Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Depleted Uranium Weapons - A Great Crime

EddyBlack

New Member
The Consequences of Depleted Uranium Weapons use in Afghanistan and Iraq

Depleted Uranium weapons are used by both the American and British military in Afghanistan and Iraq. DU is toxic to mammals, ‘especially to the reproductive system and fetus development, causing reduced fertility, miscarriages and fetus malformations.’

DU is a by-product of nuclear power stations:

‘In the 1970s, The Pentagon reported that the Soviet military had developed armor plating for Warsaw Pact tanks that NATO ammunition couldn't penetrate. After testing various metals, ordnance researchers settled on depleted uranium.
DU was useful in ammunition not only because of its unique physical properties and effectiveness, but also because it was cheap and readily available. Tungsten, the only other candidate, had to be sourced from China
.
Wiki

The Effect of Depleted uranium Use on the People of Afghanistan and Iraq

The Basra Hospital Data

Following the first gulf war, scientists at the Basra hospital and university have monitored the incidence of leukaemias and other malignancies of tumoral nature among children in the Basra area, and of congenital malformations in newborn children. The data for the period 1990-2001 show an incidence increase of 426% for general malignancies, 366% for leukemias and of over 600% for birth defects, with all series showing a roughly increasing pattern with time. It has been natural to consider the possibility that such increase had indeed been caused by depleted uranium contamination.

Areas in which it has been used have seen huge rises in cancer and birth defects. The authorities seek to play down the danger of its use, and continue to use it.

This BBC article has this to say:

For the general population, neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium.’

Indeed this is the official line of military and goververnments.

'It is mildly radioactive in its solid form, and poses little if any cause for concern.’..

The key though is when it is fired in battle, it is not so benign, as the article continues…

When a weapon made with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour.

The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive.


there are hardly any published studies, none has ever been conducted (in the public domain anyway: Some exist but they're classified)'


The Damage Done

Given the scarcity of public scientific studies and the secrecy by the NATO forces, one source we can find out more from is Doug Rokke, a health physicist who became the Pentagon's most senior DU expert during the first Gulf War.

He became convinced DU was causing illnesses such as cancer, and that the Pentagon was downplaying its dangers. When he went public with his views, he was sacked.

Hear are some links to hear his views:

informationclearinghouse

prisonplanet

N.b the Prisonplanet link has some very disturbing photographs of victims.

In the first Iraq war, around 350 tonnes of DU was used. In this war it is around 1500 tonnes. And this time the use of DU wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child.
 
And Afghanistan?

The situation is similar in Afghanistan. The US military has admitted use of Depleted Uranium weaponary use in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

‘In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC)... studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies.

UMRC’s Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns.

The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.

At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs.

At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war. Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen years. In 1989 there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000—an increase of over a thousand percent. In 1989 34 people died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially.’ link

continues...

The Unborn

The most disturbing information concerns the impact on the unborn children and future generations for both soldiers serving in the depleted uranium wars, and for the civilians who must live in the permanently radioactive contaminated regions.

Today, more than 240,000 Gulf War veterans are on permanent medical disability and more than 11,000 are dead.

They have been denied testing, medical care, and compensation for depleted uranium exposure and related illnesses since 1991."

Even worse, they brought it home in their bodies. In some families, the children born before the Gulf War are the only healthy members. Wives and female partners of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as burning semen syndrome, and are now internally contaminated from depleted uranium carried in the semen of exposed veterans. Many are reporting reproductive illnesses such as endometriosis.
In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations."

"LIFE Photoessay:"
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

"In Iraq it is even worse where babies are born without brains, organs are outside the body, or women give birth to pieces of flesh. In babies born in Iraq in 2002, the incidence of anophthalmos was 250,000 times greater (20 cases in 4,000 births) than the natural occurrence, one in 50 million births.
Takashi MORIZUMI's photos: in http://www.savewarchildren.org/ record the tragedy in Iraq."
 
Especially since DU is only 'faintly' radioative (look at it's half life). I wouldn't disagree on it's toxicalogical effests from the dust htough.
 
two sheds said:
Important enough subject for the OP to be forgiven though, i'd say
True, not disputing that, needs to be more factually acurate though to be taken seriously
 
two sheds said:
Important enough subject for the OP to be forgiven though, i'd say
Maybe, it's been done before, without having to resort to either Prison plannet or huge reams of C&P. The most interesting claims at the bottom weren't sourced either. Interesting topic.
 
It is stupid for NATO insisti it is safe. It is safe except when it is fired, which is exactly what these weapons are used for!

I can understand, on a certain level the army denying its deadliness, having damaged so many of its troops by the use of DU in 1991. They are trying to cover their backs financially perhaps.

But why continue to use it in even greater quantities in the current conflicts?

It is of course a fantastically effective weapon. But how can the sheer recklessness of its continued use be rationalised. Even in the 'shock and awe' type bombings of major cities it is used.

The horrible results of its use are clear.
 
A man on the end of my mobile once explained to me that the British armoured personnel carriers have ammo boxes under the seats, and the increased use of DU meant a massive increase in genital cancers amongst squaddies.

Which was nice.

:(
 
EddyBlack said:
It is stupid for NATO insisti it is safe. It is safe except when it is fired, which is exactly what these weapons are used for!

I can understand, on a certain level the army denying its deadliness, having damaged so many of its troops by the use of DU in 1991. They are trying to cover their backs financially perhaps.

But why continue to use it in even greater quantities in the current conflicts?

It is of course a fantastically effective weapon. But how can the sheer recklessness of its continued use be rationalised. Even in the 'shock and awe' type bombings of major cities it is used.

The horrible results of its use are clear.
But you haven't shown that it isn't safe either. Your only links are to the BBC, who get science technology and or weapons right by luck more than any other factor, and prisonplanet et al. who shouldn't be trusted with anything more technical than a spork without supervision. ;) (oh and a few sites that promise greusome pictures, no thanks)

If you can provide the sources for the bottom two comments i'd be interested in reading them:
"In Iraq it is even worse where babies are born without brains, organs are outside the body, or women give birth to pieces of flesh. In babies born in Iraq in 2002, the incidence of anophthalmos was 250,000 times greater (20 cases in 4,000 births) than the natural occurrence, one in 50 million births.
Takashi MORIZUMI's photos: in http://www.savewarchildren.org/ record the tragedy in Iraq."
Study?

In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations."
Study?
 
rich! said:
A man on the end of my mobile once explained to me that the British armoured personnel carriers have ammo boxes under the seats, and the increased use of DU meant a massive increase in genital cancers amongst squaddies.

Which was nice.

:(
I didn't know that they made 30mm DU rounds, it's not going to be infantry kit as there are no uses for DU that i know of for infantry portable DU weapons. An odd place to store rounds too, not exactly easily accesible.
 
Worth googling "epidemiology of depleted uranium".

I find the whole concept of aerosolized uranium (depleted or otherwise) kind of alarming.

Also the fact that people are still pissing out DU 6-8 years after battlefield exposure...
 
Bob_the_lost said:
I didn't know that they made 30mm DU rounds, it's not going to be infantry kit as there are no uses for DU that i know of for infantry portable DU weapons. An odd place to store rounds too, not exactly easily accesible.

Yeah, it's a FOAF thing. He was talking about ammo boxes under Warrior seats, maybe?
 
EddyBlack said:
Thanks, pity that the report is in at least a few cases talking shite:
Most American weapons (missiles, smart bombs, dumb bombs, bullets, tank shells, cruise missiles, etc.) contain high amounts of radioactive uranium.
Missiles? No, you don't want DU to blow up an aircraft, complete waste of time and it'd degrade performance, anti tank missiles? Not the ones i know of but it's possible. Smart bombs? Some of them, most not. Dumb bombs? I'd be rather surprised but it's not imposible? Bullets? Like fuck they do. Cruise missiles? Some might, most won't.

Short version, Uranium is not benifical to most of those roles and is most certainly not present in the majority of US weapons. This calls into doubt the authour's ability. If they are too lazy to get that much right, why should i trust any of the other facts they pull from thin air.
 
Of course, the "most American weapons" is a summary of the articles. The section "Uranium is preferred over all other "ballistic" metals (e.g. lead, iron, tungsten) because it offers a set of unique metallurgical properties" may be more relevant.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1018.7/index.html

is a RanD corp report that suggests DU saw widespread use. RanD would have privileged military access and wouldn't get that kind of thing wrong.

This:
http://www.arps.org.au/Media/DU.php
is the Australasian Radiological Protection Society on (amongst other things) why DU is useful for munitions.
This:
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110b.htm
is a lengthy NATO briefing where they are pretty specific about which weapons systems in the Balkans pre-2001 were using DU.

So it looks like there are good "technical" reasons to use it extensively.


One other thing:

if you decide a unit of troops are to be expended as part of your battle plan, they'll fight better if they think there's an extraction plan.

IOW, if you're being told DU isn't an issue because you might be in a position where you'll be using or exposed to it, you might want to desert^W frag the officer^W^W^W get a second opinion.
 
DU for bullets? They charge a fortune for ammo but not enough for that. The point in putting penetration aids on a bomb that's going to be used on superquick is none.

in improved armor and antiarmor rounds of increased penetrating power
Is the line you're after. Most weapons are not anti armour, not all that are anti armour use the same process as a Sabot round (ie milan). Extensively is true, most american weapons is shite.

Also the article does say this:
No increase in overall deaths has been observed as a result of exposure to natural uranium in several epidemiological studies. The literature review paid close attention to the ongoing study of a group of GulfWar Veterans who received the highest exposure to DU. Those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, but researchers report neither adverse renal effects attributable to DU nor any adverse health effects related to DU radiation.
Which implies that the levels are within safe (ish) levels.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Thanks, pity that the report is in at least a few cases talking shite:

Short version, Uranium is not benifical to most of those roles and is most certainly not present in the majority of US weapons. This calls into doubt the authour's ability. If they are too lazy to get that much right, why should i trust any of the other facts they pull from thin air.

Yes I doubt its in the majority of weapons. Can’t see it being in bullets, or ‘most bullets’ anyway

The thing is we know it is poisonous when breathed in, and that DU can cause cancer and birth defects. Then in both the Basra area, and in Afghanistan, we get these rises in such cases

I think it is fairly clear that massive amounts, hundreds of tones in fact have been fired. Also that the gulf war veterans are having seemingly related health problems
 
EddyBlack said:
one source we can find out more from is Doug Rokke, a health physicist who became the Pentagon's most senior DU expert during the first Gulf War.
Eh? You sure about that sir?

Many sites seem to be claiming that Dr Douglas Lind Rokke has a PHD in education.

Why would the worlds most well funded body use a Dr of education as its most senior expert on one of its most important munition types?
 
Nah doesn't look like hes all he is cracked up to be. Rather odd...

'Rokke commonly refers to this period of work as his being the Director of the Army's depleted uranium program. Rokke has exaggerated that as well as most other aspects of his involvement with the Army and Depleted Uranium.

Rokke also falsely claims that members of the team that Rokke claims to have led have died from exposure to depleted uranium. This is false. None of the members of his team have become ill let alone died because of exposure to depleted uranium. In various Internet interviews, Rokke's credentials are said to include a Ph.D. in Health Physics. This is not true. He does have a Ph.D. but it is in education, not physics.'Wiki

Bit of an imposter then quite possibly. The mind boggles.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Maybe, it's been done before, without having to resort to either Prison plannet or huge reams of C&P.

On a tangent Prison Planet has been banned by Digg, a trend I hope our dear editor might follow.
 
its used in the a10 cannon and tank canon rounds.
lots of talk about du bullets but no real reason to use them most small arms would'nt have enough velocity to make the use of du offer any advantage.
military started using it as it was heavier than lead very hard and very cheap
japanese had to use tungsten instead whichis much more expensive
 
There seems to be a lack of credulity from some posts, i.e. the post saying that I needed to be more factually accurate, and the ones picking up on the the Doug Rokke reference.

This is of course most welcome and useful, but I did think people would be more disturbed by this. There are lots of good sources showing that the use of these weapons is having a terrible effect on the Basra and Afghan people. It is being done in our names with our money.

About Doug Rokke, I don’t know what to make of him. Here are mainstream media articles that vouch for him as ‘the Pentagon's main expert on
depleted uranium’

‘`Coverup' charged
``It's a deliberate coverup,'' charged Rokke, who was
appointed director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium
Project in 1994...
Sunday Herald

Moving on from a possibly dodgy Doug,

More instances of sick veterans, cancer in local population and NATO shiftiness. This time in Kosovo.
 
Back
Top Bottom