31 March 2003
"Nuclear Genocide? Piercing Depleted Urainium Myths," by Ronald Bailey
(Iraq Never Allowed DU Follow-up Investigations) (1300)
The following article first appeared in Reason, an online magazine,
March 26, 2003. Permission has been granted covering
republication/translation/abridgment in the local press outside the
United States. Reprinted with permission, from Reason Online.
Copyright 2003 by Reason Foundation, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite
400, Los Angeles, CA 90034. www.reason.com
(begin byliner)
Nuclear Genocide?
Piercing through the depleted uranium myths
By Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason
"The United States has conducted two nuclear wars. The first is
against Japan in 1945, the second in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991." So
declares activist Helen Caldicott in a half-page ad placed by a
Japanese anti-nuclear group in the March 24 New York Times. If you
didn't hear about the Persian Gulf Hiroshima, it's because she's
actually referring to depleted uranium (DU) munitions. Former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark says that these "are an unacceptable
threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on
human dignity." Using them results in a "deterioration of genetic
health" and "genocide," declares anti-nuke activist Tim Judson. The
Green Party claims that they are "the likely cause of numerous health
problems in thousands of Gulf War veterans and their families,
including cancer, leukemia, tumors, and high rates of birth defects
because of genetic damage."
DU is 1.7 times denser than lead, and munitions encased in it are
self-sharpening, enabling them to drill 25 percent further through
armor. (Armor-piercing tungsten alloy munitions, by contrast, blunt
and mushroom when they hit.) This self-sharpening process produces DU
dust, most of which falls to the ground within 50 yards of its impact.
Such weapons are used most frequently against enemy tanks. DU is also
used to clad many U.S. armored vehicles, thus making them largely
impenetrable to conventional anti-tank munitions. It is also used for
counterweights in airplanes to help keep them level, and as radiation
shielding to protect health care workers from exposure to medical
X-rays.
DU is a by-product-activists would say a waste product-of the process
of separating the highly fissionable U-235 isotope out of uranium to
produce fuel for nuclear reactors. It is called "depleted" because
most of the lighter uranium isotopes, U-234 and U-235, are removed
from natural uranium, leaving behind uranium consisting of 99.8
percent of U-238. The result is 40 percent less radioactive than
natural uranium.
Is it as dangerous as Caldicott and Clark claim? A Department of
Defense-sponsored review of the scientific literature by the RAND
think tank concluded that "there are no peer reviewed published
reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health
effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium
at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf." One need not be a
conspiracy theorist to believe that the Defense Department's analysis
and reporting on the substance's health and environmental consequences
might be biased. But many independent organizations and scientists
find little to worry about either.
What happens to DU if someone eats it? According to a European Union
study released in 2001, "most of the ingested DU (between 98% and
99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be
rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining
uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks.
Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via
the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to
DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic
assumptions of the doses that would be received."
That said, DU is a heavy metal; and like lead, nickel, and other heavy
metals, it is chemically toxic when consumed in large quantities,
especially harming the kidneys. However, studies looking at likely
exposures to DU during and after battles have found that its effects
on the kidneys of soldiers and civilians are mild and transient.
Another 2001 report to the European Parliament compared exposures to
DU to those experienced by uranium miners and concluded, "The fact
that there is no evidence of an association between
exposures-sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the
uranium industry-and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or
other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of
an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."
The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health
risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that "because DU is
only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of
grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer
to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other
radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be
very much lower than for lung cancer." Another WHO report found, "The
radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of
leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to
uranium or DU."
What about those military reports? Dan Fahey, a former naval officer
who served in the first Gulf War and is a long-time anti-DU activist,
asserts that Defense Department spokespeople "have lied about the
health of US Gulf War veterans exposed to DU and exaggerated the
importance of DU rounds." What was the alleged lie? The Pentagon has
said that no veterans in a small follow-up study of Gulf War soldiers
who had been exposed to DU have contracted cancer. Fahey cites a memo
that states that one veteran who had been recently added to the study
has had lymphatic cancer. Fahey does acknowledge that "it is possible
that this veteran's cancer is not linked to his confirmed exposure to
DU."
Fahey thinks the Pentagon exaggerates the importance of DU munitions
and points out that DU rounds probably took out only one-seventh of
the Iraqi tanks destroyed during the first Gulf War. But Fahey also
admits that there is very little evidence that DU is severely toxic.
He also refutes other activists' alarmist claims that civilians have
been severely harmed by depleted uranium. "There are no credible
studies linking exposure to DU with any cancers or illnesses among
people in Iraq, the Balkans, or Afghanistan," he declares.
If DU is not notably harmful to human health or the environment, why
the fierce opposition to it? A lot of it has to do with conventional
anti-nuclear activism: Some people automatically object to anything
that hints of nuclear radiation. Second, some of the opposition is the
result of a successful Iraqi disinformation campaign claiming that
exposure to DU had caused thousands of cancers and birth defects to
innocent civilians. When the WHO offered to investigate the claims,
Iraqi officials flatly refused the offer. Other than trying to gain
international sympathy, Pentagon officials argue that one of the real
aims of the Iraqi campaign was to get DU munitions outlawed
internationally so they would not have to face them again.
In addition, many U.S. veterans who returned from the Gulf War believe
that they are suffering from " Gulf War Syndrome," a constellation of
disparate medical problems that they think can be traced to their
service in that war. One suggested explanation for their problems
might be exposure to DU dust. But as we've seen, no credible studies
show that exposure to DU is likely to be causing their problems.
Finally, there is always a claque of activists who simply will pick up
any stick with which to beat and demonize the United States. For them,
the myth of severe DU toxicity is just another handy stick.
(end byliner)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
