The following gives perspective on how US forces will be "drained off."



US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'

By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.

'To do so is a crime against humanity.

'We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU.'

He called on the US and UK to 'recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation'.

He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately.

'It is equivalent to a war crime.'

Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU contamination.

The Sunday Herald has previously revealed how the Ministry of Defence had test-fired some 6350 DU rounds into the Solway Firth over more than a decade, from 1989 to 1999.

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml


Read the above and then see if you do not agree that the USA is the most repugnant nation on the face of the earth. If I understand the science correctly, your Commander in Chief doesn't give a rats ass for the US Armed Forces apart from their utility as backdrops for his Nurenberg moments. Chavez is as nothing compared to this.

No, sorry, the U.S. is many things, but 'the most repugnant nation on the face of the earth' it isn't.

Want a quick list?

  1. North Korea, where the 'Nurenberg moments' are backstopped by an unknown number of millions starved dead. In a way, much closer to the real spirit of the inventors of such photo ops, by the way.
  2. Zimbabwe, while not quite reaching North Korean standards, shows what a bad president really looks like - strange how starvation is one of the ways where repugnant has a different meaning in my definition. And Robert Mugabe's most loyal units in the past were North Korean trained, so as to show that not all evil in the world comes from the West.  
  3. Well, I thought including one nuclear power would be nice, so Pakistan it is. Admittedly, only arguably more repugnant than America, but actively selling nuclear technology world wide is certainly more repugnant than simply picking and choosing which treaty to sign or ignore, and let's be honest - Pakistan is not exactly a model of stability, corruption, or religious tolerance, and on all three points, America is better. (Maybe not as good as Americans think, but still better.) To put it in a certain perspective - free market America is still less likely to sell nuclear weapons to anyone than Pakistan is. And a lot less likely to fracture in the next decade into a civil war.

Hope this helps to define repugnant - you are welcome to be disgusted with America, but it will take a while longer before it reaches the true depths of repugnance which people are capable of in today's world. Americans (to their credit generally) have a hard time imagining what really bad societies look like. But starving 5% to 10% of a population to death for ideological reasons is truly repugnant, and America has a long ways to go before that happens - even in Iraq, where food and malnourishment have been and most likely remains a problem.

Do write a comment or two after America nukes Iran, though, because that certainly could re-open the debate to your advantage.

Expat: Does "damning with faint praise" come to mind?
Actually, it didn't. And no, I wasn't trying to. It is just sometimes, people seem so out of touch with what life is like other places that pointing it out becomes too hard to resist.

I stopped myself on the whole Bush is as bad as Hitler thing, though.

OK, how about "the most repugnant major nation on the face of the planet"?  I've never seen (or even imagined) such a public repudiation of lofty national ideals.  It speaks volumes that the rest of the world is perfectly prepared to believe that the US will use nuclear weapons in a war of agression against Iran.

Given that the comparisons for moral turpitude are to nations such as Zimbabwe and North Korea, I think it's safe to say that even US citizens should be alarmed at how low their nation has fallen.
 

Terrible sorry, old chap, but whatever reality your using isn't quite the same as the reality on the ground.  To begin, choosing to use North Korea and Zimbabwe as reference points is truly asinine.  The US cannot be the most repugnant because these are much more repugnant?  Are you getting to grips with what your uttering?

What you should be saying is the US is the most shinning because it shines brighter than...  I'll leave you to select those nations that best represent your notion of shining.

Instead, you choose to argue that in a bowl of shit, your shit is the least smelly.  Is that the best you can do?

The United States of America (oxymoron rears its ugly head here) cannot be the most repugnant nation on Earth because North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan are all worse?  Guess the US is just the *fourth* most repugnant nation on Earth.  Wow!  What an accolade.  Good job expat, you've made the point perfectly.

Hello,
  not really - I struck off places like Haiti as being repugnant in the absolute and abject sense of probably being the worst place to live in the Western Hemisphere. Also struck off a few former Soviet Republics, where traditional values includes such shining lights as Stalin and Tamerlane. Zimbabwe was picked because it has nothing to do with the West, but there are entire regions like the Congo (does that area even have an official name /state boundaries anymore?) which are obviously repugnant in terms of low grade genocide. I also left off places like Myanmar or Libya.

But I left these off (there are more), because most of them are part of a larger picture, which is how the rich live off the poor. And there, really, the U.S. is not somehow uniquely repugnant either. It may be the biggest pig at the trough, but it is only one of many.

When complaining about the U.S., and there is a lot to complain about, sticking to some basic facts and perspectives is helpful in having a discussion.

But if it helps anyone - that America is the nation which seems to have fallen the farthest from its own self-proclaimed lofty ideals in the last 10 years, while in the eyes of many becoming a mockery of itself on what seems to be an unstoppable path to evil is certainly the sort of description I would wholeheartedly agree to, simply 'not most repugnant.' Most Americans seem really unaware how far America still has to fall before joining the true bottom ranks. They also seem unaware of how many mechanisms are already in place to make sure that stopping it is considered beyond practicality. Notice that the president can now declare a 'special event of national significance' anywhere in the U.S., for a tiny example (so much for peaceful assembly to petition for redress) - and while massive  wiretapping has been going on for years, it is only recently that the technology has allowed automation to work effectively enough - tied in with the huge amount of data stored, since Americans seem to have allowed databases to be filled over the last couple of decades of a style which a German planner facing numerous political goals in 1934 could only dream of. (Again, not a direct comparison - the German planner did have genealogical records which are still not normal in the U.S., for example - but in 1934, hardcore communists/Stalinists, various religious groups, and a number of militant unions/workers were still in fairly active opposition to the Nazis takeover, and were still considered a threat facing the new regime.) Having a tool to wield tends to be the first step in wielding it in the world of cause and effect - and notice I haven't said who or which political belief will wield it, only that it is hard to imagine it won't be. As an interesting side note - the recent demonstrations of people many seem to consider 'illegal' could be a fine way to test many aspects of a system designed to ensure that 100,000s of people could be placed in confinement (wonder how the camp construction is going? - bet Cheney knows who to call to find out, don't you?), since they are considered a threat to American society. And from most of what I have been reading, a majority of 'real' Americans would be pleased to see it happen, if only to defend America from a wave of unAmericanness, or something equally hard for me to understand. Yes, a certain mixture is starting to stir itself, and I doubt people are worried enough about what it means. Sort of like pointing out how databases being set up in the 1980s were a first step in people trading away privacy - these days, an entire system is in place to notice 'suspicious' transactions in the entire banking/retail network, and essentially no one can live without a credit card, it seems.

I don't live there now, but from here, what is stirring is a truly vile mixture of racism wrapped in righteousness about legality and respecting America. Almost as if after 40 years of being kept under a rock, a certain ugly creature has finally found the lever to pry itself back into the light, where many people seem entranced by its pure blackness, and wish it to grow larger and more devouring.

Maybe I am wrong, but a lot worries me about what is going on in the U.S.

But as noted, a few nukes getting legal field testing in Iran (wouldn't want to break any treaties and test them illegally here first, right?) would make this a more complicated discussion. But honestly, even after nuking a few Iranian targets, I still would argue North Korea is worse.

While we are not the most repugnant, we are working on being a contender if we aren't careful. Some people romanticise about Cuba, but Cuba is no paradise. I saw a Chicago Tribune article about a Cuban woman not being allowed to leave on the assertion that Cuba's government owns her brain calling it "patrimony". Not on an order like North Korea, but contending.

Our own entry in this contest isn't the U-238 bullets but our 2 million people in the prisons. The drug war is arguably racist and can be described as a civil war in slo-mo.

The issue of depleted uranium is not settled.  There appear to be studies that land on both sides of the toxicity/tetragenicity/carcenogenicity questions.  Even if there is a correlation, then there is still the issue of causation.  Of course, I would much rather we were using that uranium for fast neutron reactor fuel than littering the landscape with it.

This is not like climate change, where the willful ignorance of widely accepted information by the Administration is repugnant and endangering billions of lives in the future.

You think there is room for debate about the toxicity of DU?  Even without the radiation issues, the chemical itself is a very toxic metal, more so than lead or mercury.
DU shrapnel has been analyzed and found to contain
reactor core material such as U236,Neptunium and
Plutonium.

The Department of Energy has admitted that the DU stockpiles contain radioactive waste from nuclear reactor cores and that plutonium, americium and neptunium are present in DU. This is also evidenced by the presence of U-236 which could only have come from reactor cores. The presence of these transuranic elements complicates the picture somewhat, but the same analysis can be used to determine the effects that these elements have on the total radioactivity of DU. All that needs to be known are the percentage amounts of these elements in a 1 gram sample of DU.

S. F. Boulyga of the Research Center Juelich in Juelich Germany reported [Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectroscopy Vol. 16(11), 2001 (pp. 1283-1289) ] finding Pu-239, Pu-240 and Am-241 in a sample taken from a DU penetrator shell. He reported 1.7x10-9 gram (1.7 nanograms) of Am-241 and 3.1x10-5 gram (31 micrograms) of U-236 in a 1 gram DU sample. This is 10 times the amount of U-236 reported by DoD and used in the above calculations (Table 1b).

http://www.idust.net/Tutorial/DURadiation01.htm

Every trooper(Iraq/Afghanistan) should be tested for Onset Diabetes and
Sores that will not heal-first signs of Radiation Poisoning.
Also, Uranium as a simple heavy metal will bind to DNA
causing cell mutations.

James

You cite 1.7x10-9 grams of AM-241 per gram of DU.  Your typical smoke detector has about 10-4 grams of AM-241, over 50,000 times as much.  One smoke detector would have as much Americium as several hundred rounds of DU ammunition.

As for neptunium 235, the web page that you link has an error. While it can alpha decay, this mode is very small compared to the electron capture to uranium 235. So even though neptunium 235 has a short half life,  it almost entirely contributes x-rays and low energy beta-rays if it is present, and almost no alpha particles.  

On a surreal note, at one time some people used uranium compounds as a treatment for diabetes, among other aliments.

Thank you for the correction.

The implication being made in the article stated
that Americium was not the factor that Neptunium is, I think,
and that the combination of elements,especially with
Neptunium exacerbating the Uranium decay.

I am not a scientist(in this field). My close relative did electrical work
for Oppenheimer(the relative died of a brain tumor).

Again, thanx for the clarification.

James

DU is toxic, but no more so than many other substances that are not nearly as controversial.  

The radiation is really a non-issue for DU.   The natural activity of potassium-40 in the body is around 100,000 picoCuries. The natural activity of uranium in the body is around 50 picoCuries, 2,000 times less.  You would need to increase the typical load of uranium in the body (about 100 micrograms) to about 200,000 micrograms, or 0.2 grams, just to equal the radioactivity that you already get from potassium.

Heavy metals of any stamp are bad news, but data from people like uranium miners, who have had exposure to alot of uranium compounds as dust, shows that radon is more significant than uranium for their work-related health problems.