Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops
What 'Support Our Troops' Really Means
By Amy Worthington
The Idaho Observer
4-16-3

On March 30, an AP photo featured an American pro-war activist holding a sign: "Nuke the evil scum, it worked in 1945!" That's exactly what George Bush has done. America's mega-billion dollar war in Iraq has been indeed a NUCLEAR WAR.
 
Bush-Cheney have delivered upon 17 million Iraqis tons of depleted uranium (DU) weapons, a "liberation" gift that will keep on giving. Depleted uranium is a component of toxic nuclear waste, usually stored at secure sites. Handlers need radiation protection gear.
 
Over a decade ago, war-makers decided to incorporate this lethal waste into much of the Pentagon's weaponry. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute.1 Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are DU-tipped.2 The M1 Abrams tanks are armored with DU.3 These and British Challenger II tanks are tightly packed with DU shells, which continually irradiate troops in or near them.4 The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU shells at machines and people on the battlefield.5
 
DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
 
Ironically, support for our troops will extend well beyond the war in Iraq. Americans will be supporting Gulf War II veterans for years as they slowly and painfully succumb to radiation poisoning. U.S and British troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals, friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait, memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death await those exposed to DU.
 
Award-winning journalist Will Thomas wrote: "As the last Gulf conflict so savagely demonstrated, GI immune systems reeling from multiple doses of experimental vaccines offer little defense against further exposure to chemical weapons, industrial toxins, stress, caffeine, insect repellent and radiation leftover from the last war. This is a war even the victors will lose."6
 
When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system according to British radiation expert Roger Coghill.7
 
The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days.8 Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing. In the first two weeks of combat, 700 Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi real estate into radioactive mushroom clouds.9 Millions of DU tank rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible because there is no place on the planet to put so much contaminated debris.
 
Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I was also a nuclear war. 320 tons of depleted uranium were used against Iraq in 1991.10 A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome.11 The Gulf War Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War I vets have now developed incapacitating illnesses.12 To date, 209,000 vets have filed claims for disability benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat in that war.13
 
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes in their organs, bones, brains and urine.14 Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings.
 
In other studies, some sick vets were found to be expressing uranium in even their semen. Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.15
 
Nothing compares to the astronomical cancer rates and birth defects suffered by the Iraqi people who have endured vicious nuclear chastisement for years.16 U.S. air attacks against Iraq since 1993 have undoubtedly employed nuclear munitions. Pictures of grotesquely deformed Iraqi infants born since 1991 are overwhelming.17 Like those born to Gulf War I vets, many babies born to troops now in Iraq will also be afflicted with hideous deformities, neurological damage and/or blood and respiratory disorders.18
 
As an Army health physicist, Dr. Doug Rokke was dispatched to the Middle East to salvage DU-contaminated tanks after Gulf War I. His Geiger counters revealed that the war zones of Iraq and Kuwait were contaminated with up to 300 millirems an hour in beta and gamma radiation plus thousands to millions of counts per minute in alpha radiation. Rokke recently told the media: "The whole area is still trashed. It is hotter than heck over there still. This stuff doesn't go away."19
 
DU remains "hot" for 4.5 billion years. Radiation expert Dr. Helen Caldicott confirms that the dust-laden winds of DU-contaminated war zones "will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time."20 The murderous dust storms which ensnared coalition troops during the first few days of the current invasion are sure to have significant health consequences.
 
Rokke and his clean-up team were issued only flimsy dust masks for their dangerous work. Of the 100 people on Rokke's decontamination team, 30 have already "dropped dead." Rokke himself is ill with radiation damage to lungs and kidneys. He has brain lesions, skin pustules, chronic fatigue, continual wheezing and painful fibromyalgia. Rokke warns that anyone exposed to DU should have adequate respiratory protection and special coveralls to protect their clothing because, he says, you can't get uranium particles off your clothing.
 
The U.S. military insists that DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC that complaints about DU "had no medical basis."21 The military's own documents belie this. A 1993 Pentagon document warned that "when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk."22 A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within 25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and skin protection.23 The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences."24 The Institute also stated that, if the troops were to realize what they had been exposed to, "the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive."25 For pragmatic reasons, DOD chooses to lie and deny.
 
Dr. Rokke confirms that the Pentagon lies about DU dangers and is criminally negligent for neglecting medical attention needed by DU-contaminated vets. He predicts that the numbers of American troops to be sickened by DU from Gulf War II will be staggering.26 As they gradually sicken and suffer a slow burn to their graves, the Pentagon will, as it did after Gulf War I, deny that their misery and death is a result of their tour in Iraq.
 
Dr. Rokke's candor has cost him his career. Likewise, Dr. Durakovic's radiation studies on Gulf War I vets were not popular with U.S. officials. Dr. Durakovic was reportedly told his life was in danger if he continued his research. He left the U.S. to continue his research abroad.27
 
Naive young coalition soldiers now in Iraq are likely unaware of how deadly their battlefield environment is. Gulf War I troops were kept in ignorance. Soldiers handled DU fragments and some wore these lethal nuggets around their necks. A DU projectile emits more radiation in five hours than allowed in an entire year under civilian radiation exposure standards. "We didn't know any better," Kris Kornkven told Nation magazine. "We didn't find out until long after we were home that there even was such a thing as DU."28
 
George Bush's ongoing war in Afghanistan is also a nuclear war. Shortly after 9-11, the U.S. announced it would stockpile tactical nuclear weapons including small neutron bombs, nuclear mines and shells suited to commando warfare in Afghanistan.29 In late September, 2001, Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin agreed that the U.S. would use tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan while Putin would employ nuclear weapons against the Chechnyans.30
 
Describing the Pentagon's B-61-11 burrowing nuke bomb, George Smith writes in the Village Voice: "Built ram tough with a heavy metal casing for smashing through the earth and concrete, the B-61 explodes with the force of an estimated 340,000 tons of TNT. It is lots of bang for the buck, literally two apocalypse bombs in one, a boosted plutonium firecracker called the primary and a heavy hydrogen secondary for that good old-fashioned H-bomb fireball."31
 
Drought-stricken Afghanistan's underground water supply is now contaminated by these nuclear weapons.32 Experts with the Uranium Medical Research Center report that urine samples of Afghanis show the highest level of uranium ever recorded in a civilian population. Afghani soldiers and civilians are reported to have died after suffering intractable vomiting, severe respiratory problems, internal bleeding and other symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning. Dead birds still perched in trees are found partially melted with blood oozing from their mouths.33
 
Afghanistan's new president, Hamid Karzai, is a puppet installed by Washington. Under the protection of American soldiers, Karzai's regime is setting a new record for opium production. Both UN and U.S. reports confirm that the huge Afghani opium harvest of 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer.34 Thanks to nuclear weapons, Afghanistan is now safe for the Bush-Cheney narcotics industry.35 ABC News asserts that keeping the "peace" in Afghanistan will require decades of allied occupation.36 For years to come, "peacekeepers" will be eating, drinking and breathing the "hot" carcinogenic pollution they have helped the Pentagon inflict upon that nation for organized crime.
 
As governor of Arkansas during the Iran-Contra era, Bill Clinton laundered $multi-millions in cocaine profits for then vice-president George Bush Sr.37 As a partner in the Bush family's notorious crime machine, President Clinton committed U.S. troops to NATO's campaign in the Balkans, a prime heroin production and trans-shipment area. DOD's campaign to control and reorganize the drug trade there for the Bush mafia was yet another nuclear project.
 
For years, the U.S. and NATO fired DU missiles, bullets and shells across the Balkans, nuking the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. As DU munitions were slammed into chemical plants, the environment became hideously toxic, also endangering the peoples of Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, Austria and Hungary. By 1999, UN investigators reported that an estimated 12 tons of DU had caused irreparable damage to the Yugoslavian environment, with agriculture, livestock and air water, and public health all profoundly damaged.38
 
Scientists confirm that citizens of the Balkans are excreting uranium in their urine.39 In 2001, a Yugoslavian pathologist reported that hundreds of Bosnians have died of cancer from NATO's DU bombardment.40 Many NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans now suffer ill health. Their leukemias, cancers and other maladies are dubbed the "Balkans Syndrome." Richard Coghill predicts that DU weapons used in Balkans campaign will result in at least 10,000 cases of fatal cancer.41
 
U.S. citizens at home are also paying a heavy price for criminal militarism gone mad. DOD is a pollution monster. The General Accounting Office (GAO) found 9,181 dangerous military sites in USA that will require $billions to rehabilitate. The GAO reports that DOD has been both slothful and deceitful in its clean-up obligations.42 The Pentagon is now pressing Congress to exempt it from all environmental laws so that it may pollute and poison free from liability.43
 
The Navy uses prime fishing grounds off the coast of Washington state to test fire DU ammunition. In January, Washington State Rep. Jim McDermott chastised the Navy: "On one hand you have required soldiers to have DU safety training and to wear protective gear when handling DU...and submarines must stay clear of DU-contaminated waters. These policies indicate there is cause for concern....On the other hand the Department of Defense has repeatedly denied that DU poses any danger whatsoever. There has been no remorse about leaving tons of DU equipment in the soil in foreign countries, and there appears to be no remorse about leaving it in the waters of your own country."44
 
DU has been used in military practice maneuvers in Indiana, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Maryland and Puerto Rico. After the Navy tested DU weaponry on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, one third of the island's population developed serious illness. Many people show high levels of uranium in their bodies. Hundreds have filed a class action suit against the Navy for $100 million, claiming DU contamination has caused widespread cancers.45
 
The Navy's Fallon Naval Air Station near Fallon, Nevada, is a quagmire of 26 toxic waste sites. It is also a target practice zone for DU bombs and missiles. Area residents report bizarre illnesses, including 17 children who have contracted leukemia within five years. A survey of groundwater in the Fallon area showed nearly half of area wells are contaminated with radioactive materials.46
 
The materials for DU weaponry have been processed mainly at three nuclear plants in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where workers handling uranium contaminated with plutonium have suffered for decades with cancers and debilitating maladies similar to Gulf War Syndrome.47
 
Emboldened by power-grabbing successes made possible by his administration's devious 9-11 project, President Bush asserts that the U.S. has the right to attack any nation it deems a potential threat. He told West Point in 2002, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."48 Thus, it is certain that Bush-Cheney future pre-emptive nuclear wars are lined up like idling jetson a runway. Both Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and the Bush family's Carlyle Group are profiteers in U.S. defense contracts, so endless war is just good business.49
 
The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon will create special nuclear weapons for use on North Korea's underground nuclear facilities.50 Next August, U.S. war makers will meet to consolidate plans for a new generation of "mini," "micro" and "tiny" nuclear bombs and bunker busters. These will be added to the U.S. arsenal perhaps for use against non-nuclear third-world nations such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon.51
 
The solution? Americans must stop electing ruthless criminals to rule this nation. We must convince fellow citizens that villains like Saddam Hussein are made in the U.S. as rationale for endless corporate war profits. Saddam was placed in power by the CIA.52 For years U.S. government agencies, under auspices of George Bush Sr., supplied him with chemical and biological weapons.53 Our national nuclear laboratories, along with Unisys, Dupont and Hewlett-Packard, sold Saddam materials for his nuclear program.54 Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the late 90s when its subsidiaries signed $73 million in new contracts to further supply Saddam.55 The wicked villain of Iraq was nurtured for decades as a cash-cow by U.S. military-industrial piranhas.
 
If America truly supports its troops, it must stop sending them into nuclear holocaust for the enrichment of thugs. Time is running out. If the DU-maniacs at the Pentagon and their coven of nuclear arms peddlers are not harnessed, America will have no able-bodied fighting forces left. All people of the earth will become grossly ill, hideously deformed and short- lived. We must succeed in the critical imperative to face reality and act decisively. Should we fail, there will be no place to hide from Bush-Cheney's merciless nuclear orgies yet to come or from the inevitable nuclear retaliation these orgies will surely breed.
 
Endnotes
 
1."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service, 8-13-99.
 
2."Nukes of the Gulf War,"John Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at www.gulfwarvets.com.
 
3. BBC News, "US To Use Depleted Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92.
 
4."Nukes of the Gulf War," op. cit.
 
5. Ibid.
 
6. "Invading Hiroshima," William Thomas, 2-4-2003, www.willthomas.net
 
7. "US Shells Leave Lethal Legacy," Toronto Star, July 31, 1999; also "Radiation Tests for Peacekeepers in the Balkans Exposed to Depleted Uranium," www.telegraph.co.uk, 12-31-02.
 
8. "Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99.
 
9. "Navy Seeks Cash for More Tomahawks," David Rennie in Washington, Telegraph Group Limited, 1-4-03, news.telegraph.co.uk.
 
10. "Going Nuclear in Iraq--DU Cancers Mount Daily," Ramzi Kysia, CounterPunch.org, 12-31-01.
 
11."Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01, www.guardianlimited.co.uk.
 
12. "Gulf War Illnesses Affect 300,000 Vets," Ellen Tomson, Pioneer Press, www.pioneerplanet.com. See also American Gulf War Veterans Association at www.gulfwarvets.com.
 
13. "2 of Every 5 Gulf War Vets Are On Disability: 209,000 Make VA Claims," World Net Daily, 1-28-03, WorldNetDaily.com.
 
14. "Research on Sick Gulf Vets Revisited, "New York Times, 1-29-01; "Tests Show Gulf War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Jonathon Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier, The Sunday Times (UK) 9-3-02.
 
15. "Catastrophe: Ill Gulf Vets Contaminated Partners With DU," The Halifax Herald Limited, Clare Mellor, 2-09-01. This article is available in archives at www.rense.com.
 
16. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02; "US Depleted Uranium Yields Chamber of Horrors in Southern Iraq, Andy Kershaw, The Independent (London) 12-4-01.
 
17. "The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Gulf War Region with Special References to Iraq," Ross Mirkarimi, The Arms Control Research Centre, May 1992. See also Gulf War Syndrome Birth Defects in Iraq at www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html.
 
18. "The Tiny Victims of Desert Storm, Has Our Country Abandoned Them?," Life Magazine, November 1995; "Birth Defects Killing Gulf War Babies," Los Angeles Times, 11-14-94; "Depleted Uranium, The Lingering Poison," Alex Kirby, BBC News Online, 6-7-99.
 
19. "Depleted Uranium, A Killer Disaster," Travis Dunn, Disaster News.net, 12-29-02.
 
20. San Francisco Chronicle, 10-10-02.
 
21. "US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03.
 
22. "Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01.
 
23. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02.
 
24. "US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03.
 
25. US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995.
 
26. "Pentagon Depleted Uranium No Health Risk," Dr. Doug Rokke, 3-15-03; also "The Terrible, Tragic Toll of Depleted Uranium," Address by Dr. Rokke before congressional leaders in Washington, D.C.,12-30-02; also "Gulf War Casualties," Dr. Doug Rokke, www.traprockpeace.org. 9-30-02.
 
27."Tests Show Gulf War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Sunday Times (UK), Jonathon Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier, 9-3-00.
 
28. "The Pentagon's Radioactive Bullet: An Investigative Report," Bill Mesler, The Nation, 5-28-99, see www.thenation.com/ issue/961021/1021mesl.htm.
 
29. "Tactical Nukes Deployed In Afghanistan," World Net Daily, 10-7-01. 30. Ibid.
 
31. "The B-61 Bomb,The Burrowing Nuke" George Smith,VillageVoice.com 12-29-02.; also "Bunker-busting US Tactical Nuclear Bombs, Nowhere to Hide," Kennedy Grey, Wired.com, 10-9-01.
 
32."Perpetual Death From America," Mohammed Daud Miraki, Afghan-American Interviews, 2-24-03; also "Dying of Thirst," Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 11-17-2001.
 
33. Ibid.
 
34. "Afghanistan Displaces Myanmar as Top Heroin Producer," Agence France-Presse, 3-01-03. This article is at www.copvcia.com.;also "Opium Trade Flourishing In the `New Afghanistan,'" Reuters, 3-3-03.
 
35. "The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire," Michael C. Ruppert, Nexus Magazine, February-March 2000; The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill & Co., revised edition due May 2003; Drugging of America, Rodney Stich, Diablo Western Press, 1999; "Blood for Oil, Drugs for Arms," Bob Djurdjevic, Truth In Media, April 2000, www.truthinmedia.org. 36. ABC News, February 27, 2003.
 
37. Compromised, Clinton Bush and the CIA, Terry Reed and John Cummings, S.P.I. Books, 1994; The Clinton Chronicles and The Mena Cover-up, Citizens for Honest Government, 1996; "The Crimes of Mena, Grey Money," Ozark Gazette, 1995 (see www.copvcia.com.)
 
38. "Damage to Yugoslav Environment is Immense, Says a UN Report," Bob Djurdjevic, 7-4-99, truthinmedia.org. This report was submitted to the UN Security Council on June 9, 1999; also, "New Depleted Uranium Study Shows Clear Damage," BBC News,8-28-99; also "NATO Issued Warning About Toxic Ammo," Associated Press, 01-08-01.
 
39. CounterPunch.org, 12-28-01.
 
40. "Hundreds Died of Cancer After DU Bombing--Doctor," Reuters, 1-13-01.
 
41."Depleted Uranium Threatens Balkan Cancer Epidemic," BBC News, 7-30-99.
 
42. "Many Defense Sites Still Hazardous," Associated Press, 9-24-02; also Old US Weapons Called Hidden Danger, Los Angeles Times, 11-25-02.
 
43. "Pentagon Seeks Freedom to Pollute Land, Air and Sea," Andrew Gumbel in L.A., 3-13-03, Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.
 
44. "Radioactive DU Ammo Is Tested in Fish Areas," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1-11-03; Letter from Rep. McDermott to Department of the Navy: see "Navy Fired DU Rounds Into Waters Off Coast of Washington," 1-20-03, rense.com.
 
45."Cancer Rates Soar From US Military Use of DU On `Enchanted Island,'" www.telegraph.co.uk, 2-5-01; also "Navy Shells With Depleted Uranium Fired in Puerto Rico," Fox News Online, 5-28-99.
 
46. "The Fallon, NV Cancer Cluster And a US Navy Bombing," Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch.org, 8-10-02.
 
47. "DU Shells Are Made of A Potentially Lethal Cocktail of Nuclear Waste," Jonathon Carr-Brown, www.sunday-times.co.uk, 1-22-01.
 
48. "Preventative War Sets Perilous Precedent," Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers, 3-20-03.
 
49. PIGS at the Trough, Arriana Huffington, Random House, 2003 (New York Times best seller.); also "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy, From Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden Insider Connections and the Bush Family's Partnership With Killers of Americans;" Mike Ruppert, From the Wilderness,10-10-01; also "Bush Sr.'s Carlyle Group Gets Fat on War and Conflict," Jamie Doward, The Observer (UK), 3-25-03; also "Halliburton Wins Contract for Iraq Oil Firefighting, Reuters, 3-7-03; also "Cashing In-Fortunes in Profits Await Bush Circle After Iraq War, Andrew Gumbel, The Independent (London) 9-15-02; also "War Could Be Big Business for Halliburton," Reuters, 3-23-03.
 
50. "Pentagon Seeks a Nuclear Digger," Washington Post, March 10, 2003.
 
51. "Remember: Bush Planed Iraq War Before Taking Office," Neil Mackay, The Sunday Herald (UK) 3-27-03; also "US Mini-Nukes Alarm Scientists," The Guardian (UK) 4-18-01; also "US Nuclear First-Strike Plan--It Keeps Getting Scarier, Jeffrey Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, 2-24-03.
 
52. Wall Street Journal, 8-16-90: The CIA supported the Baath Party and installed Hussein as Iraqi dictator in 1968.
 
53. "United States Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and Their Impact on the Health of Persian Gulf War Veterans," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 1992, 1994; "U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup," Washington Post, 12-30-02.
 
54. "US Government, 24 US Corps Illegally Helped Iraq Build Its WMD," Hugh Williamson in Berlin, Financial Times, 12-19-02; "Full List of US Weapons Suppliers To Iraq," Anu de Monterice, coachanu@earthlink.net, 12-19-02.
 
55. Huffington, op. cit.
 
Amy Worthington is a reporter for The Idaho Observer Observer@coldreams.com

..."Support the Troops". Yeah, right.

In the last decade, international interest in the health and environmental effects of depleted uranium (DU) munitions has steadily increased. Veterans’ organizations in the United States and Europe have expressed concern about the long-term effects of depleted uranium on their health. Humanitarian and environmental organizations have called attention to the potential health and environmental impacts in areas where DU munitions have been used. Politicians, scientists, and military officers from various nations have either downplayed or supported the public’s concerns. In addition, legal experts have offered conflicting opinions on the legal standing of depleted uranium under international humanitarian law.

The many uncertainties about the health and environmental consequences of the use of depleted uranium munitions have not been resolved despite increased investigation and research. Although DU has been shown to cause serious health effects in laboratory animals, evidence of similar effects in humans is lacking, due at least in part to the near absence of studies on exposed soldiers and civilians. Similarly, the environmental effects of DU are unclear due to a lack of timely battlefield assessments, although even proponents of DU munitions agree that contaminated areas should be identified and potentially cleaned up.

Despite limitations in the status of knowledge about depleted uranium, it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions about its effects. The use of DU munitions in combat may result in localized contamination of equipment, infrastructure, air, soil, and water in the form of fragments and a fine dust. Depleted uranium persists in the environment and will disperse over time unless the contamination is cleaned up. Under certain conditions, people may be exposed to amounts of DU that could cause short- and long-term health effects.

While most investigations have exclusively examined the health and environmental effects of DU, there is increasing interest in the legal standing of depleted uranium under international humanitarian law. Depleted uranium munitions are not covered by any specific treaties, and their limited use has not given rise to any recognized customary norm, but some observers have suggested that their use and effects may violate certain articles of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions pertaining to superfluous injury to humans or excessive damage to the environment.[2]

This paper provides a brief description of depleted uranium and its use in weapons. Several exposure scenarios are described, and examples of the use of DU ammunition in training, testing, and combat are provided. A summary of depleted uranium’s health and environmental effects follows, and the paper concludes with a brief analysis of the legal standing of DU munitions under international humanitarian law.

Depleted Uranium and its Uses
Depleted uranium is the waste product of two processes related to the nuclear fuel cycle. DU is created when natural uranium is “enriched” to produce fissionable material for reactors and nuclear weapons. In addition, if spent nuclear fuel from power reactors is recycled, the resulting waste is added to DU stockpiles. Depleted uranium from both sources is chemically toxic and radioactive (predominantly high energy but short-range alpha particles). Additionally, depleted uranium created from the recycling of nuclear fuel may contain trace amounts of plutonium and other highly radioactive transuranics.[3]

Historically, uranium and depleted uranium have been used in the coloring of ceramics and glass, in the production of dental porcelains, and as a chemical catalyst.[4] The discovery of nuclear fission in 1938 vastly increased the mining and processing of uranium, and consequently enlarged the production and supply of depleted uranium. After World War II, increased production of enriched uranium for nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons created large stockpiles of depleted uranium in the United States.

The development of depleted uranium munitions began in the early 1960s in the United States. Weapons manufacturers experimented with the use of high-density alloys of depleted uranium in armor-piercing ammunition known as kinetic energy penetrators. This ammunition is simply a solid rod of dense metal stabilized by tail fins; there is no explosive charge. The large energy of motion (kinetic energy) of the rod, traveling at speeds up to 1.8 kilometers per second, is sufficient to punch a hole in the armor of tanks.[5]

Kinetic energy penetrators are designed for use against armored targets, such as tanks. The armor on modern battle tanks may resist penetration by conventional high-explosive ammunition shot from ground vehicles and aircraft, but kinetic energy penetrators and precision guided missiles generally have sufficient penetrating power to disable or destroy armored vehicles. The vast majority of the world’s armies use kinetic energy penetrators made from tungsten alloy,[6] which has slightly less penetrating ability than depleted uranium, but vastly fewer health, environmental, and political problems are associated with its use.

The United States became the first nation to develop and deploy depleted uranium munitions,[7] but the British were not far behind.[8] The United States military currently employs depleted uranium in armor for the Abrams tank and ammunition fired from tanks, fighting vehicles, and aircraft.[9] A small amount is also used as a catalyst in certain mines.[10] Although some U.S. missiles contain DU,[11] Tomahawk cruise missiles apparently do not include any depleted uranium.[12] Companies in the United Kingdom, France, the Russian Federation, and Pakistan also produce large-caliber (105, 120, 125 mm) tank ammunition made from depleted uranium.[13] In addition, the list of nations known or suspected of possessing depleted uranium ammunition includes Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Thailand and Taiwan.[14]

Battlefield Use and Exposure
Depleted uranium ammunition is generally used against armored targets (such as tanks and fighting vehicles) and artillery.[15] The energy of the impact of a DU round against a hard target causes roughly 20% of a DU penetrator to vaporize into an extremely fine, respirable-size dust, resulting in contamination of the impact site out to approximately 50 meters.[16] Small amounts of depleted uranium dust will also travel downwind. Depleted uranium rounds that miss the intended target may deposit in soil or water and corrode at varying rates depending on local conditions.[17]

Soldiers who survive an attack by DU ammunition may have wounds containing DU metal and dust. In addition, they will likely have inhaled and/or ingested amounts of depleted uranium dust far exceeding recommended limits on intake.[18] People who subsequently come in contact with contaminated equipment, such as children or scavengers, may also inhale or ingest DU dust or find and collect fragments of depleted uranium metal. A 1995 article in the U.S. Army magazine Armor offers practical advice on minimizing exposure to depleted uranium: “If you find radioactive DU contamination on a vehicle, move the vehicle to a site away from water sources, food storage or eating areas, and occupied bivouac sites…Of course, always keep personnel away from contaminated equipment or terrain unless required to complete the mission.”[19]

Testing, Training, and Combat Uses
Depleted uranium munitions were developed and tested for about thirty years before they were used in combat. In the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues licenses to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, which allow them to possess and use DU munitions at specific locations.[20] These licenses generally require training for workers and the posting of warning signs in areas containing depleted uranium.

Disposal of depleted uranium from testing and training ranges is controlled by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA) and its amendments and by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. According to the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, “the Army must manage expended DU ammunition and vehicles contaminated with DU according to LLRWPA.”[21]

Within the United States, areas contaminated with depleted uranium are generally either fenced off to restrict public access, or cleaned up through the removal of tons of contaminated soil and debris. Examples of DU sites include:

· Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada: The U.S. Air Force posts radioactive contamination warning signs on target vehicles shot by DU rounds, and it periodically removes solid penetrators from the soil.[22]

· Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: The U.S. Army is overseeing the removal of tons of DU fragments and contaminated soil from a test firing range.[23]

· Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana: The Army closed this testing range in 1995. The former firing range is contaminated with approximately 69,000 kg/DU. It is now fenced off, access is restricted, and it has been declared a National Wildlife Refuge.[24] Its future use is restricted to industrial or commercial applications; it cannot be used for residential or agricultural purposes, primarily due to the presence of depleted uranium.[25]

Contaminated soil is normally containerized and shipped to a low-level radioactive waste repository.

Two training incidents involving depleted uranium illustrate the conduct of the United States with respect to inadvertent non-combat releases of depleted uranium. In December 1995 and January 1996, U.S. jets accidentally shot 1,500 depleted uranium rounds (225 kg/DU) at an uninhabited island training range located 100 km west of Okinawa in the East China Sea.[26] Though the release of such a small amount of depleted uranium so far from the mainland posed no risk to the Japanese people, the U.S. Air Force quickly sent a team of scientists to the island to clean up as much depleted uranium as they could find.[27] When a Japanese newspaper uncovered the incident, groups opposing the U.S. military presence on Okinawa pointed to the use of DU rounds as evidence of the military’s disregard for the environment. However, the Air Force’s unilateral decision to clean up the expended DU rounds immediately was precisely the appropriate action to take.

A second incident occurred on February 19, 1999, when two U.S. jets shot 263 rounds of 25mm DU ammunition (39 kg/DU) at Vieques, Puerto Rico.[28] Since the use of depleted uranium at Vieques violated the license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the Navy for use of depleted uranium, the Navy promptly dispatched scientists to recover the DU rounds[29], even though the remote location and small amount of DU released most likely present no risk to the health of the island’s inhabitants.[30]

The 1991 Gulf War was the first conflict to see the battlefield use of depleted uranium munitions.[31] American aircraft and American and British tanks shot approximately 850,000 small caliber and 9,600 large caliber DU rounds (286,000 kg/DU) in Kuwait and southern Iraq.[32] Although the use of depleted uranium by the Abrams tank received the most post-war hype by Pentagon officials, American A-10 aircraft shot 83% of the total depleted uranium (by weight) released during the war.

Of the tens of thousands of coalition soldiers in Kuwait and southern Iraq at war’s end, only approximately three dozen U.S. battle damage assessment and radiation control team members knew how to identify equipment contaminated by DU and were aware of the need to wear protective clothing.[33] These personnel identified and gathered contaminated U.S. vehicles in Saudi Arabia and checked captured Iraqi tanks for DU prior to shipment to the United States.[34]

In accordance with the recommendation of the Army’s “DU Assessment Team,” six Bradley Fighting Vehicles were buried in Saudi Arabia “based on the observed damage and radiological measurements which indicated substantial non-removable depleted uranium contamination within the hull, turret, and crew compartment.”[35] The remaining Abrams tanks and Bradleys were wrapped in tarps and shipped to a new $4 million decontamination facility in Barnwell, South Carolina. Workers wearing protective suits decontaminated some vehicles, but the more heavily contaminated equipment was buried in a nearby radioactive waste dump.[36] The Kuwaiti government hired foreign contractors to gather destroyed Iraqi equipment in its territory, including vehicles contaminated with depleted uranium, in an area of its western desert.[37] The Iraqi government does not appear to have taken any steps to identify or manage contaminated equipment on its lands.

Subsequent uses of depleted uranium ammunition took place during conflicts in the Balkans. In 1994-1995, American A-10 aircraft shot approximately 10,800 rounds in Bosnia, containing 3,260 kg of depleted uranium.[38] In 1999, American A-10 aircraft shot approximately 31,000 DU rounds in Kosovo, Serbia, and Montengro, containing 9,360 kg of depleted uranium in Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro.[39]

Few of the rounds shot in the Balkans are believed to have impacted a hard surface with the energy required to create significant amounts of respirable size aerosol. During a typical attack, only 5 to 10 percent of the rounds shot from an A-10 typically hit a target.[40] The low hit rate was compounded in the Balkans by the fact that many of the attacks made on what appeared to be Serb tanks in fact were aimed at wooden replicas.[41] Errant rounds likely deposited in buildings, soil, or water, and may have subsequently corroded.[42] The use of depleted uranium munitions in other conflicts, such as the Russian war in Chechnya or the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, is uncertain.

The amount of depleted uranium released in a given area during combat may vary widely. During the Gulf War, American tanks and aircraft sometimes engaged dozens of Iraqi tanks in relatively small areas, potentially resulting in large concentrations (hundreds of kg) of depleted uranium dust and debris. In Kosovo, U.S. A-10 aircraft fired between 50 and 2,320 rounds of 30mm ammunition at individual ground targets, representing releases of 15kg to 700kg at various locations.[43] In general, the greatest potential for health and environmental effects of depleted uranium takes place in a small area where large amounts of depleted uranium are used to destroy multiple targets, creating large amounts of depleted uranium dust and debris.

Health and Environmental Effects
The potential environmental and health effects of depleted uranium depend upon a number of factors including: the quantity released; the amount oxidized; the size of the area contaminated; the local air, soil and water conditions and characteristics; and the amount and method of cleanup. The use of depleted uranium munitions may directly expose human populations to DU dust and debris, contaminate food and water supplies, or, if the release is large enough, limit the use of land for agriculture or human habitation.

Most depleted uranium dust will settle in the area immediately surrounding the impact, but small amounts of respirable size DU dust may travel downwind. The hazard to downwind populations depends on the quantity of respirable depleted uranium released, its size, the strength of the wind, and the distance from the point of release. The risk decreases appreciably as the distance from the release increases,[44] but airborne depleted uranium has been shown to travel tens of kilometers.

A 1979 study at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in upstate New York unexpectedly found DU particles in 16 air filters at 3 different locations. The source of the DU particles proved to be the National Lead Industries munitions plant in Colonie, NY, which manufactured 30 mm DU rounds for the U.S. Air Force. Three of the 16 air filters containing DU were located 41 km (26 miles) from the National Lead plant.[45]

Environmental monitoring at U.S. manufacturing plants and test ranges has measured the movement of depleted uranium in surface and groundwater. In 1997, a rainstorm dislodged depleted uranium buried under concrete slabs at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. The depleted uranium had been buried years before during nuclear weapons development. The rain and groundwater scattered the depleted uranium in an adjacent flood plain, requiring the clean up of more than 4,000 barrels of contaminated soil.[46] At the Starmet (formerly Nuclear Metals) munitions plant in Concord, Massachusetts, hundreds of tons of depleted uranium scrap dumped in pits during the manufacturing of 30mm DU rounds has contaminated underground drinking water supplies.[47]

Conversely, the United Nations Environment Programme did not find any signs of depleted uranium in 46 water samples collected from 10 sites in Kosovo where DU ammunition was expended,[48] although it did recommend continued monitoring of groundwater in areas where hundreds of kilograms of DU had been released.[49]

Depleted uranium particles in the air, water, and soil may contaminate plants. Plant surfaces may become contaminated by DU dust, and plants growing in contaminated soil may absorb DU through their roots. The effects of DU on ecosystem function remain unclear, although contamination of farmland with uranium may have a detrimental effect on the productivity of wheat.[50]

Contamination of plants and animals may present a hazard to human populations who live in or secure food supplies from areas containing DU dust and debris. The World Health Organization notes:

Data regarding bio-uptake of uranium into plants and animals indicates that bioaccumulation factors, while not being high may be in some cases significant over the longer term, particularly where local consumption patterns indicate a preference for foodstuffs shown to potentially bioaccumulate uranium (i.e. kidneys of cattle).[51]

Although consumption of contaminated food and water presents a risk to human health, the greatest hazard is the direct incorporation of DU into the body through inhalation, injection, ingestion, or wound contamination.

Depleted uranium poses an external radiation hazard if the metal is collected and kept close to the body for days on end, but it is most dangerous if it enters the body through inhalation or wounds. Inside the body, depleted uranium’s chemical and radiological properties may act independently or cooperatively to cause immediate or delayed health problems. Research on human and animal populations exposed to uranium and depleted uranium has identified several potential health outcomes. These include cancer, immune system damage, nervous system disease, kidney dysfunction, non-malignant respiratory disease, and reproductive effects.[52]

Recent investigations by the World Health Organization and The Royal Society (U.K.) acknowledge the potential for depleted uranium to cause cancer in exposed humans if sufficient amounts of depleted uranium are incorporated into the body.[53] However, both the World Health Organization and the Royal Society downplay the risk of cancer development from brief exposures to small amounts of depleted uranium.

The U.S. Department of Defense conservatively estimates that approximately 866 to 932 American soldiers had moderate to heavy exposures during the Gulf War, including 104 soldiers who were inside vehicles at the time they were struck by DU penetrators.[54] In addition, the Department of Defense estimates untold “thousands” of other American veterans may have inhaled or ingested small amounts of depleted uranium during inspection and routine entry of contaminated vehicles.[55] However, the health effects, if any, of exposure to depleted uranium among U.S. veterans are unclear.

In nearly eight years of existence (1993-2001), the U.S. study of exposed Gulf War veterans has examined a total of just 60 veterans.[56] In 2001, while European governments assessed the health of tens of thousands of their soldiers who served in the Gulf and the Balkans,[57] the Depleted Uranium Program examined only 39 Gulf War veterans.[58]

Among 51 veterans examined by the DU Program in 1999, at least one had Hodgkin’s lymphoma[59] and a second had a bone tumor.[60] Another veteran, believed to have had a heavy exposure to depleted uranium when his vehicle was penetrated during the Gulf War, has reported fathering two children born with health problems since the war, although this veteran is not included in the U.S. study.[61]

Despite the presence of records on the Pentagon’s own web site confirming the existence of cancer among veterans in the U.S. study, Pentagon spokesmen have repeatedly lied about this topic. In January 2001, when European concerns about depleted uranium used in the Balkans hit a fevered pitch, Pentagon spokesman Dr. Michael Kilpatrick told the Ambassadors of the North Atlantic Council and the NATO press corps: “We have seen no cancers or leukemia in this group, which has been followed since 1993.”[62] At a depleted uranium conference in June 2001 in Germany, U.S. Army Colonel Francis O’Donnell similarly told scientists from a dozen European governments that there have been no cancers among the 60 veterans examined by the Depleted Uranium Program since 1993.[63] These denials are apparently part of a Pentagon effort to downplay public concerns about the health and environmental effects of DU munitions. However, the Pentagon’s failure to acknowledge publicly the existence of cancer among the few veterans in the U.S. study raises the possibility that other cancers or health effects have been observed, but not publicly reported.

Though there has been no reliable scientific study of the fate of DU in southern Iraq, the Iraqi government has blamed depleted uranium for increased rates of cancers and birth defects among its southern population.[64] Anecdotal reports from journalists and human rights workers in Iraq indicate that civilians entered battlefield areas after the war in search of usable equipment and scrap metal.[65] While Iraqi people may have been exposed to depleted uranium during and after combat, in the last two decades they have also likely been exposed to a variety of other toxins including industrial pollution and chemical warfare agents used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.[66] In April 2001, the World Health Organization and the government of Iraq agreed to a framework for studies of depleted uranium and other environmental health risks. The studies will investigate diseases including cancer and birth defects, DU measurements in affected people, and exposure prevention and research.[67]

Preliminary studies of NATO soldiers who served in the Balkans have found no evidence of health problems related to exposure to depleted uranium.[68]

Legal Analysis
Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering
Under certain conditions, the use of depleted uranium munitions may result in exposures to humans that cause acute or chronic illnesses or disease. Given the current state of knowledge, it appears a soldier inside a vehicle struck by one or more depleted uranium rounds will receive the highest possible exposure on a battlefield, followed by those who come to his or her rescue. However, it is not at all clear that a child who, some days later, climbs on and enters a contaminated vehicle – or two or three – will not be at a similar or greater risk for developing health problems as the soldier. Several questions arise. In either scenario, could the resultant disease constitute ‘superfluous injury’ or ‘unnecessary suffering’, as those terms are currently interpreted under international humanitarian law? In addition, how many people must be affected before the effects reach the threshold for a finding of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering?

The Preamble to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 describes as “contrary to the laws of humanity” the use of weapons that “uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable.”[69] This early codification of the laws of war proposes that it is sufficient to render men hors de combat without needlessly increasing their suffering or causing their death. With this principle in mind, the Declaration sought to prohibit any projectile of less than 400 grams, which “is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances,”[70] an ancient relic when compared to today’s cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives.

The Hague Regulations of 1907 declared, in Article 23, paragraph 1(e), that it is “especially forbidden” to “employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.”[71] Interpretation of this declaration turns on the word “calculated.” Indeed, depleted uranium may cause illness or disease in people, but its primary purpose is not to cause health effects. Depleted uranium munitions were carefully designed and tested to penetrate the armor on tanks, and to kill the occupants of those vehicles.[72] For these reasons, depleted uranium cannot be described as a weapon “calculated” to cause suffering in the sense that chemical or biological weapons are. Depleted uranium weapons are calculated to disable vehicles and kill people immediately. Any other effects are inadvertent and accidental, even if they are unnecessary and avoidable.

The key test of depleted uranium falls under Article 35 (Basic rules) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Paragraph 2 of this Article states: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”[73] This principle must also be read in conjunction with Paragraph 1: “In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.”[74]

According to Paragraph 1, a weapon must meet a threshold of necessity. That is, the weapon must serve a legitimate military purpose and be used in a manner that does not exceed the level of violence necessary to ensure the success of an operation.[75] In addition, military necessity must be in accordance with international law applicable to armed conflict, including the rules of the Protocol.[76]

The military necessity of depleted uranium has been strongly asserted by both the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.K. Ministry of Defense,[77] although assertions of necessity by the user of a weapon hardly establish its necessity as a fact. When these assertions are mentioned in the same breath with other statements about the superiority of depleted uranium over tungsten for armor penetration,[78] however, they do carry a probative value.

Evidence against the claim of military necessity is found is the fact that the vast majority of the world’s armies use armor-piercing penetrators made from tungsten alloy instead of depleted uranium.[79] While the reasons for the choice of tungsten vary,[80] the fact it is preferred over depleted uranium by a majority of nations does take some air out of the claims of DU manufacturers and users that its necessity is a foregone conclusion.

As it now stands, DU munitions appear to meet the military necessity threshold, although there are significant gaps in information. Depleted uranium munitions serve a legitimate military purpose (destruction of enemy vehicles), they are not normally used in a manner that exceeds the level of violence necessary to destroy enemy vehicles, and their use does not appear to violate any international treaties, customs, or case law applicable to armed conflict. When additional information emerges from an objective source to clarify the comparative advantages and disadvantages of tungsten and depleted uranium munitions, the necessity issue should be revisited.

Depleted uranium weapons could be considered illegal if they cause “unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury” not justified by their military utility. In this case, if the utility is “considerably outweighed”[81] by the suffering caused, the use of depleted uranium munitions could be considered to violate this principle. To date, there is little hard evidence of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering among combatants related to depleted uranium. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of those effects, however, but merely a sign of the lack of scientifically rigorous investigations of the health of soldiers and civilians exposed to depleted uranium.

Signs of the manifestation of excessive injury or suffering would be most likely to arise in veterans from both sides of the Gulf War, for several reasons:

Large quantities of DU munitions were used;
Scores or hundreds of vehicles were hit by DU rounds,[82] creating large amounts of DU dust;
Thousands of soldiers encountered destroyed equipment, some portion of which was potentially contaminated with depleted uranium; and
Soldiers had little or no knowledge of the presence of DU contamination or methods to avoid exposure.
Studies of the veterans from the Gulf War have been incomplete and inadequate. At least in the United States, this appears to be by design.[83]

Though the U.S. Department of Defense admits “thousands” of U.S. soldiers may have been exposed to depleted uranium, and while it places nearly 1000 in the moderate to high exposure categories, the U.S. study (jointly developed and funded by the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments) has inexplicably examined only 60 veterans in the decade since the war.[84] Some have described this phenomenon as “don’t look, don’t find”: if the government does not investigate the possible effects of depleted uranium on its soldiers, it can plausibly deny the existence of any evidence suggestive of adverse effects.[85]

A British study has not identified any excess cancer deaths among its Gulf War veterans,[86] but given that depleted uranium may have a ten to thirty year latency period for the development of cancer,[87] it is entirely possible that ‘superfluous’ cancers among exposed veterans have not yet manifested. The Iraqi claims of excessive cancers and birth defects due to depleted uranium merit investigation, but they should be taken in context of their source.

In Bosnia and Kosovo, few soldiers from any force were likely exposed to significant amounts of depleted uranium dust and debris for the simple reason that the vast majority of the rounds fired apparently impacted the ground, thereby minimizing contamination of equipment and the creation and spread of respirable size dust. Nonetheless, the Yugoslav government complained to the International Court of Justice that NATO’s use of depleted uranium during the Kosovo conflict was not only having unspecified “far-reaching consequences for human life,” but also was “deliberately creating conditions calculated at the physical destruction of an ethnic group, in whole or in part.”[88] Unfortunately, the Yugoslav and the Iraqi claims of damage contain little hard evidence to aid international assessments of the existence of superfluous injury.

If current and future investigations link the battlefield use of depleted uranium munitions to cancers, birth defects, or other diseases, it is possible depleted uranium would violate the superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering principle protecting combatants,[89] or rules condemning civilian casualties in excess of the expected military advantage anticipated from an attack.[90] However, it is not clear how many people must be affected before the threshold is crossed. If one soldier developed cancer from exposure to depleted uranium, is the standard met? How many civilians must develop diseases directly linked to depleted uranium to exceed the military advantage of an attack? How many children?



The British Royal Society provides the only reliable prediction of possible excess cancer deaths for combatants and civilians exposed to depleted uranium. For soldiers in the highest category of exposure (in or near vehicles at time of attack), the Royal Society predicts 12 excess lung cancer deaths per 10,000 persons exposed due solely to depleted uranium’s alpha radiation.[91] It is worth mentioning again the 1999 finding of one cancer and one bone tumor among 51 U.S. veterans with high DU exposures. While these diseases could plausibly be linked to DU, no nexus has been made.



The Royal Society cancer-death estimate also offers evidence that exposure to depleted uranium may theoretically result in cancers among combatants. For each 100,000 persons (combatant or civilian) with casual exposure to contaminated equipment, the Royal Society predicts only 2.5 excess cancer deaths.[92] This estimate is purely theoretical, but a prosecutor would be hard pressed to justify a claim that two excess cancer deaths among 100,000 people exceed the military necessity of an attack, which the user of DU munitions, at least, would argue was needed to protect three people or more.



If there is any risk to civilian populations, particularly where DU dust and debris are not cleaned up after a conflict, a reasonable minimum standard of behavior could include identification of contaminated areas to local populations, and posting of warning signs. Indeed, the need to carefully record the locations of minefields at sea[93] and minefields, mines, and booby-traps and on land[94] is recognized by international humanitarian law. A similar requirement for depleted uranium seems reasonable and wise.



Although no international law or treaty requires belligerents to report locations of DU use, it is worth mentioning that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization complied with a request from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to provide a map specifying the locations of DU expenditure in Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, along with quantities of rounds shot at each location.[95] The information was reluctantly provided fifteen months after the cessation of hostilities, but it was provided voluntarily. Authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Montenegro, and NATO subsequently posted warning signs at contaminated sites.

The World Health Organization has recommended cordoning off contaminated areas for testing and possible remediation.[96] The United Nations Environment Programme advises “the appropriate authorities” to undertake the marking of DU-affected sites and provide basic information about the hazard to the local population.[97] The British Royal Society notes “it should be incumbent on nations using DU munitions in future conflicts to advise the local population of the potential dangers of handling fragments of penetrators.”[98] These actions and advisories may reflect an emerging opinio juris on the need to warn civilian populations about areas of depleted uranium expenditure.

Some suggest the use of DU munitions is a war crime, but depleted uranium appears to fail the requirements for superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering included in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The crime of “wilfully causing great suffering” to “one or more persons”[99] can be dismissed, since any superfluous harm resulting from the use of DU munitions is inadvertent and not directly related to the intended use of the weapon. Similarly, there is no transgression of the crime of intentionally launching an attack with the knowledge that the attack would cause incidental death or injury to civilians, or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment, which is clearly excessive to the overall military advantage anticipated.[100] However, if depleted uranium munitions were to be listed among the prohibited “weapons, projectiles, or materials or methods of warfare”[101] in the Annex to the Statue, their use would constitute a crime under the ICC Statute.

In the absence of hard evidence from a scientifically rigorous investigation linking depleted uranium to specific health effects in exposed human populations, and clarification of the legal threshold for excessive or needless damage, depleted uranium can not be considered to violate rules prohibiting superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Widespread, long-term, and severe damage
Not even proponents of DU munitions argue that the release of depleted uranium into the environment might have positive effects. A 1990 U.S. Army report, unusual for its candor, notes: “Following combat, however, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic energy penetrators for military applications.”[102] This prediction appears to refer to the acceptability (or un-acceptability) of depleted uranium in the moral and political realms, but perhaps not the in the legal sphere.

The use of depleted uranium munitions generally results in localized areas of contamination around impacted vehicles, and contamination points where DU rounds hit or come to rest in soil or water. Depleted uranium persists in the environment, and over time geophysical and meteorological factors will corrode larger chunks of the metal and disperse particulate in the air, soil, or water. The risk to the environment is related to the amount of the release, the area contaminated, and the extent of measures to cleanup the contamination.

In the wake of the intentional environmental destruction that took place during the American war in Vietnam, international jurists sought to afford the environment greater protection under international humanitarian law.[103] By Article 35, para.3, and Art. 55, para. 1, the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits not only the intentional infliction of damage to the environment in the course of warfare, but also purely unintentional and incidental damage that is widespread, long-term, and severe.[104]

Article 35, para. 3, states: “It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”[105] Article 55, para. 1, similarly states:

Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby prejudice the health or survival of the population.[106]

Taken together, these articles endeavor to prevent catastrophic effects on the environment and collateral effects on public health.

The Article 35 provision is understood by some commentators to apply to the methods of war, while Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) is aimed at ensuring the survival or the health of the civilian population living in a particular wartime environment.[107] Article 55 appears to be more relevant to the discussion of depleted uranium, since the use of DU munitions does not itself cause serious disruption or damage to the environment. Under certain conditions the presence of contamination in the environment could potentially have effects on water and land use that prejudice, over a long term, the health of a civilian population. The usual collateral environmental damage caused by conventional warfare is excluded from these protections, but it is subject to the basic requirement of military necessity.[108]

The definitions of widespread, long-term, and severe are the essential elements of this prohibition. Unfortunately, the meaning of these terms is unclear. The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) sheds some light on this problem, but the thresholds for damage by ENMOD and Additional Protocol I are not identical and must be interpreted separately.[109] Nontheless, ENMOD defines “widespread” as encompassing an area of several hundred kilometers, and “severe” as involving serious or significant harm to human life or natural economic resources.[110] While ENMOD defines “long-term” as lasting a period of months, or approximately one season, the interpretation of “long-term” under the Protocol is understood to mean decades.[111] Under Protocol I, these terms are understood to collectively proscribe “a major interference with human life or natural resources which considerably exceeds the battlefield damage to be regularly expected in a war.”[112]

The vagueness of the determinative terminology complicates an interpretation of depleted uranium under these standards. Under certain conditions, such as the release of thousands of kilograms of depleted uranium in a confined valley, the effects on farmland and water supplies could be severe, but they would not appear to be widespread. Further, they are reversible, provided the area is decontaminated by removal of contaminated soil and treatment of contaminated water. Like landmines, the effects might last for decades, but they need not.

A more likely scenario, played out during combat in the Persian Gulf region and the Balkans, is the use of depleted uranium in varying amounts in disparate locations, in some cases resulting in the release of hundreds or a few thousand kilograms spread over areas of several kilometers, and in other cases resulting localized contamination by a few kilograms consisting of relatively little hazardous and transportable dust.

Ironically, the U.S. Department of Defense’s own conduct acknowledges the fact that depleted uranium can cause environmental harm. Cleanups or containment of current and former manufacturing, testing, and training ranges undertaken by the Defense Department within the United States are solidly grounded in municipal law requirements. The military’s prompt remediation of insignificant amounts of DU expended in Vieques and Japan reflect not a customary practice rooted in a sense of legal obligation, however, but sensitivity to the moral and political ramifications of the release of depleted uranium in communities actively opposing the U.S. military presence and activities. Although the U.S. removed its contaminated vehicles from Gulf War battlefields and buried or decontaminated them, the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute denies any legal obligation for battlefield cleanup of depleted uranium: “No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate the Persian Gulf War battlefields.”[113]

The lack of a reliable environmental assessment of the fate of depleted uranium in Kuwait and Iraq limits efforts to assess the environment impact in those areas. One U.S. Army assessment conducted in 1994 found small amounts of depleted uranium in the soil next to contaminated Iraqi tanks that had been gathered in western Kuwait. Some of the entry and exit holes on the tanks exhibited radioactivity levels 20 to 24 times above background. The Army concluded the DU posed little hazard to U.S. troops as long as soldiers did not work in the vicinity of contaminated tanks.[114]

Although most DU rounds shot in the Balkans apparently did not hit a hard target, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) significantly did not find widespread or severe damage from depleted uranium one and a half years after the war in Kosovo. UNEP has, however, recommended future monitoring of groundwater in areas of large DU expenditure.[115]

If the thresholds of widespread, long-term and severe damage could be clearly defined and quantifiable, it is conceivable the use of DU munitions could surpass them in certain circumstances. To date, however, evidence of the effects of the use of depleted uranium in combat does not substantiate a finding of widespread, long-term, and severe damage. In the context of the actual use of depleted uranium munitions in combat, therefore, depleted uranium munitions do not appear to violate rules of international humanitarian law for the protection of the environment.

Conclusion
During the last decade both the interest in and confusion over depleted uranium’s health and environmental effects have steadily grown. The governments of Iraq, Yugoslavia, and the United States have all engaged in reckless and unnecessary propaganda on this issue,[116] limiting genuine debate and scientifically rigorous investigation. Claims about the safety or harm of depleted uranium munitions have bounced between the continents, often on the coattails of other geopolitical issues.

Even the ardent defenders of depleted munitions acknowledge that under certain conditions DU may cause acute or chronic health problems. The United States, which is simultaneously the main producer, user, and proponent of DU munitions, places municipal law limits on the release of depleted uranium into the environment, including requirements for public warnings, restricted access, and in some cases remediation. These facts are not easily overlooked.

In an ideal world, the United States would warn civilian populations about areas of DU expenditure, and oversee or undertake cleanup of contaminated battlefields. The recent events of September 11 and its aftermath have provided us with a vivid reminder that this is not an ideal world. There is no consensus on international morality, let alone international law, therefore finding a common ground on depleted uranium is exceedingly difficult. It is not, however, impossible, as demonstrated by the recent success of international efforts to prevent the manufacture and use of land mines.

At this point in time there is a lack of hard evidence to determine conclusively whether depleted uranium causes health and environmental effects sufficient to violate rules of international humanitarian law. The absence of scientifically rigorous investigations of the effects of depleted uranium is a lacuna so large and readily apparent that it demands redress if the debate over depleted uranium’s effects is ever to be settled.

The most prudent course of action for those concerned about depleted uranium to take is to press for scientific studies of exposed populations and contaminated battlefield areas, while supporting local, national, and international efforts to identify and cleanup areas contaminated with depleted uranium. The use and effects of DU munitions deserve to be vigorously debated in the moral, scientific, and political realms. International law, however, is the improper forum at this time for a substantive discussion on depleted uranium, for the simple reason that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether depleted uranium’s effects cross the threshold of excessive and needless harm to human health or the environment. ■



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

[1] Dan Fahey has investigated depleted uranium munitions since 1994, currently independently and previously on behalf of Swords to Plowshares Veterans’ Rights Organization, the National Gulf War Resource Center, and the Military Toxics Project. He is currently a student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the United States.

[2] Since the debate over health and environmental effects is at the core of the depleted uranium controversy, other possible violations of international law (prohibiting against attacks on civilians populations, requiring the use of weapons to fulfill a military necessity, or requiring warnings to civilian populations) are discussed only in passing.

[3] U.S. Department of Energy, “Commercial Recycling of Uranium and Plutonium from Spent Fuel,” undated, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/special/comrecyc.html>; J.R. Hightower, et al, Strategy for Characterizing Transuranics and Technicium Contamination in Depleted UF6 Cylinders ORNL/TM-2000/242, (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 2000) 1.

[4] World Health Organization, Depleted uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (Geneva: WHO, 2001) 23.

[5] The Royal Society, The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions, Part I (London: The Royal Society, 2001) 2; R. Pengelley, “The DU Debate: what are the risks,” Jane’s Defence Weekly 15 January 2001.

[6] Jane’s Defence, “Depleted Uranium – FAQs”, 8 January 2001.

[7] Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME), Ad Hoc Working Group for Depleted Uranium, Special Report: Medical and Environmental Evaluation of Depleted Uranium, Volume 1, 1974, vi.

[8] Memorandum by the Ministry of Defence, “Anti-Armour Ammunition with Depleted Uranium Penetrators,” March 1979, 2.

[9] Large caliber 105 mm rounds are shot from M60-series tanks and first-generation M1 tanks; 120 mm ammunition is shot from M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The U.S. Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Marine Corps Light Amphibious Vehicle shoot 25 mm DU rounds. The Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier jet fires 25 mm DU rounds, and the Air Force’s A-10 aircraft shoots 30mm ammunition. The F-16 can be modified to an A-16 (“A” signifying “Attack”) with the addition of the GPU30 gun pod for close air support. Flown only by the New York National Guard’s 174th Tactical Fighter Wing, the A-16 flew only one Gulf War mission (on February 26, 1991), firing approximately 1,000 30mm DU rounds. The Navy uses 20 mm DU rounds for its Phalanx gun, but when its current stockpiles are expended, the Navy will use tungsten alloy munitions. The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 99-104.

[10] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 99-100.

[11] US Army Environmental Policy Institute, Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Army, Technical Report (Atlanta: AEPI, 1995) 25.

[12] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 100.

[13] T. Gander and C. Cutshaw, Eds., Jane’s Ammunition Handbook, 9th Edition, 2000-2001 (Surrey: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2000) 189, 226-227, 230, 231-232; “Pakistan joins DU producer nations,” Jane’s Land Forces, 9 May 2001, <http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/>; C. Foss, Ed., Jane’s Armour and Artillery, 2000-2001, 21st Edition (Surrey: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2000) 76.

[14] US Army Environmental Policy Institute, Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Army, Technical Report (Atlanta: AEPI, 1995) A-11. T. Gander and C. Cutshaw, Eds, Jane’s Ammunition Handbook, 9th Edition, 2000-2001 (Surrey: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2000) 190, 226.

[15] During the Gulf War, A-10 aircraft flew 3,367 flights against artillery and armor units; 175 strikes to destroy Iraqi electronic warfare and ground control intercept sites; 135 attacks against Scud missiles and launchers; 49 strikes to suppress enemy air defenses; and one mission in support of a search and rescue unit. In addition, A-10 aircraft shot down two Iraqi helicopters. U.S. Air Force, Gulf War Air Power Survey Vol. IV, Weapons, Tactics, and Training and Space Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993) 53-54.

[16] U.S. Army testing found normally 10-35% (but up to 70%) of the round oxidizes into an aerosol upon impact with a hard target. Twenty percent is commonly used to determine the amounts of dust created by an impact. The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 203.

[17] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 11, 119-122.

[18] The Royal Society, The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions, Part I (London: The Royal Society, 2001) 41-43. See also Annexe C of the Royal Society Report online at <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/du_c.pdf>.

[19] Pat Paulsen, “Depleted Uranium Without the Rocket Science,” Armor July-August 1995: 34.

[20] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 99.

[21] U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Army, Technical Report (Atlanta: AEPI, 1995) 71.

[22] U.S. Air Force, Air Combat Command, “Final Environmental Assessment for Resumption of Use of Depleted Uranium Rounds at Nellis Air Force Range Target 63-10”, (September 1998), 3-8, 3-9.

[23] Allied Technology Group, “Aberdeen Proving Ground: Transonic Range Depleted Uranium Study Area, Detailed Work Plan” (Oak Ridge, TN: September 1999), 1.

[24] The wildlife refuge covers a large area including the DU impact area. The DU impact area and other portions of the wildlife refuge also contain unexploded ordnance.

[25] Jefferson Proving Ground Restoration Advisory Board, “Meeting Minutes,” August 22, 2001, Madison, Indiana.

[26] U.S. Air Force, Detachment 3, Armstrong Laboratory, memorandum for 18th Medical Group, “Consultative Letter (CL), AL/OE-CL-1996-0004, Site Assessment at Aerial Gunnery Range Whiskey 176, Tori Shima, Japan,” 18 March 1996.

[27] Ibid.

[28] U.S. Department of the Navy, letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Subject: “Improper Expenditure of Depleted Uranium Munitions,” Washington, DC, 1 June 1999.

[29] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Technical Evaluation Report: U.S. Navy – Vieques Island Review of Survey Work Plan”, Atlanta, GA, 21 March 2000.

[30] See, e.g., Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Focused Petitioned Public Health Assessment, Drinking Water Supplies and Groundwater Pathways Evaluation, Isla de Vieques Bombing Range, Vieques, Puerto Rico,” Atlanta, GA, 20 February 2001, p. 10.

[31] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 1.

[32] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 102-106.

[33] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 7.

[34] “Radiological Survey Report on T72 Iraqi Captured Tank Located at Dammaam Port Facility” Report prepared by Douglas L. Rokke, 1LT, Medical Services Corps, undated.

[35] Memorandum to Senior Command Representative (SCR), U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command – Southwest Asia (AMCCOM-SWA), Subject: “Vehicle Assessment Report Depleted Uranium Contamination,” 14 May 1991, 4(O).

[36] US Army Environmental Policy Institute, Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Army, Technical Report (Atlanta: AEPI, 1995) 87.

[37] U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), “Vigilant Warrior ’94,’ ‘Forward for the Soldier,’ Medical Problem Definition and Assessment Team,” (Fort Detrick, MD: 8 May 1995) 17.

[38] U.S. Department of Defense, news briefing by Mr. Kenneth Bacon, 4 January 2001; Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, Information Paper: Depleted Uranium Environmental and Health Surveillance in the Balkans (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 25 October 2001) 4.

[39] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 9, 38, 147. See also, United Nations Environment Programme – Balkans, “UNEP finalises field mission to six depleted uranium sites in Serbia and Montenegro” 4 November 2001, <http://balkans.unep/ch/press011104.html>.

[40] European Commission, Directorate General, Environment (EURATOM), “Opinion of the Group of Experts Established According to Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, Depleted Uranium,” (Luxembourg, March 6, 2001) 2.

[41] See, e.g., Marlise Simons, “Radiation from Balkan bombing alarms Europe” The New York Times 7 January 2001.

[42] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 27-28, 30-31.

[43] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 38, 133.

[44] Richard W. Fliszar, Edward F. Wilsey and Ernest W. Bloore, “Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor,” Technical Report BRL-TR-3068 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989) 32, 37-38.

[45] Leonard Dietz, “Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium,” 16 July 1996: 6.

[46] Bill Murphy, “New technology cleans up residue from Sandia’s early Cold War weapons test program,” Sandia Lab News 50(23), 20 November 1998, <http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN11-20-98/du_story.htm>.

[47] U.S. General Accounting Office, Hazardous Waste: Information on Potential Superfund Sites, GAO/RCED-99-22 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Nov. 1998) 170; Michael Orey, “Uranium Waste Site Has a Historic New England Town Up in Arms,” The Wall Street Journal 1 March 2001: B1. See also, “Army, Contracting Firm Named as PRPs for Cleanup at DU site,” Hazardous Waste Superfund Week 23(27) (9 July 2001).

[48] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 24.

[49] United Nations Environment Programme, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Geneva: UNEP, March 2001) 26.

[50] World Health Organization, Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (Geneva: WHO, 2001) 34.

[51] World Health Organization, Depleted uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (Geneva: WHO, 2001) 41.

[52] Dr. David E. McClain, “Project Briefing: Health Effects of Depleted Uranium,” U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Bethesda, MD, 1999); U.S. Institute of Medicine, Gulf War and Health, “Volume 1, Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines,” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000) Chapter 4; A.C. Miller et al, “Transformation of Human Osteoblast Cells to the Tumorigenic Phenotype by Depleted Uranium-Uranyl Chloride,” Environmental Health Perspectives 106(8), 1998: 465-471; Fletcher Hahn et al, “Depleted Uranium Fragments Cause Soft Tissue Sarcomas in the Muscles of Rats,” Project Briefing to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Gulf War Research Conference (Alexandria, VA: January 24, 2001).

[53] World Health Organization, Depleted uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects (Geneva: WHO, 2001) 144; The Royal Society, The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions, Part I (London: The Royal Society, 2001) 22.

[54] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000) 7.

[55] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Annual Report, November 1996 – November 1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 1998) 30.

[56] Melissa McDiarmid, et al, “Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans,” Environmental Research 82(2), February 2000, Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Melissa McDiarmid, et al, “Urinary Uranium Concentrations in an Enlarged Gulf War Veteran Cohort,” Health Physics 2001, 80(3): 270-3.

[57] Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, Information Paper: Depleted Uranium Environmental and Health Surveillance in the Balkans (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 25 October 2001) 9-14.

[58] Jane Stolte, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Depleted Uranium Program, email to Dan Fahey, August 17, 2001.

[59] The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, “Meeting with Dr. Melissa McDiarmid and her staff on October 15, 1999 to discuss the Baltimore DU Follow-Up Program and the Extended Follow-Up Program,” undated. <http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en651/0089_005_0000001.htm>. This document confirms that one veteran had lymphoma, and Dr. McDiarmid stated it was a Hodgkin’s Lymphoma during a phone conversation with the author on February 12, 2001. Another document on the Pentagon’s Gulf War website (GulfLink) notes that the loader of a tank penetrated by a DU round later developed cancer. It is not clear if this veteran is the same veteran later examined by Dr. McDiarmid in Baltimore. See “Interview of loader for A-14,” Lead Sheet #18932, 4 November 1998, in The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000), <http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en376/8244_006_0000002.htm>.

[60] The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments acknowledge the existence of the bone tumor in one veteran. The VA’s DU Program told the veteran the tumor was benign, but the tumor is not formally documented in a publicly released document. The bone tumor has been reported in the Hiroshima, Japan newspaper Chugoku Shimbun (4/4/00): <http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/us_e/000404.html>.

[61] “Interview of dismount squad leader of C-22,” Lead Sheet #19455, October 15, 1998, in The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000), <http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en656/8288_010_0000003.htm>.

[62] Michael Kilpatrick, Dr., statement at NATO press briefing, Brussels, 10 January 2001. <http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110b.htm>. At the time of the briefing, Dr. Kilpatrick was Director of the Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments.

[63] Dan Fahey, “Meeting Notes for Expert Meeting on ‘Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Radiation Protection, Public Health and Environmental Aspects,” Bad Honnef, Germany, 19-22 June 2001. Colonel O’Donnell is Director of Medical Readiness for the Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments.

[64] “Impact of Depleted Uranium on Man and Environment in Iraq,” conference notes, (Baghdad, Iraq: December 2-3, 1998). Dr. Alim Yacoup et al, College of Medicine, Basra University, “Further Evidence on Relation between Depleted Uranium, Incidence of Malignancies among Children in Basra, Southern Iraq,” undated. See also R. F. Mould, “Depleted uranium and radiation-induced lung cancer and leukemia”, Commentary, The British Journal of Radiology, August 2001, 680-681.

[65] E.g., Scott Peterson, “A rare visit to Iraq’s radioactive battlefield,” The Christian Science Monitor, 29 April 1999.

[66] R.F. Mould, “Depleted uranium and radiation-induced lung cancer and leukemia”, Commentary, The British Journal of Radiology, August 2001, 680. See also, Jay E. Austin and Carl E. Bruch, eds, The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 84-85, 437.

[67] Agence France Presse, “Iraq and WHO agree to explore DU and health effects,” 12 April 2001. Agence France Presse, “WHO to probe depleted uranium from Gulf War in Iraq,” 31 August 2001.

[68] Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, Information Paper: Depleted Uranium Environmental and Health Surveillance in the Balkans (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 25 October 2001) 9-15.

[69] Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Certain Explosive Projectiles. Saint Petersburg, 29 November/11 December 1868.

[70] Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Certain Explosive Projectiles. Saint Petersburg, 29 November/11 Decem

Uncertain about DU causing ill health and negative environmental effects? When is the corporate right wing going to realize that hoisting this old canard does not work?

Here are some more of their past lies:

~Global warming is not real. More research is needed.

~The allowable aresenic levels in water are too low. Raise them and conduct more research.

~Snowmobiles do not bother wildlife. Allow them in wilderness while more research is conducted.

~Clearcuts don't neccessarily allow forest fires to become firestorms, more research is needed.

~Everything cause cancer....don't worry.

And now Depleted Uranium is fine stuff, not harmful, you can even sprinkle it in Mom's garden and nothing bad will happen? The same old lies still stink while the sucidal right attempts to lone up their paid secientists to buttress their claims. Well, if the right wing military psychopaths want to commit suicide let them do it on their own without dragging the rest of us into me you ugly death game.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out ... it is COMMON SENSE!

The tobacco industry uses the same tactics when selling cigs to children. And the risk assessment games these shills play are the worst lies of all.

From the first sentence to the last, the article is nothing but falsehoods.

Eg. The first sentence. A google search reveals a number of non-corporate media references to a UN subcommission finding that DU is a WMD. This arose from a conference in August 2000, according to one report.

However, a search of the UN web page revealed no such resolution. . . much less one from the General Assembly or Security Counsel.

They wouldn't LIE, would they?

...found what it wanted. Because I remeber it being in the news late last year.

Anyone who follows the news closely will recall that the U.N. Convention on Weapons reviewed DU and determined it to be a WMD®.

Check the Endnotes. It is all there.

But that would destroy the Official Spin that DU is as harmless as Talcum Powder wouldn't it.

Notice as always when the shills do no have the evidence on their side they will make a disparaging accusation. Frequently, as in this case, it will be under a name that does not appear regularly if at all on the Board.

PsyOps - PR Spin - Damage Control - Disinformation.

...found what it wanted. Because I remember it being in the news late last year.

Anyone who follows the news closely will recall that the U.N. Convention on Weapons reviewed DU and determined it to be a WMD® because of it's lingering affects and impact on non-combatants. The NeoCons had a hissy fit then too.

Check the Endnotes. It is all there.

But that would destroy the Official Spin that DU is as harmless as Talcum Powder wouldn't it.

Notice as always when the shills do no have the evidence on their side they will make a disparaging accusation. Frequently, as in this case, it will be under a name that does not appear regularly if at all on the Board.

PsyOps - PR Spin - Damage Control - Disinformation.

remember when the left took those documents that british intel got from the exiled iraqi national congress? you know, the ones that showed iraq trying to acquire weponds grade plutonium from niger? remember how they took those obvious forgeries from the cia and presented them to the un to shore up support for invading iraq? remember when it was discredited within 24 hours?

good thing the liberal media dropped the story or else more people would know how the left lied to the world, there...

oh, wait, that was colin powell. well, then, im sure if he was disingenuous it was for good reason, as opposed to when the left lies.

..than lets store it in your body tissue.

.....at no point in the 2nd article does it say that du is not harmful. It simply states that both sides of the issue don't have enough information to go on. Not enough research has been conducted and not enough time has passed since the gulf war to accurately know the effects of du munitions. no one can say for certain because no one knows for certain and if you claim to either way then you are lying. The first article is a piece of shit. Is it not obvious the author has no true understanding of what she is writing about. DU munitions are not nuclear weapons you confused woman and the u.n. has not declared them wmd either. They talked about classifying it as such but DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFO. TO DO IT. the UN actually voted against studying iraqi DU claims. I don't know why but they did. More research is needed.

A 4.5 Billion year poison How sweet.
***
-Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in
the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.
The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU
among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of
thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to
easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.
The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans,
all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that,
nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in
their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a
deceased Gulf War veteran.
That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU
"amounts to a massive malpractice," Dietz said in an interview
last week.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml.
The main risk from internal radiation, whether the
exposure is due to manufacturing processes or DU weapons, is from this inhaled dust.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/dupost.htm.

More lies from the far right. Why don't you people experiment on your ownselves rather than innocent civiilans, or is that too distant a idea for your cowardly minds to grasp?

Or, do you just work for the nuclear power industry?

If you really are so gullible than you are at the right website. Keep reading and maybe you will learn something.

the article has nothing to do with the right or left's feelings on DU munitions it is simply a narrative as to where the the issue is. It does not say to ban DU or use DU it is saying that studies need to be conducted in force right away so we know what to do. Understand? or do you just reply with stock answers provided to you. if so then disregard.

Ionizing radiation causes carcinoma's to develop in living tissue.

Uranium, and depleted uranium, release ionizing radiation.

The Nuclear Industry needs to get rid of the stuff.

The Pentagon decides to make bullets out of it.

And now, here is the tricky part....can you connect the dots?

The tobacco industry wants you to believe that more research is needed for cigarettes being a cause of lung, throat, mouth and other cancers. The chemical, plastics and petroleum industry wants you to believe that global warming is not real...and...guess what...needs more research. The timber industry wants you to believe that clearcutting makes forests healthy and we need to do more research to disprove that, how? by making more clearcuts of course...and now the nuclear industry wants a piece of the pie too!

Let's play, one more time, connect the dots.

If you are able to connect them to the obvious conclusion, than you can move onto more complicated cognitive tasks like figuring out what the true costs of are.

But that is probably too much for you all at once.

UN Demands Coalition 'must reveal DU targets'
by bbc Thursday April 24, 2003 at 10:08 AM


People in Iraq need urgent advice on avoiding exposure to depleted uranium (DU), the United Nations has said.

It wants the US and UK to provide precise details of sites targeted with DU weapons.

The Royal Society, the UK's national science academy, is also demanding targeting data to enable a clean-up to begin.

It says it is "highly unsatisfactory" to continue using DU without knowing people's exposure levels.

The UN Environment Programme (Unep) expressed its concern about DU in a report on Iraq.


It says humanitarian issues like restoring water and power, and cleaning up waste sites to reduce health risks, are priorities.

Another priority activity is "a scientific assessment of sites struck with weapons containing DU".

It wants guidelines distributed immediately to military and civilian personnel, and to the Iraqi people, on how to minimize the risk of accidental exposure to DU.

Vital cooperation

The report, the Unep Desk Study on Environment in Iraq, was prepared by Unep's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit.

Unep said: "The intensive use of DU weapons has likely caused environmental contamination of as yet unknown levels or consequences.

"Conducting a DU study would require receiving precise coordinates of the targeted sites from the military."

The Royal Society says details of the DU used in Iraq are essential to allow "an effective clean-up and monitoring programme of both soldiers and civilians".

While Unep had extensive experience, it said, it was vital for Iraq to acquire the capability to undertake long-term monitoring itself.

Concern for civilians

Professor Brian Spratt chaired a Royal Society working group which published two reports on DU's health hazards.

He said: "The coalition needs to acknowledge that DU is a potential hazard and make inroads into tackling it by being open about where and how much has been deployed.

"Fragments of DU penetrators are potentially hazardous, and the Royal Society study recommended they should be removed, and areas of contamination around impact sites identified and where necessary made safe.

"Impact sites in residential areas should be a particular priority. Long-term monitoring of water and milk to detect any increase in uranium levels should also be introduced in Iraq."

The society's study concluded that few soldiers or civilians were likely to be exposed to dangerous DU levels. But it is now calling for tests for soldiers exposed to "substantial" levels.

No time to waste

Professor Spratt said: "It is only by measuring the levels of DU in the urine of soldiers that we can understand the intakes of DU that occur on the battlefield, which is a requirement for a better assessment of any hazards to health.

"It is vital that this monitoring takes place, and that it takes place within a matter of months."

Professor Spratt called as well for monitoring of DU levels in a wide sample of soldiers, including "foot soldiers and field hospital staff across Iraq", and Iraqi civilians.

He said: "It is highly unsatisfactory to deploy a large amount of a material that is weakly radioactive and chemically toxic without knowing how much soldiers and civilians have been exposed to it."

The UK has said it will make available records of its use of DU rounds. It offers veterans voluntary DU tests.

Long-lived deposits

The US says it has no plans for any DU clean-up in Iraq. It does not test all exposed veterans.

DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and effective for destroying armoured vehicles.

When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in burning vapour which settles as dust.

Unep found DU traces in air and water in Bosnia-Herzegovina up to seven years after the weapons had been fired there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2972613.stm