tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that jeopardize all life on earth.

http://www.slmk.org/main/artiklar/du0102.html

Since I live in an open and free society where debate is promoted on everything but one subject, I am not suprised at this. The U.S. uses these weapons of some destruction because it is the reigning super power. As long as it is on someone elses land we will freely use these weapons with impugnity. After all, the cell was very active in Afghanistan. What is a few half lives anyway? Why would any nation hate us? We have such high values we put on pleasure and greed. Freedom in America is only tax deep.

Since Russia has used DU or Non-DU in Afghanistan it only stands to reason that they are using it in Chechnya. If anyone knows or has any evidence to substantiate this claim could they please contact me at the above address.

I notice a couple of comments suggesting Russia used depleted uranium in Afghanistan. This could well have been the first use of depleted uranium, if true. Can you please back up your conjecture with some facts? It's my understanding that the U.S. tested D.U. in the U.S. and its "territories," e.g. Aberdeen testing grounds, Maryland; Vieques, Puerto Rico; do you know anywhere else? The U.S. has sold D.U. to at least 26 countries (NATO plus seven others) during the Clinton years; do you know what Bush's policies are? The U.S. used D.U. in warfare in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, perhaps Afghanistan (though overkill), and again Iraq. All this is documented. Is there any documentation that Russia or any other country has used depleted uranium ammunition? If so, I'd love to have the URL. Thanks! Check out http://prop1.org and click on "Depleted uranium keeps on killing"

you made the claim, "free thinker". please substantiate.

Don't care who. The goal is to ban All DU weapons. Once used in battlefield, the uranium oxide dust (often contaminated with Plutonium and other toxic radioactive elements due to the manufacturing process) is impossible to contain and clean up.

Deployment of DU weapons is an act of terrorism.

This is a good web site for DU information:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/

I read somewhere that russia sticks to usin lead projectiles, claiming that they feel that their lead ammunition has enough tank penetrating ability so they dont need to have DU. Unfortunatelly i dont have the source for this and even if i did, it might not actually be true. i do remember it was from a corporate media site though.

Tommy, if you read that the Russians are using lead projectiles as penetrators then you read wrong, or the aritcle lied. Lead does not work. If they aren't using DU then they use tungsten or steel or some other hard metal. Not lead. Typically a tank uses rounds that are either High Explosive or Sabots. Sabots are rods of hard metal and are penetrators. I would be willing to bet that the Russians have DU rounds available because if they ever took on an American tank they would have to use DU to effectively kill it. Russia has plenty of DU available so it just makes sense they would have it and probably use it. But I have no knowledge that they really do or don't.

You say:
"Once used in battlefield, the uranium oxide dust (often contaminated with Plutonium and other toxic radioactive elements due to the manufacturing process) is impossible to contain and clean up. "

If I google this claim, I only get hits for the standard 'everything the US does is bad' websites. One of them claims that US government documents support this finding. But I can't find anything like this. Please provide me with a source so I can research this. Thank you.

From UNEP Post Conflict Assessment Unit:

http://balkans.unep.ch

"We have found that the majority of soil samples have uranium concentrations that are within concentrations found in the natural environment (1-300 mg/kg). Only a handful of samples had slightly higher concentrations of uranium and they were all in direct contact with penetrators. Uranium isotope analysis show that the depleted uranium contains 0.2% 235U, which is lower than natural uranium which contains 0.7% 235U.
The depleted uranium also has trace concentrations of 236U, and plutonium (239Pu and 240Pu) which indicates that the metal was from reprocessed nuclear fuel. The concentrations are, however, so low that the 236U and plutonium add much less than 1% to the overall radioactivity of the metal."

"The findings in Bosnia and Herzegovina are consistent with previous UNEP studies in Kosovo (2001) and in Serbia and Montenegro (2002)... The UNEP team included representatives from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). During the mission, the IAEA experts examined the general storage and handling of radioactive waste. In the health chapter of the report, WHO concludes that, due to the lack of a proper cancer registry and reporting system, claims of an increase in the rates of adverse health effects stemming from DU cannot be substantiated. The existing scientific data on uranium and DU health effects indicate that it is highly unlikely that DU could be associated with any of the reported health problems."

Lie Detector, go to http://www.traprockpeace.org/ or any sites that discuss DU weapons. Depleted uranium is used because of its material characteristic. It penetrates better than titanium shells.

When a DU shell penetrates a layer of material, say an armor tank plate, I believe up to 2/3 of its mass can evaporate into dust and burst into flame and burn at high temperature and kill the occupants inside the tank and destroy the tank.... The DU dust is very fine. At the present time, I am not aware of any breatheable filtration system can filter out the DU dust. It's nasty stuff.

Go look up the details if you wish. Go talk to our US DU expert, Doug Rokke. http://traprockpeace.org/index.html

well for startes, thaks for putting these articals in. its such a joke that the US would even think of denying the fact that they used DU in irac and on their own soldiers. the truth cant be kept a secret for ever considering that millions of people who are dead, dying and the birth diffomities are so high. they seem to think that just by telling their people that irac has nuclear weapons that it makes it totaly ok to just go in there and kill off thousands of inocent people all over them wanting to make their cazilions of dollars. the people of the world are just starting to see the light on things. if the rest of the countries just all banned together they could take over the stupid greedy fuckers. seeing as they cant kill off the whole world. with out them the states would be nothing, nobody to bully around anymore, nobody to expliot to make their millions. im tired of being afraid that if there were to be another world war that of course those countries would come straight for canada as well, just because our gov't is to pansy to stick up for themselves. to say no i dont want to lie to our people about why we are going in and killing those people over money. its a shame all together that money has to mean so much to people in the first place. the more i hear about what our gov'ts do to other countries and get away with it, it makes life seems a little pointless. seeing as we have to work our ass's off to make a living just so the gov't can take the maney that we make and use it to go and kill thousands of people. then after thats over they still have the nerv to say that our country is in so much det that they have to cut all the school fundings and things that can really help other unfortunet peopl get on with their lives. it almost like they are making it so that only the rich are ment to live happily ever after oh ya one more thing on the US im pretty sure that no one rally knows that george w bush just granted himself another full year immunity from getting any punishment of war crimes. so that he can go anywhere he wants and can kill who ever , whenever he wants and get away with it. i hope more people come out with the reall truth on things then maybe people wont be so nieve on things and think a little more as to why their gov'ts want to go into foriegn countries to kill. i am so sick of the way things are going. if i had my way i would go back to the old horse and carrage days. and grow my own ORGANIC food thats a simpiler way of life. if you could write up on how the US again wants ORGANIC labels to be banned on products, because it is harming their precious chemicalized industries. heaven forbid that people have the right to know what is really in their foods that give them cancers and what nots. they just dont ever quit. their like little kids that dont know how to share anything and think that the whole world evolves around them. if they dont get what they wnat they have temper tantrems. which for them involves killing thousands of people. another one you could write up is on the skull & bones organization where hmm funny every member in it is some kind of high ranking gov't offical and that bush is the president because he is in this ellete force. i could just go on for ever but there should be more important things to life than heving to worry about this crap all the time. thanks again. keep up the good truth on things. sometimes truth is almost stranger then fiction. as one of my friends puts it.

There're plenty more articles on DU and its effect. Here's another one


http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7207/401/a
BMJ 1999;319:401 ( 14 August )

News
Gulf war leaves legacy of cancer
Malcolm Aitken , London

The incidence of cancer and congenital defects has increased significantly in Iraq after the Allied use of depleted uranium bullets during the Gulf war, a recent conference in London was told. Declassified US documents suggest that the American military used about 944000 rounds of depleted uranium bullets in Iraq and Kuwait during the war in 1991.

The conference (about the cancer epidemic in Iraq and its possible link to the Allied use of depleted uranium weapons), was chaired by Labour backbench MP, George Galloway. The UK Ministry of Defence has declined to comment to the BMJ on the health implications of exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf war. At least 250 tonnes of these tiny bullets still lie undetected in Iraq and in surrounding countries, according to one speaker, Dr Seigwart-Horst Gunther, president of the International Yellow Cross, a humanitarian organisation founded to help children in crisis. Several speakers noted how depleted uranium weaponry had been used against civilians.

An Iraqi oncology specialist, Dr Mona Kammas, presented a report compiled by Iraq's Committee for Pollution Impact by Aggressive Bombing. Rates of cancer and congenital anomalies had almost doubled since the war, the report said. In areas that were particularly badly hit in southern Iraq, notably Misan and Thi-Qar, cancer incidence was as much as five times higher than in 1989. The report notes that the increase in cases of cancer and their geographical distribution in the provinces of Iraq coincides with bombardment and military operations and the intensity of these. Of the 667 cases of cancer in the sample group, the report notes, the increasing prevalence was most striking in cases of leukaemia, lung cancer, bronchial cancer, cancer of the bladder, skin cancer, stomach cancer for males, and breast cancer in females.

Dr Gunther showed slides of Iraqi children born with ears, eyes, fingers, and limbs missing and similar abnormalities among the children of Western Gulf war veterans. There was also a consensus that the lack of nutritionally healthy food and minimal medical provision under United Nations sanctions, combined with exposure to depleted uranium, contributed to widespread immunodeficiency and sizeable increases in the prevalence of polio, tuberculosis, hepatitis, whooping cough, and diphtheria.

>if i had my way i would go back to the old horse and
>carrage days. and grow my own ORGANIC food thats
>a simpiler way of life.

Why don't you? More than half the world's population lives in conditions like this. Interesting factoid: of all the people who will die today, more than half will never have placed or received a telephone call. This puts the state of development of most of the world into perspective.


>how the US again wants ORGANIC labels to be
>banned on products, because it is harming their
>precious chemicalized industries.

What's this? I haven't heard anything about that. Please state your source. The US government regulations concerning Organic labeling can be found here:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/Consumerhome.html

Be sure to read the letters to the editor, responding to that BMJ article.

------------

The BMJ was criticised for two reasons over its news coverage of a conference claiming that the Gulf War had led to an increase in cancer in Iraq.

The first criticism was that we had published a picture of a child with an "unknown skin disease thought to be linked with use of depleted uranium" that was in fact classical dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. This mistake was made in the editorial office. Our picture editor selected a picture from the world wide web. We have published a correction.

The second accusation was that the BMJ was in effect publishing Iraqi propaganda. We have asked Malcolm Aitken, the journalist who wrote the story, to respond, and his response follows. We find his account convincing, but we, the BMJ editors, made two errors. Firstly, we should not have removed from Aitken's story the information that what was presented at the conference could ultimately be traced to the Iraqi health authorities. Secondly, we should have left in the story the view that any increase that there might be in cancer and birth defects might be attributed not to depleted uranium but to poisons used by the Iraqi government against the Kurds.

We apologise to readers for not doing better, but we have learnt from this episode.

Richard Smith
Editor, BMJ

So far nobody has explained why this type of DU poisoning does not occur:

1) In the mines where non-depleted uranium is extracted (and pulverized into dust in the process)

2) In factories where the munitions are made

3) Among servicemen who use the munitions, and those who work in the testing grounds

4) In other parts of the world (e.g. FRY) where DU munitions have been used.

But only Iraq? Are you sure there are NO other factors at play in Iraq?

First to DU in your pants, it's apparent that you've not done your homework before posting your comments. I'll simply reply to you by saying 'Do Your homework, then come back for debate."

Half Truth, the only error associated with Aitken's article was that they mistakingly posted the wrong photo with the article. [I didn't include the photo in my comment.] The content of the article holds true. The editor you cited basically is saying "I don't want no law suit."

Doug Rokke oversaw the DU project. He's got tons of experience on this matter. He's now disabled because of the DU poisioning. Go call and email him.

Abraham,
Don't forget that the editor also admits that all of the health figures come from the Iraqi Health Ministry.

DU in my pants,
Don't forget this one

5) why do people with pieces of DU in their bodies not suffer these illnesses?

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1007dufactsheet.htm

During the Gulf War, 15 U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and nine Abrams tanks were mistakenly fired on and hit by shells containing depleted uranium. Thirty-three survivors of these incidents, roughly half of whom have retained fragments of depleted uranium in their bodies, have been studied in the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program (DUP) of the Baltimore Veterans' Affairs Medical Center.

To date, although these individuals have an array of health problems related to traumatic injuries resulting from their wounds, none of those studied had any clinically significant medical problems caused by the chemical or radiological toxicity of depleted uranium.

---

I know many of you will say: "Yea, but that comes from the State Dept. They are probably not telling the truth." But if a single one of these soldiers with DU in their bodies becomes sick, you can be sure that they or their families will publicize it.

"But if a single one of these soldiers with DU in their bodies becomes sick, you can be sure that they or their families will publicize it."

Did you get a chance to check out http://traprockpeace.org/index.html ? You'll find a lot information there to answer your question. Doug Rokke was a major and was THE expert for the U.S. government. Ask him yourself why no one soldier has spoken out.

Point me to the article, please. The one about why no soldier speaks out.

Doug Rokke was the point man for General Schwartzkopf on the D.U. project before and during the first Gulf War. He, as an Army Major, wasn't even told that he was tested at some 30~40 times higher than the so called safe level until like 3 years later. And he was a major and was the expert on the subject. Guess what the regular soldiers know about radioactive posioning? One of his eyes is going blind because of the radioactive toxicity. He's permanently disabled. The web site I provided has his telephone number. Call him up and ask him how many other soldiers have spoken out but you (the American public) don't hear them. And how many have died since the first Gulf War.... And the increase in birth defects....

Pentagon stopped the testing of soldiers before they were sent out to fight the second Gulf War even though the Congress approved the funding for testing. Why? Pentagon is scared to establish the baseline that can be used to prove the deadly effects of DU.

I sure hope Bin Laden and his friends inhaled bucket fulls of this poison.Maybe that is the reason he looked so ill while making his last video.A slow painful death would be a perfect ending for him.

I sure hope Bin Laden and his friends inhaled bucket fulls of this poison.Maybe that is the reason he looked so ill while making his last video.A slow painful death would be a perfect ending for him.

I sure hope Bin Laden and his friends inhaled bucket fulls of this poison.Maybe that is the reason he looked so ill while making his last video.A slow painful death would be a perfect ending for him.

K0eve after having access to all this horrific data - that someone would make such a stupid comment about Bin Laden. I know all Americans aren't as psychologically crippled as "Rob' but - still... as a nation, we didn't stop the Whitehouse "evil-doers" from massacring innoccent Iraqis with did we? At least Timothy McVeigh didn't call his terrorism "shock and awe'.

A great website that everyone must know about (for info on DU) regarding U.S foreign policy is
http://www.americanstateterroism.com

Picture: Iraqi baby born with birth defects. Many like it due to exposure to DU contimination.

war.... the gift that keeps on giving. (some goat herder's son will get his leg blown off in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq due to cluster bombs (landmines) left by the U.S... for years to come...

That is a sad photo, indeed.

But why would you attribute the cause to DU and not to the plethora of environmental problems in Iraq? Just throwing a heart-wrenching photo up and implying you know the cause of the mutation is not honest.

Half Truth, (Telling me you have advanced degree in bioengeering doesn't change my opinion about you yet)

Uranium oxide dust stays suspense air. Many people assume it sinks because of its heavy molecular weight, but it doesn't. This makes it even more difficult to contain and more dangerous to spread. [Remember, detectable amount of other but even more toxic stuff like Pu also tack along.] I can imagine the dust can easily get into the food and water supply chains.

Once ingested, especially in high dosage, even low toxic uranium can do damage to the cellular structures. Imagine having high energy radioactive stuff in presence during the whole development of meiosis and mitosis... . I remember I read reports showing significantly higher birth defects rate among U.S. military families who had members served in the Gulf.

Ban DU!

i can not understand how zinik people ingnorant can be try to confuse and ..say nuclear wapons are being yust .all the time and du tooo...iven sick infectet flys over 200000 in a bomb like in in correa or vietnam ..now there having more sick bombbs like the d.u.

post 1991 gulf war - many cases of birth defects, leukimia cancer, and related illnesses reported in Iraq, simliar to gulf war syndrome suffered by U.S gulf war vets. Many vets children have been born with defects as well. In Iraq however, treament is extremely difficult due to 12 years of U.S led sanctions. No, the baby isn't deformed due to bad luck, but from exposure to DU. Keep in mind that we hear very little about the reality on the ground in Iraq - and only the snippets that make it out to our comfotable western realities - so its probably much worst than we think. Perhaps you want to maintain your illusions about U.S innocence, but well, ...deal with it.

Gulf War Syndrome is remarkably similar to low-level exposure to chemical weapons, and the manufacturing process. People living on the Iran-Iraq border have suffered the same since 1980. Iraq's weapons factories released dozens of toxins into the environment, in massive quantities. No cleanup effort has been even suggested.

Perhaps you want to maintain the illusion of Iraqi innocence, but deal with it.

And I see my post on the staggeringly high rate of birth defects in Saudi Arabia was deleted. How interesting.

I don't believe DU in your pants have a clue of what he is talking about. Which chemicals are you aware of cause high rate of birth defects? Are these chemicals teratogenic or carcinogenic in nature? Kindly tell us your source?

It's not a debate if you just speak with no information or data to support your point. You're only then speaking non-sense.

MSDS for the most common chemical weapon manufactured and used in Iraq 1980-1990. See chronic exposure section for information on cancer and birth defects. And do your homework next time.

http://www.castleviewuk.com/Frameless/Safe/msds/ex/MSDS_mustard.htm

bin Laden probably suffers from Chronic Kidney Failure

I'm glad you pulled the MSDS for mustard gas. Any other chemicals you wish to cite for the increase in birth defects in both Iraqis and U.S. military families?
I certainly read the paragraph under "Chronic Exposure":

Chronic Exposure: HD can cause sensitization, chronic lung impairment,(cough, shortness of breath, chest pain), cancer of the mouth, throat, respiratory tract and skin, and leukemia. It may also cause birth defects.

Do you know what it means by chronic exposure?

Use a damn dictionary. Chronic means the CW plants leaked into the environment over years and years, slowly poisoning the population. Iranian hospitals know all about this. Can I dumb it down any more for you?

The patience you're referring to suffer from acute exposure of toxic gases such as mustard gas during the Iraq-Iran war.

Go figure out how you expose yourself to mustard gas chronically!

Go learn how to spell patients. And guess what. Many of those Iranian patients were not military, they were simply living in towns downwind from the battlefield. They are the ones suffering from chronic exposure.

Here's how to expose a population chronically, in easy-to-follow steps:

1) Manufacture for years. Dump the by-products just wherever you want. Who's going to complain? Nobody who will live long, that's who.

2) Deploy and use the weapons for years, and over a large area, say the border of a neighboring country.

3) Allow the winds to spread the chemicals across the land (winds are kinda fierce there, huh?)

4) Assure everyone that the chemicals magically dissappear after use.

5) Deny everything. Blame the Americans.

Figured it out yet? Or should I dumb it down another notch or two?

and NOT DU in your pants. World Wide Pants gives me a few laughs.

I flunked my spelling test on "patients". I have grant you that you're full of imagination. Did you write the Ninja Turtle story? The mouse and a few turtles were exposed chronically to the radioactive waste from a secret government lab, and mutated into some super Ninja and Ninja master.

physics, as defined by a liberal arts major!

this story is an obvious fake. anyone with even a marginal background in physics would see this story as fabricated, it should be lining a bird cage some where, it should be considered fiction.

Dear Sir

I write in reply to Professor Sampson's internet refutation of my story entitled 'Gulf War Leaves Legacy Of Cancer.[1] My short news story was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 14th August, 1999. First of all, yes, the report presented by Dr Mona Kammas at the conference could, ultimately, be attributed to the Iraqi health authorities. I made this explicit in the copy I originally submitted to the BMJ. However, this fact was lost in the sub editing. I reported what was said at the conference accurately and in good faith.

Anyway, Dr Kammas and Iraqi medical doctors and researchers are professionals first. Like their Western counterparts, they are bound ultimately by their professional consciences. The Iraqi authorities have an interest in any propaganda that reveals bad things the Western allies may have done, I realise that. However, it is Western military and political leaders who stand accused in this case.

Anecdotal evidence of the horrific effects of depleted uranium deployment in Iraq has been reported by top ranking, respected British journalists such as Robert Fisk and Maggie O'Kane for the Independent and The Guardian respectively too. Moreover, Dr Seigwart-Horst Gunther, the head of the International Yellow Cross, also referred to in my article, has amassed considerable evidence on the subject. In addition to the increases in cancer and birth abnormalities referred to in my story, Dr Gunther claims depleted uranium use in Iraq has caused a 'considerable increase in infectious diseases, [with] severe immunodeficiencies in a great part of the population, AIDs-like syndromes, frequent massive herpes and zoster afflictions and renal and hepatic dysfunction.' Dr Gunther has spent a lot of time in Iraq, on the ground. There is considerable evidence, in short, from non Iraqi sources to back the argument that the military use of depleted uranium during the Gulf War, to which the Pentagon admits, has caused cancer rates and congenital diseases to increase dramatically in Iraq and among Gulf War veterans.

*******************************************************
One US pressure group that has publicised information about the dangers of handling depleted uranium is the Military Toxic Project (MTP). According to the MTP, the Office of the US Department of the Army's Surgeon General, in 1993, issued a safety training document stating that the expected effects from depleted uranium exposure include a possible increase of kidney damage, and lung and bone cancer. These dangers were not made clear to US military personnel, as they should have been.

Most curiously, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a group of US doctors opposed to atomic weaponry, in a recent issue brief questioned the findings of the RAND report. (This report was instigated with the supposed aim of investigating Gulf War veteran's claims that depleted uranium is one of the causative agents of Gulf War syndrome. It was completed by a MILITARY CONTRACTOR, the RAND Corporation, under commission by the US Department of Defence. It is central to the debate about Gulf War syndrome in the US). The final RAND report was released in April, 1999.

PSR claims that RAND 'undertook no new research on depleted uranium, referring instead to the abundant body of writing on natural uranium. 'They argue [natural uranium] exhibits similar chemical properties [to depleted uranium] and is actually more radioactive. The report essentially finds no conclusive data tying negative health effects to natural uranium and therefore concludes that depleted uranium should have no negative health effects. 'Yet, the PSR claims, the RAND report acknowledges the need for more research. RAND had cited for example, the PSR claims, the Depleted Uranium follow up programme at the Baltimore Veterans Administration Centre, which is tracking a number of Gulf War veterans with embedded depleted uranium fragments. ********* The follow up programme has reportedly noted 'several biochemical perturbations in neuro endocrine parameters related to urinary uranium concentrations ... in its patients.' **********

Mr Dan Fahey, a former Naval officer, prepared a report for the Presidential Oversight Board for Department of Defence Investigations of Gulf War and Biological Incidents and the US General Accounting Office. The report, issued in June this year, criticises RAND too, Fahey reportedly took issue with the >>> short shrift given to studies that demonstrated clear health risks to humans <<<<, such as that being conducted by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) which discovered 'possible relationships between depleted uranium and neurological, immunological, carcinogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic effects.'

In regard to the assertion that my article contained 'pro-Iraqi propaganda,' there have been some authoritative dissenting voices in the West about what the Allies did in Iraq during operation Desert Storm.

For example, none other than Mr Ramsey Clark, a former US Attorney- General, issued the following charge, inter alia, against the United States, British and United Nations' leaders at the International Court on Crimes Against Humanity held in Madrid in November 1996:
'The US has concealed and failed to help protect the population of Iraq from the cover-up of the use by US forces of illegal weapons including missiles containing depleted uranium which are a constant presence effecting large areas still undefined with deadly radiation causing death, illness and injury which will continue to harm the population with unforseeable effects for thousands of years.' (Despite my concerted efforts, I have not been able to ascertain the composition or authority of the mentioned court).

The words of politicians clearly have to be treated more sceptically than those of medical experts with no political agendas. However, one has to wonder about what political mileage, if any, Mr Clark would get from taking what in the US would be an unpopular stance.

Professor Sampson also questioned why many US manufacturers and soldiers who 'must have' handled depleted uranium bullets did not have cancer? Well, some Gulf War veterans have horrifyingly high concentrations of uranium in their blood. In the case of manufacturers: protective clothing and other special storage equipment can be used when dealing with depleted uranium weaponry.

As I've already mentioned, my original copy was sub-edited. In the interests of balanced reporting, in that copy, I had made reference to claims by proponents of the use of depleted uranium. Precisely, that it was fallout from Saddam Hussein's use of poisonous weaponry against the Kurdish people that lay behind such appalling cancer and birth defect statistics, not depleted uranium.

The debate over the use of depleted uranium during the Gulf War will no doubt rage on. I hope my letter has clarified some of the arguments against WHAT OUR FORCES DID during that war.

Malcolm Aitken
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7207/401/a#4256

DU is as a solid quite inert but upon impacting another object at extremely high velocity may form extremely toxic uranium oxides. The velocity of DU slugs is great enough to create small quantities of this oxide. Thus the health issue.

The only problem I am having grasping this issue is this: given the simple fact that Iraqi troops and civilians are always more likely to be closer to DU impact points than U.S. troops, and there are many thousands of U.S. troops claming Gulf War Syndrome, can it be attributed to DU if the entire Iraqi population isn't already suffering from it? I mean, it should be thus affecting Iraqis by the million.

I think a more likely alternative explanation to Gulf War syndrome is as follows: Diet Coke in aluminum cans was distributed freely to U.S. troops as a quick thirst quencher.

The active sugar substitute in Diet Coke is Aspartame. Aspartame decays into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and also methanol and formaldehyde. This decay happens very slowly at low temperatures, say around what a cool drink would be kept at.

What separates the diet sodas the U.S. troops were drinking was the fact they were kept in "hot storage": On giant platforms in the middle of the desert, reaching temperatures of 120 degrees Farenheit for up to two weeks.

Since aspartame breaks down at 86 degrees F, wouldn't it be likely that Gulf War syndrome was caused by the large quantities of formaldehyde, wood alcohol, and excess amino acid?

I know this is not pertinent to the DU issue but it does offer a more logical explanation... seeing as how "Truth Detector" stated that the State Department logically debunkced the DU issue with several people who had been exposed to significant quantities of DU.

On the flipside, this does not explain the fact that Iraqis are having massive unusual health problems and birth defects. This does not make sense.

It could be the fact that U.N. trade sanctions are responsible, too.

There are quite a few possibilities. Keep your eyes open for explanations and your mind ready to debunk or prove them.

Cheers,
Geek

You're right. I made the whole thing up. Iraq never manufactured or used chemical weapons. It was all propaganda. They were baking cookies when the evil U.S. attacked. I thought I could fool you into thinking Saddam was a bad guy. You're obviously too smart for that.

DU weapons are NOT nuclear weapons

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/broad.htm

Geek, I don't know about if phenlyalanine actually breaks down into methanol and formaldehyde. I know the human liver convert methanol into formaldehyde. It's a normal process trying to convert R-OH into aldehyde. But it turns out formaldehyde is toxic to our body. Formaldehyde can cause blindess and even death at high dosage. Another name for methanol is "Wood Alcohol." [I learned this in O Chem 101 years back. Since I don't work in chemistry nowadays, I can't say much about anything else.]

I don't know how much tech background you have or your strength. Your logic about not hearing any DU cases in Iraq is not surprising. How much do you know about Iraq if anything? Education of regular Iraqis, especially nuclear medical knowledge, is considerably much lower. There're news coming from Iraq reported by outsiders including BBC about increase in radioactive levels and in birth defects.

And if you look at how tight the lids are sealed on the U.S. Gulf War I Vets including Major Doug Rokke, you can imagine how much pressure they put on anyone else.

Again, Major Doug Rokke is our expert on this subject. Go visit http://www.traprockpeace.org/ . You can get a lot of accurate info here.

... I don't know how much tech background you have or your strength. Your logic about not hearing any DU cases in Afghanistan is not surprising. How much do you know about Iraq if anything? Education of regular Afghanistanian, especially nuclear medical knowledge, is close to nil. There're news coming from Afghanistan reported by outsiders including BBC about increase in radioactive levels and in birth defects.

And if you look at how tight the lids are sealed on the U.S. Gulf War I Vets including Major Doug Rokke, you can imagine how much pressure they put on anyone else.

Again, Major Doug Rokke is our expert on this subject. Go visit http://www.traprockpeace.org/ . You can get a lot of accurate info here.

There was a failed bioremediation effort during the end of the Gulf War, 1991 that most likely brought in product strong in 2-butoxyethanol. http://www.valdezlink.com/wondering.htm

Medics and volunteer military washed the oiled birds then; there were multiple amphibious ships that housed the crews that washed the beaches. There is also something called second hand solvent exposure that would explain why spouses of Gulf War Syndrome vets are coming down with the same symptoms.

This chemical
http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/media/icsc0059.pdf
is very harmful and was also strong in the 'bioremediation' chemical selected for experiment during the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup
http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/experiment.htm

http://www.valdezlink.com/1989photos.htm

Looking for volunteers among the Gulf War Syndrome Vets, 1991 and the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup workers to prove or disprove this theory.

If this chemical damaged their health they will right away have come down with hemolytic anemia, and it would still be with them today.

M. Diann Hursh, How on Earth you link 2-butoxyethanol to Gulf War syndrome. 2-butoxyethanol is a solvent commonly found in many industrial products. There're tests to detect 2-butoxyethanol posioning.

Unless you know something nobody else knows, pls don't throw in just any chemical name and link it to the Guld War syndrome.

Well I just started reading and although there are a lot valid arguments some data used feels flawed. And I could not find a case study. On the above baby picture these thing happen my Grand mother was a doctor and she delivered baby’s that had there intestines hanging out side there body. These things happen with or with out large exposure to radiation.

I don’t think some people have a good understanding of radiation. And how exposure affects a persons body. Great web sites so you can learn are:

http://www.wake.tec.nc.us/math/Projects/Radiation/RadDoseSol.html
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html


Oh one more thing did you now that you eat small amounts of Uranium. Just something to think about.

“The general population is exposed to uranium primarily through food and water. The average daily intake of uranium from food ranges from 0.07 to 1.1 micrograms per day. The amount of uranium in air is usually very small.”(http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htm)

A great site for all those people who like to hear both sides and try to be a rational environmentalist.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0326depuran.htm

http://www.valdezlink.com/round_up.htm

Then why are the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome the same as the symptoms of 2-butoxyethanol poisoning?

http://www.valdezlink.com/symptoms_of_gulf_war_illnesses.htm

Just because a product is released for public use does not mean it is safe. http://www.valdezlink.com/household.htm

I'm looking forward to science checking this 'stealth killer' & removing a lot of products from use

You have human results of what this chemical does to humans if you find the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup workers who were on the 'bioremediation' experiment.

But don't just superficially check for hemolytic anemia - Really LOOK for it http://www.valdezlink.com/check_blood.htm

What tests do you suggest?

Is that your web site, if so change the background because it makes it hard to read. Or Maybe I am the only one that think's this.

Wallow in it. You'll live longer.

"Then why are the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome the same as the symptoms of 2-butoxyethanol poisoning?"

"The amount of uranium in air is usually very small." Yes in your backyard, but no in war torn Iraq and Afghan.

Why Bush supporters are so ignorant? I ask. [Note that I didn't use the word "stupid".]

I noticed that the symptoms for Gulf War Syndrome were the same as 2-butoxyethanol poisoning because I have been learning about what the chemicals were that harmed the workers of the Exxon Valdez oil Spill cleanup.

Yesterday, in talking with another worker, it became clear that she was harmed by the chemicals that were spilled on her housing unit with less than one day's exposure her lungs were filling up with fluid.

If today's military have this it may be pulmonary edema - not just a pneumonia. The following MSDS implies that Exxon got the military to buy the 'unsuccessful' Corexit - experimental in 1989 - which has 38% 2-butoxyethanol with trace ethylene oxide. http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/0882.pdf

http://www.valdezlink.com/corexit/media-c/Incom001.PDF_1.pdf Note disclaimer at bottom says Corexit 9527 was formulated for use by the Dept of Defense


Does anyone know what it is used for?
I would consider it a hazardous waste which should NOT be considered OK to use by anyone for anything.

"I noticed that the symptoms for Gulf War Syndrome were the same as 2-butoxyethanol poisoning ..."

Somebody found good use for radioactive 2-butoxyethanol in the battlefield.

as usual no proof and a lot of hot air!

Compaasionate conservatives continue to demonstrate having zero basic knowledge. "The symptoms of chemical poisoning were the same as radioactive poisoning." Try Geiger counter to see if there's a difference.

there seem to be a lot of talk that Jerry Springer may be considering running for mayor of San Francisco.
this is said to be the reason he withdrew from ohio.

I'm still thinking too

Why I think even the 'Scientific medical studies are skewed?"

They aren't considering that 2-butoxyethanol poisoning is more common place in homes and in the work place, including the military...

Check the web pages within this web page
http://www.valdezlink.com/need_new_laws.htm