HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "Le Monde diplomatique" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Le Monde diplomatique > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > March 2002 > > DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS > > America's big dirty secret > _______________________________________________________ > > The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of > its new bomb currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs > in Afghanistan; it sucks the air from underground > installations, suffocating those within. The US has also > admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the > last decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now > Afghanistan. > > by ROBERT JAMES PARSONS * > _______________________________________________________ > > "The immediate concern for medical professionals and > employees of aid organisations remains the threat of > extensive depleted uranium (DU) contamination in > Afghanistan." This is one of the conclusions of a > 130-page report, Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan? > (1), by Dai Williams, an independent researcher and > occupational psychologist. It is the result of more than > a year of research into DU and its effects on those > exposed to it. > > Using internet sites of both NGOs (2) and arms > manufacturers, Williams has come up with information that > he has cross-checked and compared with weapons that the > Pentagon has reported indeed boasted about using during > the war. What emerges is a startling and frightening > vision of war, both in Afghanistan and in the future. > > Since 1997 the United States has been modifying and > upgrading its missiles and guided (smart) bombs. > Prototypes of these bombs were tested in the Kosovo > mountains in 1999, but a far greater range has been > tested in Afghanistan. The upgrade involves replacing a > conventional warhead by a heavy, dense metal one (3). > Calculating the volume and the weight of this mystery > metal leads to two possible conclusions: it is either > tungsten or depleted uranium. > > Tungsten poses problems. Its melting point (3,422°C) > makes it very hard to work; it is expensive; it is > produced mostly by China; and it does not burn. DU is > pyrophoric, burning on impact or if it is ignited, with a > melting point of 1,132°C; it is much easier to process; > and as nuclear waste, it is available free to arms > manufacturers. Further, using it in a range of weapons > significantly reduces the US nuclear waste storage > problem. > > This type of weapon can penetrate many metres of > reinforced concrete or rock in seconds. It is equipped > with a detonator controlled by a computer that measures > the density of the material passed through and, when the > warhead reaches the targeted void or a set depth, > detonates the warhead, which then has an explosive and > incendiary effect. The DU burns fiercely and rapidly, > carbonising everything in the void, while the DU itself > is transformed into a fine uranium oxide powder. Although > only 30% of the DU of a 30mm penetrator round is > oxidised, the DU charge of a missile oxidises 100%. Most > of the dust particles produced measure less than 1.5 > microns, small enough to be breathed in. > > For a few researchers in this area, the controversy over > the use of DU weapons during the Kosovo war got > side-tracked. Instead of asking what weapons might have > been used against most of the targets (underground > mountain bunkers) acknowledged by Nato, discussion > focused on 30mm anti-tank penetrator rounds, which Nato > had admitted using but which would have been ineffective > against superhardened underground installations. > > However, as long as the questions focused on such > anti-tank penetrators, they dealt with rounds whose > maximum weight was five kilos for a 120mm round. The DU > explosive charges in the guided bomb systems used in > Afghanistan can weigh as much as one and a half metric > tons (as in Raytheon's Bunker Buster GBU-28) (4). > > Who cares? > > In Geneva, where most of the aid agencies active in > Afghanistan are based, Williams's report has caused > varied reactions. The United Nations Office of the High > Commissioner for Refugees and the Office for the > Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs have circulated it. > But it does not seem to have worried agency and programme > directors much. Only Médecins sans Frontiéres and the UN > Environment Programme (UNEP) say they fear an > environmental and health catastrophe. > > In March and April 2001, UNEP and the World Health > Organisation (WHO) published reports on DU, reports that > are frequently cited by those claiming DU is innocuous. > The Pentagon emphasises that the organisations are > independent and neutral. But the UNEP study is, at best, > compromised. The WHO study is unreliable. > > The Kosovo assessment mission that provided the basis for > the UNEP analysis was organised using maps supplied by > Nato; Nato troops accompanied the researchers to protect > them from unexploded munitions, including cluster bomb > sub-munitions. These sub-munitions, as Williams > discovered, were probably equipped with DU > shaped-charges. Nato troops prevented researchers from > any contact with DU sub-munitions, even from discovering > their existence. > > During the 16 months before the UNEP mission, the > Pentagon sent at least 10 study teams into the field and > did major clean-up operations (5). Out of 8,112 anti-tank > penetrator rounds fired on the sites studied, the UNEP > team recovered only 11, although many more would not have > been burned. And, 18 to 20 months after the firing, the > amount of dust found directly on sites hit by these > rounds was particularly small. > > The WHO undertook no proper epidemiological study, only > an academic desk study. Under pressure from the > International Atomic Energy Agency, the WHO confined > itself to studying DU as a heavy-metal, chemical > contaminant. In January 2001, alerted to the imminent > publication by Le Monde diplomatique of an article > attacking its inaction (6), the WHO held a press > conference and announced a $2m fund eventually $20m for > research into DU. According Dr Michael Repacholi of the > WHO, the report on DU, under way since 1999 and > supervised by the British geologist Barry Smith, would be > expanded to include radiation contamination. The work > would include analyses of urine of people exposed to DU, > conducted to determine the exposure level. > > But the monograph, published 10 weeks later, was merely a > survey of existing literature on the subject. Out of > hundreds of thousands of monographs published since 1945, > which ought to have been explored in depth, the report > covered only monographs on chemical contamination, with a > few noteworthy exceptions. The few articles about dealing > with radiation contamination that had been consulted came > from the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation, the Pentagon > think- tank. It is unsurprising that the report was > bland. > > The recommendations of the two reports were common sense, > and repeated advice already given by the WHO and echoed > regularly by the aid organisations working in Kosovo. > This included marking off known target sites, collecting > penetrator rounds wherever possible, keeping children > away from contaminated sites, and the suggested > monitoring of some wells later on. > > Uranium plus > > The problem can be summed up as two key findings: > > o Radiation emitted by DU threatens the human body > because, once DU dust has been inhaled, it becomes an > internal radiation source; international radiation > protection standards, the basis of expert claims that DU > is harmless, deal only with external radiation sources; > > o Dirty DU the UNEP report, for all its failings, > deserves credit for mentioning this. Uranium from > reactors, recycled for use in munitions, contains > additional highly toxic elements, such as plutonium, 1.6 > kilogrammes of which could kill 8bn people. Rather than > depleted uranium, it should be called uranium plus. > > In a French TV documentary on Canal+ in January 2001 (7), > a team of researchers presented the results of an > investigation into a gaseous diffusion recycling plant in > Paducah, Kentucky, US. According to the lawyer for > 100,000 plaintiffs, who are past and present plant > employees, they were contaminated because of flagrant > non-compliance with basic safety standards; the entire > plant is irrevocably contaminated, as is everything it > produces. The documentary claimed that the DU in the > missiles that were dropped on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and > Iraq is likely to be a product of this plant. > > These weapons represent more than just a new approach to > warfare. The US rearmament programme launched during > Ronald Reagan's presidency was based on the premise that > the victor in future conflicts would be the side that > destroyed the enemy's command and communications centres. > Such centres are increasingly located in superhardened > bunkers deep underground. > > Hitting such sites with nuclear weapons would do the job > well, but also produce radiation that even the Pentagon > would have to acknowledge as fearsome, not to mention the > bad public relations arising from mushroom-shaped clouds > in a world aware of the dangers of nuclear war. DU > warheads seem clean: they produce a fire modest in > comparison with a nuclear detonation, though the > incendiary effect can be just as destructive. > > The information that Williams has gathered (8) shows that > after computer modelling in 1987, the US conducted the > first real operational tests against Baghdad in 1991. The > war in Kosovo provided further opportunity to test, on > impressively hard targets, DU weapon prototypes as well > as weapons already in production. Afghan-istan has seen > an extension and amplification of such tests. But at the > Pentagon there is little transparency about this. > > Williams cites several press articles (9) in December > 2001 mentioning NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) teams > in the field checking for possible contamination. Such > contamination, according to the US government, would be > attributed to the Taliban. But, last October, Afghan > doctors, citing rapid deaths from internal ailments, were > accusing the coalition of using chemical and radioactive > weapons. The symptoms they reported (haemorrhaging, > pulmonary constriction and vomiting) could have resulted > from radiation contamination. > > On 5 December, when a friendly-fire bomb hit coalition > soldiers, media representatives were all immediately > removed from the scene and locked up in a hangar. > According to the Pentagon, the bomb was a GBU-31, > carrying a BLU-109 warhead. The Canal+ documentary shows > an arms manufacturer's sales representative at an > international fair in Dubai in 1999, just after the > Kosovo war. He is presenting a BLU-109 warhead and > describing its penetration capabilities against > superhardened underground targets, explaining that this > model had been tested in a recent war. > > Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence, on 16 January > this year admitted that the US had found radiation in > Afghanistan (10). But this, he reassured, was merely from > DU warheads (supposedly belonging to al-Qaida); he did > not explain how al-Qaida could have launched them without > planes. Williams points out that, even if the coalition > has used no DU weapons, those attributed to al-Qaida > might turn out to be an even greater source of > contamination, especially if they came from Russia, in > which case the DU could be even dirtier than that from > Paducah. > > Following its assessment mission in the Balkans, UNEP set > up a post-conflict assessment unit. Its director, Henrik > Slotte, has announced that it is ready to work in > Afghanistan as soon as possible, given proper security, > unimpeded access to hit sites, and financing. The WHO > remains silent. When questions about the current state of > the DU research fund were addressed to Jon Lidon, > spokesman for the director general, Dr Gro Harlem > Brundtland, the WHO did not answer. Yet Williams urges > that studies begin immediately, as victims of severe UD > exposure may soon all be dead, yet with their deaths > attributed to the rigours of winter. > > In Jefferson County, Indiana, the Pentagon has closed the > 200-acre (80-hectare) proving ground where it used to > test-fire DU rounds. The lowest estimate for cleaning up > the site comes to $7.8bn, not including permanent storage > of the earth to a depth of six metres and of all the > vegetation. Considering the cost too high, the military > finally decided to give the tract to the National Park > Service for a nature preserve an offer that was promptly > refused. Now there is talk of turning it into a National > Sacrifice Zone and closing it forever. This gives an idea > of the fate awaiting those regions of the planet where > the US has used and will use depleted uranium. > ____________________________________________________ > > * Journalist, Geneva > > (1) See website > > (2) The internet sites of Janes Defense Information, the > Federation of American Scientists, the Centre of Defense > Information. > > (3) See FAS Website > > (4) FAS and USA Today > > (5) Chronology of environmental sampling in the Balkans > > (6) See Deafening silence on depleted uranium, Le Monde > diplomatique English edition, February 2001. > > (7) La Guerre radioactive secrète, by Martin Meissonnier, > Roger Trilling, Guillaume d'Allessandro and Luc Hermann, > first broadcast in February 2000; updated and rebroadcast > in January 2001 under the title L'Uranium appauvri, nous > avons retrouvé l'usine contaminée by Roger Trilling and > Luc Hermann. > > (8) The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Planning of > Attacks on Iraqi Chemical and Biological Warfare Targets > > (9) For example "New Evidence is Adding to US Fears of > Al-Qaida Dirty Bomb", International Herald Tribune, > December 5, 2001; "Uranium Reportedly Found in Tunnel > Complex", USA Today, December 24, 2001. > > (10) "US Says More Weapons Sites Found in Afghanistan", > Reuters, January 16, 2002. > > > > Translated by the author > > > ____________________________________________________ > > ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2002 Le Monde diplomatique > > <http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/03/03uranium> > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
