Re: New Scientist Reports on DU and Iraq

[Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor@vianet.net.au>]

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]