ENVIRONMENT-U.S.: Experts Debate Dangers of Depleted Uranium

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

NEW YORK, Sep 16 1996 (IPS) - How deadly is depleted uranium (DU)?

Deadly enough, the Pentagon would say: U.S. troops fired more than 900,000 rounds of uranium-tipped bullets at Iraqi soldiers during their lopsided victory in the 1991 Gulf War. U.S.-made Abrams tanks, which were fortified with DU armour, went through the brief war almost entirely unharmed.

But some scientists and activists now argue that DU is deadly in another way. They say the compound, 99 percent of which contains the uranium-238 (U-238) isotope, is not only radioactive, but may be responsible for a range of illnesses among U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Critics argue that the government has used DU weapons partly to get rid of a portion of more than 500,000 tonnes of DU waste the United States has accumulated in the process of fuelling nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

The uranium is “depleted” of the highly radioactive U-235, but still contains the toxic U-238 isotope, estimated to have a radioactive life of 4.5 billion years.

The critics contend that the Pentagon knew the dangers DU posed for anyone who inhaled or ingested it, but did not properly inform the Gulf War soldiers.

“Even when the Pentagon says they care about the lives of their soldiers, they will dispose of them,” argues Sara Flounders, spokeswoman for the International Action Centre, which last week called for an international movement to ban DU weapons.

The Pentagon, in a 1993 fact sheet, contends that “the radiological danger from depleted uranium is negligible.” But the fact sheet adds, “Because there is a theoretical possibility of a few individuals experiencing adverse health effects, at even very low doses, the Army treats depleted uranium dust as a potential hazard and, therefore, handles depleted uranium with care.”

But Flounders doubts adequate care was taken in the firing of bullets with DU. She says that the U.S. Army sparked “a massive pollution of Iraqis and of soldiers who fought there.”

Critics of DU argue that a wide range of symptoms exhibited by U.S. soldiers since the war — dubbed “Gulf War syndrome” by the Veterans’ Administration — are caused by the exposure of thousands of soldiers to the radioactive compound. Iraq has for years blamed DU for causing a rise in anencephaly, leukemia, carcinoma and lung cancer among its population.

“One common factor continues to surface among Gulf War syndrome troops — exposure to DU,” argues Christina Larson, a psychology professor at the University of West Florida.

The U.S. government has repeatedly denied that DU usage in the Gulf War prompted health risks. Much of the scientific community agrees that there is no proof connecting DU to Gulf War syndrome or the other maladies.

“I don’t think there is any scientific credibility at all to the idea that Gulf War symptoms can be attributed to DU,” says Tom Cochran, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.

Except for U.S. soldiers shot in “friendly fire” during the conflict, Gulf War troops faced a fairly low level of exposure to DU, he says. With that level of exposure, Cochran adds, they should have “a very low possiblity of getting cancer after a fairly long latency period. And the latency period hasn’t been long enough.”

There are potential health risks from DU, Cochran concedes. But the occupational hazards U.S. soldiers faced from travelling in DU- fortified tanks or handling the bullets is in line with the risks faced by most workers in the nuclear industry, he argues.

Cochran says perhaps the worst risk DU posed in the Gulf War is that “it hurts when you get hit by those shells, as those guys (the Iraqis) found out.”

But a report first prepared by an Army group in 1994, and acquired this year by the Maine-based Military Toxics Project, points to a much higher level of risk from DU exposure.

“No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU,” says the report, prepared by the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). “These are intrinsic properties of uranium.”

When a DU shell hits a target, the report goes on, as much as 70 percent of the object struck can be turned into an aerosol, and thus carried in the air and easily inhaled. “Aerosols containing DU oxides may contaminate the area downwind,” AEPI says. “DU fragments may also contaminate the soil around the struck vehicle.”

The report nonetheless contends that the Army used all necessary precautions in handling DU, minimising any health risks during the Gulf War. But it warns that other nations may similarly use DU weapons in future conflicts, so the risks of DU patients in future wars remain.

Indeed, President Bill Clinton’s administration have helped the spread of DU weapons, authorising the sale of such weapons last year to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But Cochran says the government is “getting out of the business” of DU weapons.

But more steps are needed for the government to cope with the dangers of DU, including a thorough study of the effects of DU so far, some scientists say.

“A comprehensive epidemiological study should be made of all Gulf War veterans and their families, searching for evidence of residual DU in their bodies and for causes of genetic defects in their children,” says Leonard Dietz, a scientist formerly at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.

He argues that health risks associated with DU weapons must be studied by scientific and medical experts who are completely independent from the Pentagon, Veterans’ Administration, or U.S. military contractors.