America's High Tech Dirty Bombs

You are trying to play the fear of a real dirty bomb(terrorists) with Depleted shell and they are different. Most DU do not carry explosives inside them so the effected area is small. Next the round only effects a couple square meters if you were a terrorists you would try to damage many hundred square meters even better you would use other materials.

Uranium-238 is a heavy metal it does not make a very good dirty bomb. Its density is much greater than air so its effective area would be small. Square meters. There are many radio active materials that would work far better for a dirty bomb(terrorists). They are at your local hospital. Should we ban them to? Were does it end!! Should we ban the sun it expose you to more radiation per year than you would receive if you handle these weapons DU. Most people source other authors with the same view.

Depleted Uranium [DU] is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications.

So if your life's on the line what would you use?????? Tank on Tank you and the other guy that going to kill you. So what would you use??? I would use the best tool and for projectiles that is DU shell. Good luck getting China to back a total ban or Korea. In a happy joy-joy academic world a DU ban would work.

From the scientific literature, the review reaches the following insights and conclusions:

Although any increase in radiation to the human body can be calculated to be harmful from extrapolation from higher levels, 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. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled natural uranium and because the low radioactivity per unit mass of natural and depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain.

External radiation takes the primary form of alpha radiation, but amounts of beta and gamma radiation also exist. Alpha radiation is not capable of penetrating cloth or skin and would therefore have no negative health effect. Beta and gamma radiation, which can have negative health effects, have been measured at levels below those expected to be of concern.

Large variations in exposure to natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.

Radiation-related effects from embedded fragments will depend on the size of the fragment and its proximity to vital organs.

Exposure to uranium and other heavy metals in large doses can cause changes in renal function and at very high levels result in renal failure.

In spite of these findings, no increased morbidity or frequency of end-stage renal disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient ones.

The cohort of individuals, about half of whom have embedded fragments, who are being followed at the Baltimore VA Medical Center as part of the DU Follow-Up Program, represents a group of Gulf War veterans who received the highest levels of exposure to DU during the Gulf War. Although many of these veterans have health problems related to their injuries in the Gulf War and those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, researchers to date report neither adverse renal effects attributable to chemical toxicity of DU nor any adverse health effects they relate to DU radiation (McDiarmid, 1998b). They do, however, note several biochemical perturbations in neuroendocrine parameters related to urinary uranium concentrations and in some subtle neuropsychological test findings; the clinical significance of these is unclear.

Finally, the report encourages continued research because the use of DU is likely to expand in the future.

If I am not mistaking, Congress approved the project to test and screen our soldiers for D.U. effects study before they were sent out for Gulf War II. However, Pentagon shot that down. Why? Fear that U.S. government will not be able pay for the health care to treat our soldiers for D.U.'s harmful effects for life? Fear that we'll have to clean up the mess we create else where in the world?

Would any of you D.U. proponents willing to spend 10 minutes in and around a D.U. destroyed vehicles just to demonstrate your true belief that D.U. is not harmful to human and the environment?

Veteran of the gulf war might be better off with out the study. Because they use the word associated. See if they should somehow get sick they might be covered. If their was another study showing nothing then some people who might need health care may not receive it.

Also they can compare the solders health to civilians to see if a higher percentage of gulf war veterans have medical problems.

Public Law 104-262, the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996

Priority Group 6

for any illness associated with service in combat in a war after the Gulf War or during a period of hostility after November 11, 1998.
http://www.va.gov

"Would any of you D.U. proponents willing to spend 10 minutes in and around a D.U. destroyed vehicles just to demonstrate your true belief that D.U. is not harmful to human and the environment?"

Most if not all DU proponents would be willing to do that. I would be willing to do that. I would be a hypocrite if I wasn't. I've worked with radioactive materials and am familiar the relative decay and danger of DU, U, Tritium, and Coal. If I was afraid of DU I would also have to be afraid of many naturally occuring rocks.

If there is a statistical rise in birth defects in Iraq, the first cause to investigate would be chemical weapons manufacturing (which we know took place in the 1980s) and siphoning medical supplies to line the pockets of the Baath party (also a fact of Saddam's rule).

<Would any of you D.U. proponents willing to spend 10 minutes in and around a D.U. destroyed vehicles just to demonstrate your true belief that D.U. is not harmful to humans and the environment?>

I'm about as willing to eat DU dust as HIV naysayers are to shoot HIV into their veins.

I'll let the Third Worlders try it out first, thanks.

Would any of you D.U. proponents willing to spend 10 minutes in and around a D.U. destroyed vehicles?

Well I did off and on for two years. Range worker(12B). Total exposure less than 200mrems can’t remember the exact number now.

After this I went into Commercial Diving and sometimes work in the storage pools were spent rods are stored. Here I was exposed mostly to Gamma Radiation. Both Alpha and Bata are absorbed in a couple of feet of water. At levels less than most astronauts receive on a 3 week space mission.

Did you now that coal plants expose people to more radiation than a nuclear power plant. I just learned that form the site listed below.

Great site so you can figure out your yearly dose.
Gives you a better understanding on the subject of radiation.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

"Would any of you D.U. proponents willing to spend 10 minutes in and around a D.U. destroyed vehicles just to demonstrate your true belief that D.U. is not harmful to human and the environment?"

Versus having an anti-tank munition explode in my lap? Sure. I'd take my chances with the DU.

This forum is a sad reminder of this country's less-than-stellar ability to educate its kids in the sciences. Somebody reads the word 'radiation' and they freak out.

Standing next to DU, you would receive less radiation than standing next to a pile of coal. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Or call the EPA and ask them.

What causes birth defects in Iraq? Over ten years of large-scale manufacture of chemical weapons, that's what! What else? Gutting the hospitals to line the pockets of Baath party officials, that's what else!

Now, if I'm right, birth defect rates should go down now that the Baath part is out of power. That is my prediction (as per the Scientific Method). However, if DU opponents are wrong, birth defects should go up over the next few years. Let's watch and see who is right.

DU is mainly toxic as a chemical and it is much more toxic than coal (although Im not sure how it would compare with mercury but the world would be in more of an ourcry if we dropped tons of mercury on Iraq or Serbia). Since it is made from nuclear waste the trace amounts of Plutonium etc could also be very dangerous if the trace elements are nonuniform. Most recent studies suggest serious problems from DU.

Depleted uranium will affect Iraq for generations to come

The Presenter (Ahmed Mansour): Despite research by a large number of scientists and experts on the enormous damage inflicted by depleted uranium … and the use by the US in the Gulf War in 1991, and wars in the Balkans and Afghanistan in 1994, 1995, 1999 and 2000…The US use of depleted uranium is not confined to the total destruction of targets but extends to the destruction of the environment and human life in general in the affected regions. Such areas will be unfit for habitation for millions of years.

Our guest is professor Major Doug Rocke, former chief of Depleted Uranium Project at the Pentagon.

Born in Illinois 1949, professor Doug Rocke joined the US Air Force in 1967, took part in the Vietnam War from 1969 to 1971 as a B52 pilot. He obtained his PhD in nuclear physics. He worked until 1996 as a field doctor and specialist in nuclear physics in the US Army. He took part in the 1991 Gulf War, tasked with depleted uranium clean up in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

From March to June 1991, Prof Rocke compiled contaminated equipment from the battlefield and shipped part of it back to the US and supervised the burial of more equipment in Saudi Arabian deserts. He was appointed head of the Depleted Uranium Project in the Pentagon between 1 August 1994 and November 1995. He also worked as a professor of nuclear physics at Jackson University – Alabama until 2000.

Prof Rocke says he suffered the effects of depleted uranium from the first week of the Gulf War in 1991 but did not realise it until March 1995. Tests showed that he had 5000 times the normal level of radiation in his body, enough he says sarcastically, to light up a small village. He is also suffering from problems with breathing, immune system and one eye. He has had 15 surgical operations to his liver as a result of his infection by this uranium syndrome.

Q: At this very critical time, a lot of people are trying to understand and know more about the weapons containing depleted uranium which the United States plans to use... Despite all the studies and research that came up during the last period and confirmed the risks of using the depleted uranium, officials at the Pentagon announced that they are going to use depleted uranium bombs in Iraq again. What is your understanding of this announcement?

Professor Rocke: The announcement is very simple. Uranium munitions kill and destroy everything that they contact. Going back to the (1991) Gulf War and even before, the Pentagon had decided to use weapons that are absolutely efficient in combat. At the completion of the 1991 Gulf War when I was specifically assigned to clean up the uranium mess I received a memorandum, this is a Los Alamos memorandum written by a colonel at Los Alamos national laboratories in New Mexico. In that memorandum, he said "Even though we know there are health and environmental effects, you should make sure that we can always use uranium munitions in combat because they are so effective. And therefore lie about the health and environmental effects of the use of uranium munitions in combat."


Smoke rises over the Iraqi capital Baghdad following further bombing raids by US-led forces, March 22

The Presenter: Being the former chief of the depleted uranium project in the Pentagon, what are the risks of using depleted uranium on life and human beings in general?

Professor Rocke: The first thing that we have to understand is that each individual uranium round fired by an Abrams tank is ten pounds of solid uranium contaminated with plutonium, neptunium and americium. On impact, you have a fine uranium outside dust that is generated. This represents about one half of the original mass. So if you have 4500 grams, you have about 2300 grams or 2200 grams that turn into a dust on the outside, they can be inhaled .. and then get into the body. When this happens, you have all kinds of serious problems both metal poisoning and radiological effects on the body.

The Presenter: Being one of the victims of depleted uranium, can you describe the symptoms you felt when you were infected?

Professor Rocke: The most significant effect that we noticed was respiratory problems. And the respiratory problems acted like you had a really bad case of bronchitis. Your respiratory system was affected, you couldn’t breathe as well and you started noticing all kinds of serious apparatus effects with your breathing system……The other health effect we saw immediately in ourselves and everybody else was the terrible rash. And the rash that we suspect and which we still have to this day is from the heavy metal poisoning that occurs just as if you would have eaten a litre of any other heavy toxic metal.

The Presenter: Dr. Rocke, What are the most important symptoms of inhaling depleted uranium?

Professor Rocke: The biggest problem that we had, in addition to the respiratory problems, is cancer which developed in members of our team within eight to nine months. Within two years, additional cancers developed and people started to die. Individuals that we had confirmed had embedded uranium shrapnel deliberately locked in their bodies by the United States Department of Defence did develop tumours in and around that embedded shrapnel. Published research verifies that uranium shrapnel or uranium embedded in the tissue will cause cancer. That we see in any place that uranium has been used, manufactured and processed …. in various areas of the United States.

The Presenter: But Michael Kilpatrick, who was responsible for providing medical care to the veterans at the Pentagon, said in a press conference that a study covering 90 infected veterans from the 1991 Gulf War proved that they were not suffering from any disease, whether it be cancer or otherwise. What do you say about this?

Professor Rocke: Dr. Kilpatrick lied to the world. It is very simple. First he stated that 90 individuals were affected ….. I had well over 100 individuals who were affected. I had another 250 individuals who were absolutely exposed while we were cleaning it up. ………

The Presenter: Why did your colleagues in the Pentagon lie and for the benefit of whom?

Professor Rocke: The reason that they lie is to avoid any liability for the deliberate use of uranium munitions not only in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, throughout the Balkans and throughout all the sites in the United States. Again the purpose of the war is to kill and to destroy. Uranium munitions are absolutely destructive.

The Presenter: On 3 February 2003 an official from the Veteran’s Association in Britain said that 560 British soldiers have died since 1991 from Gulf War Syndrome and that 5000 are under treatment. Do you have any statistics on the number of wounded American soldiers?

Professor Rocke: Yes, I do. The US Department of Veterans’ Affairs released a report in September 2002. In that report they formally acknowledged that there are over 160,000 Gulf War veterans permanently disabled and over 8000 dead from the effects of Gulf War syndrome…It (Iraq) is a toxic wasteland that is absolutely proven to exist today by additional statistics.


House destroyed from a missile during an air strike in Baghdad

The Presenter: What are the main diseases that can be caused by uranium?

Professor Rocke: The problems that we have are very significant. We have the respiratory problems, all the eye problems, neurological problems, and cancers. What we know today is that the American veterans who participated in the 1991 Gulf War are dying at a rate of over 140 a month here in the United States alone.

The Presenter: You said that 36% of the veterans who took part in the 1991 Gulf War will die because of cancer and that 160,000 are handicapped and 8000 have already died but still the US insists on using uranium. Do you expect more cases of infection from uranium?

Professor Rocke: Absolutely. We have already seen additional casualties coming back. Although the war ended in the fall of 1991, the US continued to send troops to that region. Today we know, actually verified by the United States Department of Veteran Affairs that there are now over a quarter of a million American soldiers who served during the Gulf War and stayed in the region until May 2002 are now permanently disabled due to complex exposures. And we also now know that over 10,000 are dead and that the current death rate is over a 140 a month.

The Presenter: What happened to the inhabitants of Kuwait, Iraq and north of Saudi Arabia as a result of the spread of 400 tonnes of uranium dust?

Professor Rocke: There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the health effects that we have seen in the women, the children and other residents of that region is absolutely due in part to the uranium contamination that has been left there. Congressional representatives and scientists, and independent individuals from all over the world have gone over there and verified the level of contamination and that contamination has not been removed as required by US Department of Defence directives.

The Presenter: Professor Harry Shalimer has said that at least 100,000 of the inhabitants of Basra have been infected with cancer since 1991. Do you have any statistics on the number of infections in these regions?

Professor Rocke: I have not been back to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War, but I have talked to Dr. Shalimer and other scientists and physicians involved in this. I have no doubt in my mind that Dr. Shalimer is probably correct. I know for a fact that he has verified uranium in those individuals residing in that region and therefore you can make a direct correlation between those exposures and the health effects that have been documented. Dr. Shalimer again is one of the world's experts on this, so we must listen to him.

The Presenter: Do you have any information about the uranium ammunition that the US is going to use in its war against Iraq?

Professor Rocke: Absolutely…The uranium munitions that will be used are again and once more the rounds that will be fired by the Abrams tank. Each round is over 4500 grams of solid uranium contaminated with plutonium, neptunium and americium. The A-10 Warthog aircraft will additionally fire the 30 ml round, that is, each individual round is 300 grams of solid uranium. We also know that the Bradley fighting vehicle will fire the 25 ml round, and each individual round is over 200 grams of solid uranium. In addition, cruise missiles contain uranium components, and the giant bunker busters contain uranium components.

The Presenter: A weapons expert, Dai Williams, in one of our programs said that the ammunition used by the US in the 1991 Gulf War weighed around 5 kilograms, and against Afghanistan they used bombs and ammunition of up 10,000 pounds, and it is expected that they are going to use the same ammunition in Iraq. They even announced that the mother of bombs weighs 10,000 tonnes. If the previous Gulf War left around 400 tonnes of uranium dust, what do you expect will happen to the region this time?

Professor Rocke: What I expect is that we will again see serious health effects in the American soldiers who go there and use it. We will see health effects in all the residents of that region. We will see health effects in the Iraqi soldiers who will be the targets of direct uranium used by US forces. I must repeat and make this very clear, as the head of the project to clean up uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf War, and as the director of the Depleted Uranium Project for the Department of Defence who did the research, and as a DU casualty, the use of uranium munitions during warfare is a crime against God, is a crime against humanity, and should be considered a war crime. You cannot take solid uranium radioactive waste, throw it in anybody's backyard and refuse to provide medical care and complete the environmental clean-up that is required to sustain the health and safety of the citizens of the earth.

The Presenter: Do you think depleted uranium is considered a weapon of mass destruction or a nuclear weapon?

Professor Rocke: The United Nations on 10 September 2001 did rule that uranium munitions were considered a weapon of mass destruction. The European Parliament has issued a proclamation that uranium munitions should be banned from use in the world.

The Presenter: Do you think that using depleted uranium against human beings in general falls under the category of crimes of war?

Professor Rocke: Absolutely, because in the United States you cannot even take 500 grams of solid uranium and throw it in anybody's backyard without going to jail. Therefore, what right has the United States, England or any other nation has to take hundreds and hundreds of tons of uranium and throw them in somebody else's backyard, refuse them medical care as they have done now for decades and also refuse to clean up the environment.

The Presenter: Professor Dracovic said that the cleaning of the region needs $200 billion. Is it possible to clean up the region (if this fund is raised)?

Professor Rocke: The problem that we have, when I actually did the research, was to determine how to clean up. For each and every vehicle that is struck by a single uranium munition you have to take that entire vehicle, and physically remove it. Then you have to clean up all the uranium penetration that is left around that vehicle. Then you have to take a bulldozer, and go out to at least 100 metres and scrape down at least 10 centimetres and remove all of that dirt in order to make that area safe again, that is for each and every vehicle.

The Presenter: If Baghdad is being struck by such ammunition, how far will the effects of such uranium impact the surrounding areas of Baghdad?

Professor Rocke: Studies in the United States by one of the former scientists in this area measuring the uranium contamination from a production plant in the United States showed that the uranium contamination has caused adverse health effects within 50 kilometres.

The Presenter: This is around the plant itself, what about the dust and the wind?

Professor Rocke: The wind carried the uranium dust 50 kilometres away from the plant and there were sufficient quantities to cause adverse health effects. We know today that in and around all the production facilities where they are making uranium munitions there are cancers, kidney problems, respiratory problems, rations, neurological problems in the residents of that area.

The Presenter: Some studies say that in the areas affected in the Balkans, uranium dust travelled more than 1000 kilometres and reached a lot of European capitals. Do you think that Kuwaitis, Saudis, Iraqis and Jordanians are safe from the uranium dust that Iraq might be hit with?

Professor Rocke: You have the whole combination of by-products of the war. When we destroy the infrastructure of Iraq…when we deliberately use uranium munitions and contaminate the air, water and soil, the entire region becomes a toxic wasteland. And again the reason that we know that it is a toxic wasteland today is that since 1991, the United States has continued to send American soldiers into the region. Since 1991, an additional 60,000 American veterans have been labelled as permanently disabled from this exposure and another 3000 have been confirmed dead.

The Presenter: How long can these areas remain contaminated?

Professor Rocke: The contamination will remain in the area unless it is physically and totally removed, for 4.5 billion years and beyond.

The Presenter: Will these areas remain contaminated for 4.5 billion years?

Professor Rocke: Unless it is physically removed according to the procedures and processes that I have developed for the US Department of Defence.

The Presenter: Those contaminated areas, are they fit for human life now?

Professor Rocke: They are not. The US Department of Defence, in the common test training for use of uranium munitions, specifically states that all American soldiers must wear full respirator and skin protection within 25 to 50 metres of each and every vehicle that is struck by uranium munitions.

The Presenter: Having supervised the burial of some of the waste in 1991, how true is that some of the areas north of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are no longer fit for human habitation, and that people should be prevented from going into these areas?

Professor Rocke: Absolutely. The entire…area near Basra, the contamination there is absolutely verified. US Congressmen, James McDermott and his staff went over to Iraq in the fall of last year. They measured the contamination and verified that it was so great that people should be prevented from entering that area permanently until all of it is cleaned up.

The Presenter: Also, the region that could be hit by uranium ammunition, whether Baghdad or other Iraqi cities, would they be contaminated also, and the contamination there will be for 4.5 billion years again?

Professor Rokke: Absolutely…

The Presenter: Is it possible that Baghdad, Basra and other cities will be unfit for human life after this war?

Professor Rocke: If you destroy the entire infrastructure ….. and if Iraq does possess any chemical, biological or radioactive materials and you destroy them, that would be just like hitting an ice cube with a hammer. All you do is split it. If you use uranium munitions and you do not clean it up, the entire area will be a toxic wasteland, that unless all environmental clean-up is completed will be uninhabitable.


An explosion rocks one of Saddam Hussein'spalaces in Baghdad during air strikes

The Presenter: This means that there are more than 20 million human beings in Iraq who are subject to being hit by uranium, and if Iraq will be hit by uranium munitions it will be unfit for human habitation. Does this mean that the United states will eliminate a total country from the surface of the earth?

Professor Rocke: That is an absolute possibility. When you destroy the infrastructure, you use all the types of munitions and you contaminate air, water and soil. That is an absolute possibility…

The Presenter: Can simple human beings who are living in Iraq, and who have nothing to do and are helpless, can they do anything against the United States, which will not hesitate to use uranium against them?

Professor Rocke: For years, as the individual that cleaned up uranium munitions in the 1991 Gulf War, and as the director of the Depleted Uranium Project, I have requested and I have insisted that the United States and other countries refrain from using uranium munitions in combat. Uranium munitions must be banned from use on earth and in the universe for eternity. At the same time, I have requested numerous times that medical care be provided not only for the fired casualties on my staff, but for thousands and thousands of individuals who have been exposed. And I have also requested numerous times that all uranium contamination be cleaned up. However, those requests have been denied, denied, and denied…..

The Presenter: Since you stayed in the region until 1996 and supervised a lot of activities and you know the contaminated areas, is it possible to give us a list of contaminated areas in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait…?

Professor Rocke: One of the problems we have is that the United States Department of Defence has not identified all the areas where uranium munitions have been used. So therefore, individuals who reside in that area must look for the … signature of uranium munitions use.

On a destroyed vehicle you will see a clean round hole around the area. You will also see black dust surrounding the area. Any vehicle or structure that you see that has this signature you should not approach within 100 metres unless you are wearing full skin and respiratory protection.

The Presenter: What are the symptoms so that if they appear on the inhabitants of those areas they can tell they have been exposed?

Professor Rocke: The first symptom that will show up ….. will be the respiratory problems. It acts like a chronic bronchitis. The second thing that you will probably see is the rashes.

The Presenter: The infections that showed up in the south of Iraq and the deformities in the newborn, do you expect these to last for 4.5 billion years? Is there a possibility that in the future generations more complications will come up?

Professor Rocke: Absolutely… Again as along as individuals are being exposed to uranium, we know that the changes in the RNA in DNA, the changes that occur genetically are causing all of these birth effects. We have seen those birth effects in American soldiers who were exposed. We are seeing those birth effects all over the world where uranium exposures have occurred.

The Presenter: Can the insistence of the United States to use this ammunition again against human beings and against Iraq be considered a new war crime?

Professor Rocke: Anybody who uses uranium munitions in war must understand that it is a crime against God and it is a crime against humanity… Yes, it is. When you deliberately and wilfully spread radioactive waste, ignore the health effects and refuse to clean it up, that is a crime against God and a crime against humanity.

The Presenter: What do you think the size of the disaster that will result from using hundreds of tonnes of uranium in the war against Iraq? If this is the picture given for the past 10 years, what will be from the result on the region of using uranium again?

Professor Rocke: If we have the same exposures and we have extensive use we can estimate that the number of casualties and the percentage of people in the area…that is going to be 30% again. That is the numbers, we cannot change the statistics. We cannot change the epidemiological effects of all of the contaminations that results from war.

cu_no=1&item_no=2565&version=1&template_id=273&parent_

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. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."

She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."

Read "Before the dust settles", the New Scientist editorial on this story here.

A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, DU is chemically identical to natural uranium. But most of the 235 isotope has been extracted leaving mainly the non-fissionable 238 isotope. It is used to make the tips of armour-piercing shells because it is extremely dense: 1.7 times as dense as lead. Also, unlike other heavy metals that tend to flatten, or mushroom, upon impact, DU has the ability to "self-sharpen" as material spread out by the impact ignites and burns off as the munition pierces its target.

During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure likely to be matched in the course of the current conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

As the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence point out, this claim has not been substantiated. Iraq did not allow the World Health Organization to carry out an independent assessment. Given its low radioactivity and our current understanding of radiobiology, DU cannot trigger such health effects, the British and American governments maintain.

But what if they are wrong? Though DU is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, Miller believes that its radiological and toxic effects might combine in subtle, unforeseen ways, making it more carcinogenic than thought. It's a controversial theory, but one for which Miller has increasing evidence.

Uranium is "genotoxic". It chemically alters DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. The fear is that the resulting abnormally high activity in cells could be a precursor to tumour growth.

But while the chemical toxicity of DU is reasonably well established, Mothersill points out that the radiological effects of DU are less clear. To gauge the risk from low-dose radiation, researchers extrapolate from tests using higher doses. But the relationship between dose and effect is not linear: at low doses radiation kills relatively fewer cells. And though that sounds like good news, it could mean that low radiation is having subtle effects that go unnoticed because cells are not dying, says Mothersill.

Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells.

More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993627&sub=News%20update

Standing next to DU is not the problem. Inhaling the dust so it lodges in your lungs is the problem. Ingesting the dust after it settles out of the air and incorporates into the food chain is the problem.

The symptoms Dr Rocke lists are symptoms of chemical weapons poisoning.

Assertions are not enough. A statistical analisys of complete toxicology reports of victims is required to establish cause-effect relationships.

Then you have to explain why so many people exposed to DU outside of Iraq do not show these symptoms.

When you satisfy these two criteria, let me know. Meanwhile, let's see if my prediction (cases of birth defects in Iraq decreses sharply over next few years) comes true.

From the "Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses"

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up program remains the most important source for identifying potential untoward health effects in those friendly-fire victims who have retained DU fragments. About a quarter of the over 60 Level I exposed individuals who have been evaluated still carry DU fragments in their bodies, and they have elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War. The present health status of this cohort shows they have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome.

Level II exposures comprise around 200 soldiers who worked in and around combat vehicles (mainly U.S. friendly fire vehicles) struck by depleted uranium and as many as 600 personnel who took part in the clean up after the fire at Camp Doha. These exposures resulted in significantly lower estimated intakes of depleted uranium than the Level I exposures. The radiation estimates were less than the 0.1 rem per year guideline for members of the general public and much less than the 5 rem per year limit for workers. The chemical exposure estimates were also well below the chemical toxicity guidelines. Therefore, no adverse health effects are expected from the Level II exposures.

Level III is an "all others" category for personnel whose contacts with depleted uranium were very brief and are highly unlikely to have resulted in any medically significant exposure taking place. This group includes curious personnel who entered Iraqi equipment or personnel down wind from vehicles that burned after being struck by depleted uranium rounds. This group’s estimated exposures were minimal.

It's very clear from the messages posted here on SF Indymedia that the radioactive D.U. dust is extremely harmful to all people and the environment.

I urge everyone to get the words out. Call, fax, email your radio, TV, newspapers, your House and Congressional Representatives. DEMAND them to inform and educate the public. Ban D.U. Now!

Scientific Method Quiz:

What is wrong with this statement:

"It is clear from what anonymous users posted on a web site that <XYZ> is true."

Get the word out. Tell the people.

Objective: Measure the D.U. effects on D.U. Weaponry Proponents

Materials: D.U. destroyed vehicles

Procedure: (1) Seal and contain all D.U. destroyed vehicles from the Middle East. (2) Transport and allocate 1 D.U. destroyed vehicle to the home of each D.U. weaponry supporter. (3) Seal the subject's homes with plastic sheetings and duct tape, prefer to maintain a condition of negative pressure thru-out the experiment. (4) Measure the I.Q. of the D.U. supporters before and after the exposure to D.U. dust. Time duration: 1 month or more.

Criteria of Success:
1. If the I.Q. score goes up, we'll package and ship more D.U. dust to other "untested" D.U. weaponry supporters for their own benefits.
2. If the I.Q. is unchanged, we'll package and ship more D.U. dust to other D.U. weaponry supporters for further study.
3. If the I.Q. goes down, which is almost impossible because they're the smartest of the bunch, we'll package and ship more D.U. dust to other D.U. weaponry supporters to verify the validity of the initial findings.

Is this proposed scientific experiment good enough for you, bill nye science guy?