By Bill Wilson
● The Ministry of Defence (MoD) refuses to clean up radioactive pollution in Fife.
● MoD claims with regard to the safety of depleted uranium (DU) are based on an extraordinarily small sample size.
● Further evidence from Iraq on the link between uranium weapons and birth defects in Fallujah.
● Have the UK and the USA developed new uranium-based weapons?
Some months ago, I wrote to Liam Fox – until recently the minister in the MoD – regarding the dangers of DU weapons. Dr Fox assured me that DU was both safe and unsafe. Yes, you read that correctly, he did give both assurances within the same letter. An interesting conundrum, until you realise the simple truth: DU is perfectly safe as long as you are not an active soldier based, or a civilian living, within the contaminated area.
On 16 October, writing in the Herald, Rob Edwards revealed that the MoD’s ability to adopt these most extraordinary double standards is not restricted to radioactivity abroad. Edwards noted – in regard to Dalgety Bay – that “The MoD has been resisting demands to pay for a clean-up of the pollution from old military planes for the last 20 years. It has persistently played down the possible health effects for members of the public.” The same article also noted that “MoD scientists have refused to analyse radioactive contamination from Dalgety Bay in Fife because of the risk it could give them cancer, official minutes of a meeting have revealed.”
The whole scenario is so bizarre that one wonders if it has something to do with sand. Dalgety Bay is sandy; Iraq has lots of sand. In the Alice in Wonderland world of the MoD and radioactivity maybe that is the connection – sand results in radioactive pollution behaving rather like Schrödinger’s cat: it is safe as long as you do not look at it.
Loud and long have been the calls for the scientific evidence on the dangers of DU to be reviewed. Loud and long have been the calls to end all use of DU weapons. The most recent concerns were expressed at a meeting of the European parliament’s security and defence committee (SEDE).
The European Commission’s scientific committee on health and environmental risks (SCHER) had concluded that DU weapons did not present a significant threat to civilian health. However, that view came under attack at the SEDE committee meeting. Dr Keith Baverstock (formerly of the World Health Organisation) made several telling points. The representative of SCHER, Professor Wolfgang Dekant, made reference to a Kosovo study by Oeh et al that claimed to have used hundreds of subjects and which indicated that there was no risk to civilians.
In response, Reinhard Bütikofer MEP pointed out that in fact only 25 civilian subjects had been included in the study and no indication was given as to how these individuals were selected. Questions – such as did they live near areas in which DU weapons were used? – remained unanswered.
Dr Baverstock drew attention to SCHER’s use of a series of US studies on veterans with embedded DU fragments as further evidence of no risk. The study had just 80 participants and its shortcomings have been identified by a Congressional report. Dr Baverstock noted that such studies would normally have up to 1,000 times more participants. To add to these concerns, he also noted that exposure studies have not been done in areas such as Iraq, where the re-suspension of uranium particles would be more common.
(For a more detailed discussion of this meeting, refer to the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons.)
Meanwhile, further evidence of the damage done to the civilians of Iraq by the US/UK use of DU weapons has recently emerged. A paper entitled “Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq” examined hair samples from 25 fathers and mothers of children diagnosed with congenital anomalies. The paper found that, with the exception of one area in Finland, the level of contamination was higher in Fallujah than other control sites. Furthermore, that the intake of uranium in Fallujah (nano-particle ceramic oxides) is different from all control sites.
The paper confirmed that the uranium intake by the individuals followed the military assault on Fallujah in 2004. It also confirmed that the uranium was man-made – but, interestingly, was enriched uranium, not depleted uranium. It is known that the UK/USA used DU weapons in the first Gulf War, but claim they did not do so in the second.
Have the UK and USA developed new uranium-based weapons, replacing DU with enriched uranium, allowing them to deny the use of DU while keeping the weapons? (Evidence of enriched uranium weapons also comes from sites in the Lebanon bombed by Israel.)
Whatever the story on the weapons, the paper concludes that the congenital anomalies in Fallujah – a city where doctors have advised women not to become pregnant due to the high risk of birth defects – is as a result of the weapons used during the coalition assault on Fallujah in 2004.
Those who have followed the campaign against DU weapons will not be surprised by any of these latest developments. If there is one thing that is absolutely clear, it is that the UK and US militaries place military effectiveness above all else. Damage to the environment, the health of their own soldiers and the health of civilians is neither here nor there.
Whether it is denying radioactive pollution in Fife, or the effects of uranium weapons in Iraq, it is all one. The lesson from Iraq and Fife is clear: do not imagine that because the weapons are used abroad that you can feel safe at home. Once you allow an organisation to show contempt for the lives of others, then it will grow to learn contempt for all life. That includes yours.
– Dr Bill Wilson is a former MSP.
Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Related posts: