4 Sep 2023 3:44 pm
Health ConcernsCurrent health concerns center around the effect on the human body of nano-sized ceramic particles of uranium oxide (U238) that are released in the air when DU munitions are used on the battlefield. In a 1999 paper for a Hague Peace Conference, Dr. Rosalie Bertell laid out a concise explanation of the potential dangers of DU exposure.
This is over one billion high energy, ionizing, radioactive particles and rays which can produce extensive biological damage to ovaries, lungs lymph nodes, kidneys, breast, blood bones,stomach and fetuses.
Supporters of DU weapons argue that the dangers of DU, particularly from radiation, are not as catastrophic as experts such as Dr. Bertell and Dr. Durakovic think. But many of these arguments lean heavily on two studies by the Rand Corporationwhich were commissioned by the Department of Defense in 1999. [5] [1]
However, critics of these studies contend they are flawed because they use existing data from natural and Depleted uranium which assumes a particle size much larger than that actually produced when DU weapons explode and burn. (A good presentation of this controversy can be seen in the award winning documentary "Beyond Treason".) [2] An independant study published in "Military Medicine" in Aug 2, 2003 examines the issue of exposure to DU in greater depth. [3]
The health concerns, particularly for those living in Iraq, are particularly acute due to the young ages of those exposed. In a recent article, Sherwood Ross quotes noted anti-nuclear crusader Dr. Helen Caldicott:
Although the Department of Defense continues to deny DU's health risks, it's own actions belie such claims.
In a May 15, 2003 Christian Science Monitor article, Scott Peterson reports that in Iraq, "Six American vehicles struck with DU "friendly fire" in 1991 were deemed to be too contaminated to take home, and were buried in Saudi Arabia. Of 16 more brought back to a purpose-built facility in South Carolina, six had to be buried in a low-level radioactive waste dump."[5]
Much of the DU is in cities such as Baghdad where half the population of 5 million people are children who played in the burned out tanks and on the sandy, dusty ground... Children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. My pediatric colleagues in Basra, where this ordnance was used in 1991, report a sevenfold increase in childhood cancer and a sevenfold increase in gross congenital abnormalities.[4]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Depleted_Uranium
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, founder of the Uranium Medical Research Center continues the case, stating that in the course of one year, 1 milligram of depleted uranium emits 390 million alpha particles, 780 million beta particles and associated gamma rays."Uranium oxide and its aerosol form are insoluble in water. The aerosol resists gravity, and is able to travel tens of kilometres in air. Once on the ground, it can be resuspended when the sand is disturbed by motion or wind. Once breathed in, the very small particles of uranium oxide, those which are 2.5 microns (one micron = one millionth of a meter) or less in diameter, could reside in the lungs for years, slowly passing through the lung tissue into the blood."[4]
This is over one billion high energy, ionizing, radioactive particles and rays which can produce extensive biological damage to ovaries, lungs lymph nodes, kidneys, breast, blood bones,stomach and fetuses.
Supporters of DU weapons argue that the dangers of DU, particularly from radiation, are not as catastrophic as experts such as Dr. Bertell and Dr. Durakovic think. But many of these arguments lean heavily on two studies by the Rand Corporationwhich were commissioned by the Department of Defense in 1999. [5] [1]
However, critics of these studies contend they are flawed because they use existing data from natural and Depleted uranium which assumes a particle size much larger than that actually produced when DU weapons explode and burn. (A good presentation of this controversy can be seen in the award winning documentary "Beyond Treason".) [2] An independant study published in "Military Medicine" in Aug 2, 2003 examines the issue of exposure to DU in greater depth. [3]
The health concerns, particularly for those living in Iraq, are particularly acute due to the young ages of those exposed. In a recent article, Sherwood Ross quotes noted anti-nuclear crusader Dr. Helen Caldicott:
Although the Department of Defense continues to deny DU's health risks, it's own actions belie such claims.
In a May 15, 2003 Christian Science Monitor article, Scott Peterson reports that in Iraq, "Six American vehicles struck with DU "friendly fire" in 1991 were deemed to be too contaminated to take home, and were buried in Saudi Arabia. Of 16 more brought back to a purpose-built facility in South Carolina, six had to be buried in a low-level radioactive waste dump."[5]
Much of the DU is in cities such as Baghdad where half the population of 5 million people are children who played in the burned out tanks and on the sandy, dusty ground... Children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. My pediatric colleagues in Basra, where this ordnance was used in 1991, report a sevenfold increase in childhood cancer and a sevenfold increase in gross congenital abnormalities.[4]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Depleted_Uranium