Depleted Uranium Weapons - A Great Crime
- Thread starter EddyBlack
- Start date
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
I got a card saying i could have a test for du exsposure and not to go into any knocked out tanks .Most we saw were in the desert and didnt go near them anyway more worried about threats from unexploded stuff near them.
Only ones I saw near basra seemed left over from either iran iraq war or gulf
probably iran/iraq as they were pointing towards iran and stuff was growing round them .
Only ones I saw near basra seemed left over from either iran iraq war or gulf
probably iran/iraq as they were pointing towards iran and stuff was growing round them .
dylanredefined said:
The Royal Society recommends the same thing in this Guardian Report, and also add that the site itself, and in the longer term the areas water could be poisoned.
link
It also describes Doug Rokke as:
'Among those against the use of DU is Professor Doug Rokke, a one time US army colonel who is also a former director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project, and a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University.
He has called on the US and UK to "recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation".'
A couple more:
Doug Rokke
‘Professor Rokke served in the US army medical corps, and was in charge of planning and implementing the clean-up of US equipment contaminated with DU in Iraq after the Gulf war.
bbc link
Another study showing that:
"The total evidence is strong that DU is behind Gulf War Syndrome, and the increased rates of disease in Iraq - and in Bosnia.
"The birth deformities seen in the Gulf are identical to those seen in Bosnia, and in the children of some US service personnel who were exposed to DU."
bbc link
Doug Rokke
‘Professor Rokke served in the US army medical corps, and was in charge of planning and implementing the clean-up of US equipment contaminated with DU in Iraq after the Gulf war.
bbc link
Another study showing that:
"The total evidence is strong that DU is behind Gulf War Syndrome, and the increased rates of disease in Iraq - and in Bosnia.
"The birth deformities seen in the Gulf are identical to those seen in Bosnia, and in the children of some US service personnel who were exposed to DU."
bbc link
I know personally an Iraqi doctor who has among his hospital colleagues 17 who died from (very strange forms of ) cancer since the "Desert Storm". He himself had a cancerous tumor, removed last year. Among his patients there was and is a stunning rise of cancers - also among very little children - and babies born with birth defects nobody saw before.
From what he explained I get that it isn't as much as the DU "on" the weapons that causes contamination, but the residu mixing with fine dust and spread by the wind. Absolutely everthing and everyone gets touched and contaminated non-stop.
I suppose that those who claim "DU" isn't dangerous can in fact be absolutely correct, but DU "used" in practice is dangerous as hell (and in fact it is hell). It is beyond criminal to hide behind the first argument deliberately ignoring the second.
salaam.
From what he explained I get that it isn't as much as the DU "on" the weapons that causes contamination, but the residu mixing with fine dust and spread by the wind. Absolutely everthing and everyone gets touched and contaminated non-stop.
I suppose that those who claim "DU" isn't dangerous can in fact be absolutely correct, but DU "used" in practice is dangerous as hell (and in fact it is hell). It is beyond criminal to hide behind the first argument deliberately ignoring the second.
salaam.
You guys have missed another Big fact that Completly undermines your Argument.
The DU rods used in the discarding sabot antitank rounds are almost allways completly intact After they have passed through the target vehicle.
they leave a hole going in and a hole comeing out and they bring everything soft that is in the tank out the exit hole, ( the crew)
from what the tankers I have talked to have said the Du rods are about 2 feet long and they look like a piece of rebar.
Du is incredibly dense.
One shot that was made with a Du round,.. they could see the heat plume of an iraqi armored vehicle comeing from behind a sand berm so they
shot through the sand dune to the approxamate place the gunner felt that the tank "should be"
and they hit it and knocked it out.
the Du round had penatrated over 30 yards of sand, the tank, killed the tank and went on.
I have heard they have been collecting the spent Du projectiles to reprocess them and use them again.
I doubt the "powdered DU" part of this story.
There where A LOT of cemicals around that got "poured out" or burned in the ammo dumps at the end of the gulf wars.
There are PlenTy of things that are floating around the desert in Iraq and the surrounding areas that are unhealthy for human beings.
That stuff has been around there for a long time, way before we ever showed up.
Blaming all the sicknesses on Du Projectiles sounds like just more good old America hateing.
I know that logic will not Stop those that must blame the United States for everything bad that happens to everyone and everything around them.
It does kinda undermine all the anti american arguments credibility.
if ya didnt know...........
The DU rods used in the discarding sabot antitank rounds are almost allways completly intact After they have passed through the target vehicle.
they leave a hole going in and a hole comeing out and they bring everything soft that is in the tank out the exit hole, ( the crew)
from what the tankers I have talked to have said the Du rods are about 2 feet long and they look like a piece of rebar.
Du is incredibly dense.
One shot that was made with a Du round,.. they could see the heat plume of an iraqi armored vehicle comeing from behind a sand berm so they
shot through the sand dune to the approxamate place the gunner felt that the tank "should be"
and they hit it and knocked it out.
the Du round had penatrated over 30 yards of sand, the tank, killed the tank and went on.
I have heard they have been collecting the spent Du projectiles to reprocess them and use them again.
I doubt the "powdered DU" part of this story.
There where A LOT of cemicals around that got "poured out" or burned in the ammo dumps at the end of the gulf wars.
There are PlenTy of things that are floating around the desert in Iraq and the surrounding areas that are unhealthy for human beings.
That stuff has been around there for a long time, way before we ever showed up.
Blaming all the sicknesses on Du Projectiles sounds like just more good old America hateing.
I know that logic will not Stop those that must blame the United States for everything bad that happens to everyone and everything around them.
It does kinda undermine all the anti american arguments credibility.
if ya didnt know...........
Our army has been using these weapons, fighting in the same wars. I’ve been critical of our Ministry of defence directly, and reffered the same criticisms to NATO.
I don’t hate America, I feel we are basically the same in culture, and unfortunately in foreign policy. I’ve not noticed anyone attacking the American people on this thread. Your current government though is abhorrent, and ours is too.
Your other points are interesting though, which I will sum up:
1. ‘The DU rounds do not vaporize and turn into dust. They can sometimes be re-used.’
Not according to these sources:
‘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.’ Link
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm
'Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. Because of its density it can pierce the armour plating on tanks.
But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.'
link
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6247401.stm
'DU projectile ordnance is often incendiary because of its pyrophoric property...
depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric. On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium). When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle, it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the the crew, and possibly causing the vehicle to explode.'link
However this exploding, vaporizing version is not described by the The US dept. of Defense. It does however admit that there is dust formed that can be inhaled.
'So you want something that's very dense and very hard, so that when it reaches the other end, instead of splattering like you would expect a lead bullet to do, it actually retains its shape and drives through the target.
It's only when it's internalized -- either by inhaling the dust, the oxide, as Colonel Naughton said when there is penetration of armor, it does self-sharpen and it does create an oxide dust
...Q: May I just follow up on that? Actually you had said it's an advantage and we do not want to give it up. Why would it even be considered that you would give it up? And why are you even saying that?
COL. NAUGHTON: Well, you need to look at the environment of the context where people are asking us questions -- who's asking the question? The Iraqis tell us terrible things happened to our people because you used it last time. Why do they want it to go away? They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them -- okay? I mean, there's no doubt that DU gave us a huge advantage over their tanks. They lost a lot of tanks.
When we take a look at where were the tank battles in the Gulf War, there were no tank battles near population areas. And, as we said before, this oxide
doesn't blow around. It is very heavy, and when it falls to ground it stays
there, and the fact that it moves on down into the sand. So from a perspective of could depleted uranium be playing a role from a medical standpoint, no. But there clearly are ill people there.' link
2. ‘During the gulf war there where a lot of chemicals that got burnt or poured out, that could be responsible for the cancer and birth defects increases in the Basra area.’
We know DU can cause these problems of birth defects and cancers. In Kosovo, Afghanistan and Basra we see cases of poisoned veterans and local populations as this thread has detailed somewhat.
I don’t hate America, I feel we are basically the same in culture, and unfortunately in foreign policy. I’ve not noticed anyone attacking the American people on this thread. Your current government though is abhorrent, and ours is too.
Your other points are interesting though, which I will sum up:
1. ‘The DU rounds do not vaporize and turn into dust. They can sometimes be re-used.’
Not according to these sources:
‘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.’ Link
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm
'Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. Because of its density it can pierce the armour plating on tanks.
But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.'
link
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6247401.stm
'DU projectile ordnance is often incendiary because of its pyrophoric property...
depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric. On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium). When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle, it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the the crew, and possibly causing the vehicle to explode.'link
However this exploding, vaporizing version is not described by the The US dept. of Defense. It does however admit that there is dust formed that can be inhaled.
'So you want something that's very dense and very hard, so that when it reaches the other end, instead of splattering like you would expect a lead bullet to do, it actually retains its shape and drives through the target.
It's only when it's internalized -- either by inhaling the dust, the oxide, as Colonel Naughton said when there is penetration of armor, it does self-sharpen and it does create an oxide dust
...Q: May I just follow up on that? Actually you had said it's an advantage and we do not want to give it up. Why would it even be considered that you would give it up? And why are you even saying that?
COL. NAUGHTON: Well, you need to look at the environment of the context where people are asking us questions -- who's asking the question? The Iraqis tell us terrible things happened to our people because you used it last time. Why do they want it to go away? They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them -- okay? I mean, there's no doubt that DU gave us a huge advantage over their tanks. They lost a lot of tanks.
When we take a look at where were the tank battles in the Gulf War, there were no tank battles near population areas. And, as we said before, this oxide
doesn't blow around. It is very heavy, and when it falls to ground it stays
there, and the fact that it moves on down into the sand. So from a perspective of could depleted uranium be playing a role from a medical standpoint, no. But there clearly are ill people there.' link
2. ‘During the gulf war there where a lot of chemicals that got burnt or poured out, that could be responsible for the cancer and birth defects increases in the Basra area.’
We know DU can cause these problems of birth defects and cancers. In Kosovo, Afghanistan and Basra we see cases of poisoned veterans and local populations as this thread has detailed somewhat.
He talks about "tank battles" as if that is the only location where DU was and is used.
Two conclusions possible:
a)He has no clue about the issue he talks about.
b) he deliberately avoids talking about the full issue.
Next he argues that sand and dust doesn't blow around once it gets gets contaminated with DU.
Two possible conclusions:
a)He lives on the moon.
b)He thinks everyone is as retarded as he is.
Then he goes on saying that DU doesn't play a role from medical point of view.
Logical question of the interviewer should have been: Where did you get your degrees in medicine?
Next he argues that "there clearly are ill people there".
a) He contradicts his argument that he "knows" that DU plays no role.
b) He thinks nobody notices
c) He suggests that there are "ill people" everywhere, so why would those who claim DU is the cause, have a cause.
Logical question of the interviewer should have been:
Why don't you go and live there?
Maybe I should contact him to send him an invitation for a very long holiday at DU Park Resort. I shall pay for it, gladly.
salaam.
G. Fieendish
Snark Hunter
There's potentally a nasty dispute between the U.S & the European partners involved in the JSF Programme, concerning cannon rounds for the F/A 35's 25mm cannon....
The U.S cannon selected for the JSF, the GAU/25, uses Depleted Uranium armour piercing ammo, & the other Level 2 partners, want a non DU round delevoped for it, as they're in most cases, signatories to the Radiological Weapons Protocol of the Geneva Convention, which bans such weapons....
Needless to say, the U.S is not & has told it's fellow delevopers, that if they want a non DU round, they'll have to pay for it....
This could lead to the Non U.S partners insisting that the (rejected by the U.S), Mauser BK 27mm cannon, be fitted to their aircraft, as it does have a non DU Armour piercing round...
In the case of the U.K this may be irrevalent, as British F/A 35's may not have a cannon fitted at all....
The U.S cannon selected for the JSF, the GAU/25, uses Depleted Uranium armour piercing ammo, & the other Level 2 partners, want a non DU round delevoped for it, as they're in most cases, signatories to the Radiological Weapons Protocol of the Geneva Convention, which bans such weapons....
Needless to say, the U.S is not & has told it's fellow delevopers, that if they want a non DU round, they'll have to pay for it....
This could lead to the Non U.S partners insisting that the (rejected by the U.S), Mauser BK 27mm cannon, be fitted to their aircraft, as it does have a non DU Armour piercing round...
In the case of the U.K this may be irrevalent, as British F/A 35's may not have a cannon fitted at all....
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The people using them are normally soldiers, who may have to approach the target after it's been hit but are nearly always relatively poorly educated and almost never in a subject even vaugely relevant to the study of depleted uranium 's effects on people.
Reports that you may trust, but containing nothing useful vs. reports you don't want to trust that contain relevant information. Tricky...
Reports that you may trust, but containing nothing useful vs. reports you don't want to trust that contain relevant information. Tricky...
Aldebaran said:
This sounds very similar to the testimony of an Afghan doctor. A Doctor Mohammed Daud Miraki:
'I have relatives civilians as well as tribesmen
combatants killed by the US-UK bombs. Recently several of
my relatives have given birth to children with unmistaken signs
of DU deformities. One of the babies had no head and one
arm, another had a mass of tissue developed protruding from
inside the mouth--baby was dead--, the other, had elongated
body with large head and puffed up stomach. These were my
relatives, there were other such horrific cases of congenital
deformities and health problems only more than a year after
the bombing. In this village alone, 23 babies had such horrific
deformities. --What is the probability of having 23 babies from the same small village,
where no such incident of deformities ever reported, but
suddenly in year time, one finds 23 babies deformed.'link
He makes a truly distressing report of the situation in Afghanistan after 'Operation Enduring Freedom', particulary on the effects of DU.
Here is a link to his website:
www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com/
An excellent article here:
This well researched essay exhaustively links to scientific studies, and articles demonstrating that DU is highly poisonous and that’s its use as a weapon is criminal. Also reveals that DU is used on testing grounds in America and appears to be having serious consequences.
‘It will therefore be interesting to observe if Americans will react differently (that is, react with appropriate and fitting moral outrage) against uranium weapons use upon civilians in the Middle East when we realize that our government has been using upon us - right here in the United States - the exact same types of munitions they have been using on our so-called “enemies” overseas.’
There is a lot of information here, and I’m still trying to digest the it all, but this really is a good one. I am shocked and stunned by this article…
This well researched essay exhaustively links to scientific studies, and articles demonstrating that DU is highly poisonous and that’s its use as a weapon is criminal. Also reveals that DU is used on testing grounds in America and appears to be having serious consequences.
‘It will therefore be interesting to observe if Americans will react differently (that is, react with appropriate and fitting moral outrage) against uranium weapons use upon civilians in the Middle East when we realize that our government has been using upon us - right here in the United States - the exact same types of munitions they have been using on our so-called “enemies” overseas.’
There is a lot of information here, and I’m still trying to digest the it all, but this really is a good one. I am shocked and stunned by this article…
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Rentonite said:
If you think DU is so safe, why not mainline some into your veins?
This is what happens when cousins marry.
Fucking armchair warriors.
It depends on what the DU rounds hit. They are quite often intact. But they are still a risk. As they are corroded in the soil, water supplies can be contaminated.
By all accounts such as this UN report 'Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina', that I am looking at, DU when it ignites is aerosolised. In other words turned into a gas.
4.2 a
‘If a large number of penetrators hit hard surfaces and partly aerosolize on impact, there is a risk of inhaling airborne DU dust if people are nearby during an attack. As the aerosols disperse and fall out, resulting contamination of the ground surface may be localized or widespread, depending on the properties of the aerosols and the prevailing meteorological conditions.’ 4.2 a
By all accounts such as this UN report 'Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina', that I am looking at, DU when it ignites is aerosolised. In other words turned into a gas.
4.2 a
‘If a large number of penetrators hit hard surfaces and partly aerosolize on impact, there is a risk of inhaling airborne DU dust if people are nearby during an attack. As the aerosols disperse and fall out, resulting contamination of the ground surface may be localized or widespread, depending on the properties of the aerosols and the prevailing meteorological conditions.’ 4.2 a
‘4.2 h. Contamination of Air
Air samples where taken at six sites… Two of the sites showed clear indications of DU in the air... it is likely that DU will be found in air under certain wind conditions that raise the dust into the air.’
------- ----------- ----------
The report though plays down the hazards. It was given to me by a member of a Yahoo group called DU watch.
He stood out for his skepticism, which is why I wanted to speak to him. This UN study from 1992 seems lightweight next to the article linked to in p.43 which cites many studies showing that there are hazards.
The article (p.43) was presented by a member who wrote it.
‘I wrote a paper not for research scientists, but just for the average citizen.
Perhaps you might like to share it with those you know?’ post 8274.
The group is interesting. Members include people mentioned in this thread, such as Dr Miraki (post 42), and serious scientists and DU campaigners.
Air samples where taken at six sites… Two of the sites showed clear indications of DU in the air... it is likely that DU will be found in air under certain wind conditions that raise the dust into the air.’
------- ----------- ----------
The report though plays down the hazards. It was given to me by a member of a Yahoo group called DU watch.
He stood out for his skepticism, which is why I wanted to speak to him. This UN study from 1992 seems lightweight next to the article linked to in p.43 which cites many studies showing that there are hazards.
The article (p.43) was presented by a member who wrote it.
‘I wrote a paper not for research scientists, but just for the average citizen.
Perhaps you might like to share it with those you know?’ post 8274.
The group is interesting. Members include people mentioned in this thread, such as Dr Miraki (post 42), and serious scientists and DU campaigners.
MikeMcc said:
Here is an interesting article today from the Sunday Herald website.
link
Synopsis:
A request under freedom of information for the release of childhood leukemia data. Figures requested for under-15s living near to a Scottish military base that has been testing Depleted Uranium munitions. There are fears that DU rounds can cause this cancer of the blood.
The NHS agency has refused to release the figures, and despite having appeals turned down in Scottish courts, is intending to take the appeal to the House of Lords. This is the first time any public body has done this for a FOI appeal.
The agency cites patient confidentiality as the reason for its secrecy, although it hardly seems an adequate justification to any reasonable person in light of the concerns.
Here is another news report from yesterday. Although basically old news it is good to see media coverage of this.
There are more testimonies from sick veterans, and an army video conceding that DU is hazardous, yet they go ahead and expose troops and the local populations to it.
When questioned, the army as usual play down the risks, while independent experts argue that their tests are inadequate.
CNN Video
Army Video in full.
An expert referred to in the report, Dr Durakovic, a former army colonel, has been carrying out tests on veterans and claims ‘"tens of thousands" of British and American soldiers are dying from radiation from depleted uranium (DU) shells fired during the Gulf war.’
He is a professor of nuclear medicine and
‘his team of American and Canadian scientists have discovered life-threateningly high levels of DU in Gulf veterans 10 years after the desert war.His findings, which have been verified by four independent experts, is embarrassing for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and American Defence Department, which have consistently refused to test Gulf war veterans for DU.’
Report
Another similar report from the Guardian in 2001. An army memo reveals that army doctors warned ‘that exposure to depleted uranium, which is used in US and British anti-tanks shells, increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer.’
‘The warnings, in an internal MoD document, are in marked contrast to persistent public assurances - repeated by the armed forces minister, John Spellar, to the Commons on Tuesday - playing down the risk from DU.’
Link
Article also reveals a bit about DU firing ranges in Britain:
‘It is not clear how widely the paper, a UK land forces document, was distributed among British commanders and to those in charge of DU weapons firing ranges in Cumbria and Scotland.’
There are more testimonies from sick veterans, and an army video conceding that DU is hazardous, yet they go ahead and expose troops and the local populations to it.
When questioned, the army as usual play down the risks, while independent experts argue that their tests are inadequate.
CNN Video
Army Video in full.
An expert referred to in the report, Dr Durakovic, a former army colonel, has been carrying out tests on veterans and claims ‘"tens of thousands" of British and American soldiers are dying from radiation from depleted uranium (DU) shells fired during the Gulf war.’
He is a professor of nuclear medicine and
‘his team of American and Canadian scientists have discovered life-threateningly high levels of DU in Gulf veterans 10 years after the desert war.His findings, which have been verified by four independent experts, is embarrassing for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and American Defence Department, which have consistently refused to test Gulf war veterans for DU.’
Report
Another similar report from the Guardian in 2001. An army memo reveals that army doctors warned ‘that exposure to depleted uranium, which is used in US and British anti-tanks shells, increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer.’
‘The warnings, in an internal MoD document, are in marked contrast to persistent public assurances - repeated by the armed forces minister, John Spellar, to the Commons on Tuesday - playing down the risk from DU.’
Link
Article also reveals a bit about DU firing ranges in Britain:
‘It is not clear how widely the paper, a UK land forces document, was distributed among British commanders and to those in charge of DU weapons firing ranges in Cumbria and Scotland.’
A rather informative article from BBC radio 4.
Depleted Uranium Weapons – a BBC investigation by Angus Stickler
A BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have
continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from
scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to
civilians. A former senior scientist with the United Nations has told
the BBC that studies showing that it was carcinogenic were suppressed
from a seminal World Health Organisation report. The US has refused
to fund major research and has been criticised for failing to
cooperate with UN attempts to conduct a post conflict assessment in
Iraq.
Angus Stickler reports:
When depleted uranium bullets are fired, the rounds can rip through
the tank armour. And once inside - on contact with air they combust
exploding into a 10,000 degrees centigrade ball of fire.
Both the US and UK used depleted uranium in Iraq. The US fired 320
tons in Gulf War I – and possibly as much as 2,000 tonnes in Gulf War
II. But its use is highly controversial - blamed as one of the
possible causes of cancer and birth defects. It's this that prompted
the Untied Nations' World Health Organisation to conduct a major
assessment of the post conflict hazards. The findings were published
in 2001. Dr Mike Repacholi retired as the Coordinator of the W.H.O.
Radiation and Environmental Health Unit in June of this year. He
oversaw the project.
He says, "Depleted uranium is basically safe - you can touch depleted
uranium for hours and not cause and radiation damage you can ingest
it and it's excreted through the body - 99 per cent of it goes within
about a day - you would have to ingest a huge amount of depleted
uranium dust to cause any adverse health effect."
The W.H.O. assessment warns that children should be restricted from
going into post conflict areas. The monograph - as it is called – is
now used by some as the definitive document on the potential health
hazards of depleted uranium. But now this BBC investigation has been
told - its findings may skewed.
Dr Keith Baverstock – now retired - was a senior radiation advisor
with 12 years experience at the W.H.O - part of Dr Repacholi's
editorial team at the time. He came across research indicating that
depleted uranium is a potentially dangerous carcinogen:
"When you breathe in the dust the deeper it goes into the lung the
more difficult it is to clear. The particles that dissolve pose a
risk - part radioactive - and part from the chemical toxicity in the
lung - and then later as that material diffuses into the rest of the
body, and into the blood stream a potential risk at sites like the
bone marrow for leukaemia, the lymphatic system and the kidney"
according to Dr Baverstock.
Health warnings suppressed
This is called genotoxicicty says Dr Baverstock, it could take
decades before evidence of cancer starts to emerge. As part of the
W.H.O. team he submitted these findings - based on peer reviewed
research conducted by the United States Department of Defense - for
inclusion into the monograph. It received short shrift. Dr Repacholi
says this was with good reason.
It was the committee's general conclusion that this data did not
substantiate that there was a health effect at this stage. Was the
science that was in that report - which was research that came
effectively from the US Department of Defense - was it wrong?
DR REPACHOLI: We want a comprehensive report - we want to include
everything that we can - but we don't want fairytale stuff - it
wasn't collaborated by other reports - that was felt to the level
that science would say this was established.
ANGUS STICKLER: My understanding is that at the time that there were
eight published peer reviewed research studies - attesting to the
genotoxic nature of uranium - all of which could have been included
in the monograph?
REPACHOLI: Yep - these - er - papers were speculative at the time and
W.H.O. will only publish data that they know is established.
STICKLER: Shouldn't the World Health Organisation err on the side of
caution?
REPACHOLI: W.H.O is a conservative organisation there's no doubt -
it's not a leader in this sort of thing - it's not out there saying
wow we should be concerned about this, this and this - it's not there
to do that.
Dr Baverstock disagrees. He says the W.H.O stance that this is
inconclusive science is not safe science. He attempted to take the
issue further.
DR BAVERSTOCK: When it wasn't included in the monograph - I with two
other colleagues prepared a paper for the open literature and the
W.H.O did not permit me to submit that paper for publication.
ANGUS STICKLER: Why not - what reasons were you given?
BAVERSTOCK: Well ha - I still have not had a reason as to why that
paper was not allowed to be published.
STICKLER: Could it be the case that the science you're talking about
is unsafe - in that you're - as a scientist - a bit miffed that they
didn't include what you wanted them to include?
BAVERSTOCK: No I'm not miffed about it at all - we use this kind of
laboratory testing in many systems to screen chemicals and to know
whether things are going to be dangerous or not.
STICKLER: Why do you think your study was - as you say - suppressed?
BAVERSTOCK: It is naive to think that in institutions like the United
Nations one is free from political influences - the member states
have their own agendas.
STICKLER: What you seem to be saying there is that the W.H.O. was
pressurised by the likes of the United States to come to the right
conclusion?
BAVERSTOCK: I think that could be the case - yes.
It's ironic that the major player that Dr Baverstock believes was
behind the decision block publication of his study – was the nation
state that conducted the research he was citing: The United States'
Department of Defence Armed Forces Radiobiological Research
Institute: a credible State laboratory. A point I put to Dr Repacholi.
DR REPACHOLI: The problem that W.H.O had and it went right up to the
Director General's office that it was finally disapproved at that
level was that on the basis of the evidence that we have - we can't
conclude that it is harmful - and to have a paper from another W.H.O
staff member that says we absolutely think it's harmful - makes W.H.O
look a bit odd.
STICKLER: With the greatest respect - that's going to have very
little truck with someone who may get seriously ill because of
depleted uranium the fact that the W.H.O. may look a bit odd?
REPACHOLI: No the odd part is that it looks like W.H.O. is not in
control of its shop.
There is undoubtedly a massive gulf between the views of these two
scientists. Dr Repacholi - however - denies that pressure was brought
to bear on the W.H.O.
The findings of the US Department of Defense research - are now in
the public domain: depleted uranium is genotoxic - it chemically
alters DNA and could be a precursor to tumour growth. Since 2001,
there have been numerous studies supporting the findings.
We asked for an interview with the scientist who conducted these
studies - Dr Alexandra Miller – the US Department of Defense refused.
The BBC has been told that she applied to the US Army Research
Programme to do further work on the effects of depleted uranium in
2004, five and six. All the applications were turned down.
Depleted Uranium Weapons – a BBC investigation by Angus Stickler
A BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have
continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from
scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to
civilians. A former senior scientist with the United Nations has told
the BBC that studies showing that it was carcinogenic were suppressed
from a seminal World Health Organisation report. The US has refused
to fund major research and has been criticised for failing to
cooperate with UN attempts to conduct a post conflict assessment in
Iraq.
Angus Stickler reports:
When depleted uranium bullets are fired, the rounds can rip through
the tank armour. And once inside - on contact with air they combust
exploding into a 10,000 degrees centigrade ball of fire.
Both the US and UK used depleted uranium in Iraq. The US fired 320
tons in Gulf War I – and possibly as much as 2,000 tonnes in Gulf War
II. But its use is highly controversial - blamed as one of the
possible causes of cancer and birth defects. It's this that prompted
the Untied Nations' World Health Organisation to conduct a major
assessment of the post conflict hazards. The findings were published
in 2001. Dr Mike Repacholi retired as the Coordinator of the W.H.O.
Radiation and Environmental Health Unit in June of this year. He
oversaw the project.
He says, "Depleted uranium is basically safe - you can touch depleted
uranium for hours and not cause and radiation damage you can ingest
it and it's excreted through the body - 99 per cent of it goes within
about a day - you would have to ingest a huge amount of depleted
uranium dust to cause any adverse health effect."
The W.H.O. assessment warns that children should be restricted from
going into post conflict areas. The monograph - as it is called – is
now used by some as the definitive document on the potential health
hazards of depleted uranium. But now this BBC investigation has been
told - its findings may skewed.
Dr Keith Baverstock – now retired - was a senior radiation advisor
with 12 years experience at the W.H.O - part of Dr Repacholi's
editorial team at the time. He came across research indicating that
depleted uranium is a potentially dangerous carcinogen:
"When you breathe in the dust the deeper it goes into the lung the
more difficult it is to clear. The particles that dissolve pose a
risk - part radioactive - and part from the chemical toxicity in the
lung - and then later as that material diffuses into the rest of the
body, and into the blood stream a potential risk at sites like the
bone marrow for leukaemia, the lymphatic system and the kidney"
according to Dr Baverstock.
Health warnings suppressed
This is called genotoxicicty says Dr Baverstock, it could take
decades before evidence of cancer starts to emerge. As part of the
W.H.O. team he submitted these findings - based on peer reviewed
research conducted by the United States Department of Defense - for
inclusion into the monograph. It received short shrift. Dr Repacholi
says this was with good reason.
It was the committee's general conclusion that this data did not
substantiate that there was a health effect at this stage. Was the
science that was in that report - which was research that came
effectively from the US Department of Defense - was it wrong?
DR REPACHOLI: We want a comprehensive report - we want to include
everything that we can - but we don't want fairytale stuff - it
wasn't collaborated by other reports - that was felt to the level
that science would say this was established.
ANGUS STICKLER: My understanding is that at the time that there were
eight published peer reviewed research studies - attesting to the
genotoxic nature of uranium - all of which could have been included
in the monograph?
REPACHOLI: Yep - these - er - papers were speculative at the time and
W.H.O. will only publish data that they know is established.
STICKLER: Shouldn't the World Health Organisation err on the side of
caution?
REPACHOLI: W.H.O is a conservative organisation there's no doubt -
it's not a leader in this sort of thing - it's not out there saying
wow we should be concerned about this, this and this - it's not there
to do that.
Dr Baverstock disagrees. He says the W.H.O stance that this is
inconclusive science is not safe science. He attempted to take the
issue further.
DR BAVERSTOCK: When it wasn't included in the monograph - I with two
other colleagues prepared a paper for the open literature and the
W.H.O did not permit me to submit that paper for publication.
ANGUS STICKLER: Why not - what reasons were you given?
BAVERSTOCK: Well ha - I still have not had a reason as to why that
paper was not allowed to be published.
STICKLER: Could it be the case that the science you're talking about
is unsafe - in that you're - as a scientist - a bit miffed that they
didn't include what you wanted them to include?
BAVERSTOCK: No I'm not miffed about it at all - we use this kind of
laboratory testing in many systems to screen chemicals and to know
whether things are going to be dangerous or not.
STICKLER: Why do you think your study was - as you say - suppressed?
BAVERSTOCK: It is naive to think that in institutions like the United
Nations one is free from political influences - the member states
have their own agendas.
STICKLER: What you seem to be saying there is that the W.H.O. was
pressurised by the likes of the United States to come to the right
conclusion?
BAVERSTOCK: I think that could be the case - yes.
It's ironic that the major player that Dr Baverstock believes was
behind the decision block publication of his study – was the nation
state that conducted the research he was citing: The United States'
Department of Defence Armed Forces Radiobiological Research
Institute: a credible State laboratory. A point I put to Dr Repacholi.
DR REPACHOLI: The problem that W.H.O had and it went right up to the
Director General's office that it was finally disapproved at that
level was that on the basis of the evidence that we have - we can't
conclude that it is harmful - and to have a paper from another W.H.O
staff member that says we absolutely think it's harmful - makes W.H.O
look a bit odd.
STICKLER: With the greatest respect - that's going to have very
little truck with someone who may get seriously ill because of
depleted uranium the fact that the W.H.O. may look a bit odd?
REPACHOLI: No the odd part is that it looks like W.H.O. is not in
control of its shop.
There is undoubtedly a massive gulf between the views of these two
scientists. Dr Repacholi - however - denies that pressure was brought
to bear on the W.H.O.
The findings of the US Department of Defense research - are now in
the public domain: depleted uranium is genotoxic - it chemically
alters DNA and could be a precursor to tumour growth. Since 2001,
there have been numerous studies supporting the findings.
We asked for an interview with the scientist who conducted these
studies - Dr Alexandra Miller – the US Department of Defense refused.
The BBC has been told that she applied to the US Army Research
Programme to do further work on the effects of depleted uranium in
2004, five and six. All the applications were turned down.
continued
Iraqi cancer increase
This is the Isotope Geo-science laboratory at the British Geological
Survey. Its equipment has been used by the British Government to
conduct the most extensive research so far - into depleted uranium
contamination of UK troops. Professor Randall Parrish says there are
worrying signals coming from Iraq – from civilian populations.
"I've been to several international conferences where I've heard
Iraqi medical physicians summarise health statistics on the
occurrence of birth defects and non Hodgkin's Lymphomas and the rise
in incidents in these kind of effects especially in the area of
southern Iraq and the Basra area appears quite alarming on the basis
of the figures that I've seen – significant data – that would suggest
that we should be erring on the side of caution here – and it ought
to be investigated" Professor Parrish told us.
Professor Parrish has recently completed another research study – as
yet unpublished – but it shows that if inhaled – depleted uranium
remains in high concentrations in the body - a potential hazard - for
decades. The priority now, he says, is to ascertain whether it poses
a real risk to humans – the people of Iraq.
PROFESSOR PARRISH: If we want to get to bottom of this issue as to
whether populations and people are really suffering – we have to
conduct environmental and health assessments – in places where people
are exposed and we can I think solve this problem if sufficient
resources and the will is there to actually address the problem.
AHGUS STICKLER: Do you think the will is there on the part of the
politicians?
PARRISH: Unless we can conduct additional work – this issue of DU and
the politics of it will continue to hang over many governments for
years and years and years to come.
Professor Parrish is prepared to undertake research on behalf of any
member state that wishes to fund him.
In the meantime the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP has
trained a team of Iraqi scientists ready to carry out a detailed
assessment. But despite having political allies in Washington Henrik
Slotte chief of the UNEP post conflict branch – says his work can't
progress further without co-operation from the US.
HENRIK SLOTTE: Without the coordinates and clear information about
what was used and when - it is impossible to start working on
depleted uranium in the field - it's like looking for a needle in the
haystack.
ANGUS STICKLER: Are they providing you with all the information
you've requested?
SLOTTE: In the case of Iraq we have requested and the reply has been
that this is an issue that concerns many parts of that administration
and it will take some time for them to come back in writing.
STICKLER: You do now have a team of Iraqis now ready to go in -
wouldn't it be helpful for them to have this information now?
SLOTTE: Yes it would.
STICKLER: Are there any indications that they are going to get this
information shortly?
SLOTTE: There are no indications.
Depleted Uranium according to a growing body of scientists is
carcinogenic – a health hazard not just to Saddam Husain's republican
guard – but Iraqi civilians for generations to come. It's been used
in other theatres of conflict too – Afghanistan and Lebanon – and
calls for action are now gaining ground. Not just with fervent
campaigners – but eminent scientists, academics, and lawyers too -
depleted uranium munitions they say should be banned under
international law as potential weapons of indiscriminate effect.
Iraqi cancer increase
This is the Isotope Geo-science laboratory at the British Geological
Survey. Its equipment has been used by the British Government to
conduct the most extensive research so far - into depleted uranium
contamination of UK troops. Professor Randall Parrish says there are
worrying signals coming from Iraq – from civilian populations.
"I've been to several international conferences where I've heard
Iraqi medical physicians summarise health statistics on the
occurrence of birth defects and non Hodgkin's Lymphomas and the rise
in incidents in these kind of effects especially in the area of
southern Iraq and the Basra area appears quite alarming on the basis
of the figures that I've seen – significant data – that would suggest
that we should be erring on the side of caution here – and it ought
to be investigated" Professor Parrish told us.
Professor Parrish has recently completed another research study – as
yet unpublished – but it shows that if inhaled – depleted uranium
remains in high concentrations in the body - a potential hazard - for
decades. The priority now, he says, is to ascertain whether it poses
a real risk to humans – the people of Iraq.
PROFESSOR PARRISH: If we want to get to bottom of this issue as to
whether populations and people are really suffering – we have to
conduct environmental and health assessments – in places where people
are exposed and we can I think solve this problem if sufficient
resources and the will is there to actually address the problem.
AHGUS STICKLER: Do you think the will is there on the part of the
politicians?
PARRISH: Unless we can conduct additional work – this issue of DU and
the politics of it will continue to hang over many governments for
years and years and years to come.
Professor Parrish is prepared to undertake research on behalf of any
member state that wishes to fund him.
In the meantime the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP has
trained a team of Iraqi scientists ready to carry out a detailed
assessment. But despite having political allies in Washington Henrik
Slotte chief of the UNEP post conflict branch – says his work can't
progress further without co-operation from the US.
HENRIK SLOTTE: Without the coordinates and clear information about
what was used and when - it is impossible to start working on
depleted uranium in the field - it's like looking for a needle in the
haystack.
ANGUS STICKLER: Are they providing you with all the information
you've requested?
SLOTTE: In the case of Iraq we have requested and the reply has been
that this is an issue that concerns many parts of that administration
and it will take some time for them to come back in writing.
STICKLER: You do now have a team of Iraqis now ready to go in -
wouldn't it be helpful for them to have this information now?
SLOTTE: Yes it would.
STICKLER: Are there any indications that they are going to get this
information shortly?
SLOTTE: There are no indications.
Depleted Uranium according to a growing body of scientists is
carcinogenic – a health hazard not just to Saddam Husain's republican
guard – but Iraqi civilians for generations to come. It's been used
in other theatres of conflict too – Afghanistan and Lebanon – and
calls for action are now gaining ground. Not just with fervent
campaigners – but eminent scientists, academics, and lawyers too -
depleted uranium munitions they say should be banned under
international law as potential weapons of indiscriminate effect.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
G. Fieendish said:
Only the CTOL JSF variant, the F-35C has an internal gun which is a 4 barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer. The GAU-12 can fire DU ammunition (a 25mm APFSDSDU round) but has at least three other non-DU rounds available - API, HE and AA. The UK is currently only planning to buy the F-35B STOVL variant which has no internal gun.
The effects of these weapons on the populations of Afghanistan and Basra seem devastating. Also on our own soldiers, though they are given little attention. Here is a recent article
The Arizona Daily Star
Published: 08.26.2007
Cancer in Iraq vets raises possibility of toxic exposure
By Carla McClain
The Arizona Daily Star
Published: 08.26.2007
Cancer in Iraq vets raises possibility of toxic exposure
By Carla McClain
'Safe' uranium that left a town contaminated
Observer - Sunday November 18, 2007
The scientific evidence continues to mount that the dust produced by the use of depleted uranium weapons causes increased cancer rates and birth defects.
Although there is very little in the way of proper scientific studies of areas like Afghanistan, Basra and Kosovo where the weapons have been used, a Ministry of Defence funded study of an American town can surely leave little room for doubt.
Their past use and continued use could constitute a war crime. The consequences for these people, veterans and the affected war zones of Afghanistan, Basra and Kosovo are unspeakably horrible. We are of course still unsure of the effects on the people of Kircudbright (see earlier article) because the health authority unlawfuly refused to release information on cancer rates. Their continued use cannot be justified.
Observer - Sunday November 18, 2007
The scientific evidence continues to mount that the dust produced by the use of depleted uranium weapons causes increased cancer rates and birth defects.
Although there is very little in the way of proper scientific studies of areas like Afghanistan, Basra and Kosovo where the weapons have been used, a Ministry of Defence funded study of an American town can surely leave little room for doubt.
Their past use and continued use could constitute a war crime. The consequences for these people, veterans and the affected war zones of Afghanistan, Basra and Kosovo are unspeakably horrible. We are of course still unsure of the effects on the people of Kircudbright (see earlier article) because the health authority unlawfuly refused to release information on cancer rates. Their continued use cannot be justified.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
[niggle]EddyBlack said:
aerosolised = "in the form of ultramicroscopic solid or liquid particles dispersed or suspended in air or gas"
vapourised / gasified = "converted into a gas or vapor"
ie. in other words it's turned into ultramicroscopic particles suspended in the air, not a gas
[/niggle]
actually not necessarily that niggly, potentially pretty important difference as microscopic particles blown into the air (particularly in hot desert conditions with a strong updraft from the hot surface) could easily rise in the atmosphere a fair way up, and get blown for miles. clouds / Raindrops also form around such particulates in the air, meaning they'd then fall back to earth when it rained.
I guess it could be true that the particles are that dense that they don't scatter that far as the general suggested, but they'd still surely get blown around in the wind to some extent. I'd have thought if someone had actually done the research, and it showed definitively that DU particulates don't get blown about in the wind, they'd have released the research. As they haven't (or not that I know of) then I'm a wee bit sceptical of his claim.
be interesting to know what size these particulates are as well as for other particulate carcinogens i believe the size of the particle deternmines how easy it is for the body to ingest it and for it to cause damage. not entirely sure how this crosses over to DU, but I'd presume the smaller the particle, the easier it was to be ingested and therefore cause problems.
I must admit I'm not all that scientifically minded, but I find it interesting watching the major scientific developments like the article above and the political developments. As far as the size of aerosolised DU particles I found this:
'• Risks of radioactive contamination by inhaling DU oxide dust and ingesting it
from dust in the mouth, in water or in food. DU burns into a very fine black dust or 'aerosol' with a combination of soluble and insoluble Uranium oxides. Larger
particles may coat the immediate target area with what looks like soot. But 60%+ are less than 1.5 microns, widely dispersed by wind and small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere in smog-like conditions. Airborne oxides may be captured in rain or snow and re-suspended in hot weather. DU contamination was recorded up to 25 miles away from one manufacturing site in the USA.'
From here (p.75):
Depleted Uranium Weapons in 2001-2002
Compiled by Dai Williams
There are a lot of people into the scientific particulars, and at the forefront of
anti-DU activism over at 'DU-Watch' on Yahoo Groups. I'm sure they would be happy to take any of your questions. Although it is good to have your input on here too.
'• Risks of radioactive contamination by inhaling DU oxide dust and ingesting it
from dust in the mouth, in water or in food. DU burns into a very fine black dust or 'aerosol' with a combination of soluble and insoluble Uranium oxides. Larger
particles may coat the immediate target area with what looks like soot. But 60%+ are less than 1.5 microns, widely dispersed by wind and small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere in smog-like conditions. Airborne oxides may be captured in rain or snow and re-suspended in hot weather. DU contamination was recorded up to 25 miles away from one manufacturing site in the USA.'
From here (p.75):
Depleted Uranium Weapons in 2001-2002
Compiled by Dai Williams
There are a lot of people into the scientific particulars, and at the forefront of
anti-DU activism over at 'DU-Watch' on Yahoo Groups. I'm sure they would be happy to take any of your questions. Although it is good to have your input on here too.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
lol - I'm fine over here thanks
ok if that information's correct then that would be pretty worrying. 60% 1.5 micron or less particles means that 60% of the dust is very easily ingestible, it'll go straight into your lungs when you breath, and get into the smallest bits of your lungs. The bit about it being part soluble, part insoluble uranium oxides also could be worrying as if some of the oxides are soluble, presumably that means that they'd be able to crossover into the bloodstream?
the more I've looked into this (every so often over the last 10-15 years), the more it looks like DU will be this generations agent orange.
ok if that information's correct then that would be pretty worrying. 60% 1.5 micron or less particles means that 60% of the dust is very easily ingestible, it'll go straight into your lungs when you breath, and get into the smallest bits of your lungs. The bit about it being part soluble, part insoluble uranium oxides also could be worrying as if some of the oxides are soluble, presumably that means that they'd be able to crossover into the bloodstream?
the more I've looked into this (every so often over the last 10-15 years), the more it looks like DU will be this generations agent orange.
It does look like that is the case. I don't know too much about Agent Orange other than it is still blighting the Vietnemese and causing severe birth defects (so I've heard).
That is one of the major concerns of DU contamination, this stuff, once dispersed, will stay around for millions of years causing cancers and birth defects.
The thing about that study in the above Observer article is that it was funded by the MoD. The impartiality is beyond question, the guy doing the study had already tested gulf war veterans to see is there was any evidence linking DU to Gulf War Syndrome, he found that to be negative.
'In a paper to be published in the next issue of the scientific journal Science of the Total Environment, a team led by Professor Randall Parrish of Leicester University reports the results of a three-year study of Colonie, funded by Britain's Ministry of Defence.
Parrish's team has found that DU contamination, which remains radioactive for millions of years, is in effect impossible to eradicate, not only from the environment but also from the bodies of humans. Twenty-three years after production ceased they tested the urine of five former workers. All are still contaminated with DU. So were 20 per cent of people tested who had spent at least 10 years living near the factory when it was still working, including Ciarfello.
Parrish's team includes David Carpenter, an environmental health expert from Albany University. 'DU burns, it releases particulates that can be breathed in, and it doesn't go away,' he says. 'The issue does not concern military personnel as much as civilian populations in theatres where they are used. Now we know that we can still find measurable levels of DU among the people of Colonie, we need a much bigger study to establish whether they have suffered disproportionate ill-effects such as cancers as a consequence. If they have, it would raise a serious ethical challenge to the use of these weapons. Arguably it could constitute a war crime.'
The question of whether it is showing up in peoples blood streams and urine has been answered.
That is one of the major concerns of DU contamination, this stuff, once dispersed, will stay around for millions of years causing cancers and birth defects.
The thing about that study in the above Observer article is that it was funded by the MoD. The impartiality is beyond question, the guy doing the study had already tested gulf war veterans to see is there was any evidence linking DU to Gulf War Syndrome, he found that to be negative.
'In a paper to be published in the next issue of the scientific journal Science of the Total Environment, a team led by Professor Randall Parrish of Leicester University reports the results of a three-year study of Colonie, funded by Britain's Ministry of Defence.
Parrish's team has found that DU contamination, which remains radioactive for millions of years, is in effect impossible to eradicate, not only from the environment but also from the bodies of humans. Twenty-three years after production ceased they tested the urine of five former workers. All are still contaminated with DU. So were 20 per cent of people tested who had spent at least 10 years living near the factory when it was still working, including Ciarfello.
Parrish's team includes David Carpenter, an environmental health expert from Albany University. 'DU burns, it releases particulates that can be breathed in, and it doesn't go away,' he says. 'The issue does not concern military personnel as much as civilian populations in theatres where they are used. Now we know that we can still find measurable levels of DU among the people of Colonie, we need a much bigger study to establish whether they have suffered disproportionate ill-effects such as cancers as a consequence. If they have, it would raise a serious ethical challenge to the use of these weapons. Arguably it could constitute a war crime.'
The question of whether it is showing up in peoples blood streams and urine has been answered.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
your link in post 57 doesn't work eddy
Similar threads
