[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Scientist Reports on DU and Iraq



TO Radsafe;

The attention of the list has been drawn to a report in New Scientist on DU by Fred Dawson

New Scientist Reports

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993627

Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq

19:00 15 April 03
>>>>>>>

".............depleted uranium, a material that the US and Britain say poses no long-term
health or environmental risks. But many Iraqis, and a growing band of
scientists, are not so sure."

"Last week, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it wanted to send a
scientific team into Iraq as soon as possible to examine the effects of
depleted uranium (DU). People's fears that DU leaves a deadly legacy must be
addressed, says UNEP. Some scientists go further. Evidence is emerging that
DU affects our bodies in ways we do not fully understand, they say, and the
legacy could be real."

"DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have
concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some
researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects
could do significant harm. "

"The idea that chemical and radiological damage are
reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Comment:   Speculation in science is always to be welcomed, but one suspects a political motive when journals advance speculation as fact.  What is more the findings of several previous reports including the UNEP, have so far failed to find any evidence of deleterious health or environmental effects.   Speculation is ok.  Implying  such speculation is established fact, and a cause for public concern is playing politics.  The article does not appear to describe any evidence to support these new fears.

"There was no detectable , wide spread contamination of the ground surfaces by depleted uranium....."  [Section 5; Conclusion -UNEP report on their mission to Kosovo 5-19 November 2000]

The very detailed Royal Society reports states that:

"Except in extreme circumstances any extra risk of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to Du arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be undetected above the general risk of dying of cancer over a lifetime."  [ Conclusion a in Summary Document].
I
"The extreme circumstances will apply to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war."
[ Conclusion b in Summary Document].

The RS report considers various scenarios and exposure in the battlefield.  Level 1 is being in a tank hit by a Du munition.   As far as I know,  tank crew survivors of so called, "friendly fire" in the first  Gulf war, have not developed either kidney disease or an excess cancer rate.

The RS report comments on the lack of real data on the exposure to DU during a battle.  Therefore, I now advance the proposal:   that in the interest of science, in any future use of these weapons field commanders, will ensure that all military personnel  collect and precisely label 24 h urine collections for the purpose of metabolic studies!!!!
Ivor Surveyor  [isurveyor@vianet.net.au]