The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
I am concerned that the people of Afghanistan may be
facing a similar health nightmare as suffered by many people
in Iraq. I appreciate that CASI is primarily for Iraq but the
suspected causes and effects may be similar.
To date the only depleted uranium (DU) weapons
acknowledged by the US and UK governments have been anti-tank munitions - mainly
30 mm and 120 mm DU penetrators - and 20 mm Phallanx sea-to-air shells. In
the Gulf war some 300 tons of DU anti-armour munitions were declared and in
the Balkans war just under 10 tons.
Suspected use of DU in guided
weapons (smart bombs and cruise missiles)
Anomalies in the UNEP report on DU use in the Balkans led
me to revisit the question asked and denied in 1999 - was DU used in smart bombs
and cruise missiles? A host of clues to this question lie in the
Federation of American Scientists website's index of guided weapons at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/index.html
. Briefly they describe a new generation of hard target versions of
guided weapons (bombs and missiles) proposed in 1997 e.g. GBU-24, GBU-37,
GBU-32, AGM-86D, AGM-65G, AGM-154C and latest versions of the
BGM-109 Tomahawk.
Several of these were part of the Hard or Deeply Buried
Defeat Capability Program (search for HDBTDC in the FAS site). All of
these weapons achieve their increased effectiveness (2x over earlier
versions) by increasing the area density (weight divided by cross-sectional
area) of new warheads called Advanced Unitary Penetrators (i.e. same weight but
much thinner). This is done by using "dense metal ballast" i.e.
some metal at least twice the density of steel. Only DU, Tungsten or
a combination of both would meet this requirement. But only DU
has an added incendiary effect.
DU may also be used in smaller quantities
in some non-guided weapons systems e.g. shaped charges in cluster
bombs like the BLU-97/B. These require further research. Every
weapons system requiring cheap, heavy or pyrophoric metal is
suspect.
Reported use of hard target guided weapons
in the Afghan War
Reports of the use of Bunker Buster bombs in
Afghanistan (from the Center for Defense Information website at
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/actionupdate-pr.cfm )
led me to revisit FAS descriptions. I asked Jane's Defence information about the
GBU-28 Bunker Buster (developed in 1991). They said this did not use DU
and that DU would be "too soft" (a standard MoD or DoD denial see below?).
They described the old version but forgot to mention the GBU-37
upgrade in 1997. This was found from CDI's bombing report
of 11 October referring to its BLU-113 4,500 lb dense metal
penetrator, see FAS index.
Early CDI and Jane's reports of the Afghan conflict refer to a range of
other smart bombs and cruise missiles with 1000 or 2000 lb hard target
penetrator warhead options (GBU-24, GBU-32, CALCM, JSOW,
JDAM etc). Later reports were more vague. But the nature
of the "dense metal" they all seem to rely on remains unspecified in
all Internet sources (FAS and manufacturers websites) for these systems.
In Dying of Thirst (New Scientist 17 Nov) it was reported that US
forces were using Bunker Buster bombs on the underground aqueduct network in
Afghanistan suspected as Taliban locations. If the 2 ton GBU-37
penetrators are DU then the public health and environmental
consequences could be grim. Weapons of indiscriminate
effect?
Use of hard target weapons in
Iraq
Several of the new hard target guided systems
(e.g. AGM-86D, AGM-154C) were undergoing operational testing in summer
1998. GBU-37 and GBU-24 appear to have been operational by
then. All prior to operation Desert Fox where the Boeing website says
35 AGM-86's were used (version unspecified). One signature of DU munitions
is their intense incendiary effect: burning at 2000 degrees they can carbonise
victims in the immediate vicinity as seen for some DU tank casualties in the
Gulf War. CASI researchers may wish to reconsider bombing effects
that involved penetration of hard targets (up to 10 feet or more of concrete
thick) followed by internal incendiary-type explosions, and the possible
distribution of health problems in bomb and missile target zones - not just in
the vicinity of desert tank battles.
CASI researchers evaluating the effects of DU in
Iraq (and on Gulf War veterans) might also revisit the use of AGM-65
Maverick missiles during the Gulf War including version G with a "heavyweight
warhead" commissioned in 1989 (see the FAS site above) and the shaped charge
warheads used for its other versions. Jane's references to DU
included use"as liners for shaped charge warheads" in January this year.
This comment has been removed in their current description at http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw010108_1_n.shtml
On 6th March the following question was raised in
Parliament:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many weapons dropped by the RAF on Iraqi installations since the UK began patrolling the no-fly zone have had depleted uranium tips; and what the total estimated amount of radioactive dust generated was; [152079] (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 26 February 2001, Official Report, columns 620-21, if the two weapons dropped by the RAF were tipped with depleted uranium. [152078] Mr. Hoon: None of the weapons dropped by the RAF on Iraqi installations since the UK began patrolling the no-fly zone have had depleted uranium tips.I don't know what weapons are used by the RAF. But if these include Maverick AGM-65G cruise missiles the heavyweight warhead is in the centre of the missile. The tip (nosecone) is its guidance system. Media silence on DU in the Afghan
war
Over the last 6 weeks I have tried to get these
questions about the suspected use of DU in guided weapons to be
raised in public by the BBC, Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph
and New Scientist. Any Answers allowed me to broadcast the question on 3rd
November. But since then I have heard no reports of these
questions in any UK media. (Reports would be appreciated if you
have seen any). During the Balkans War DU became a major
media issue within 2-3 weeks.
First answers from
Government
I put my questions and concerns to Government
via my MP Sir Paul Beresford on 16 October and direct to the Prime Minister's
office on 1st November. There have been several written and one
spoken questions in the House - each with the standard denial that DU has
not been used in Afghanistan. Last week I received a copy of Dr
Moonie's reply to my MP re the dense metal question. This included the
following paragraph:
According to webelements.com the relative
densities of Titanium = 4.5, Iron = 7.9, Lead = 11.3, Uranium 238 (DU)
= 19, Tungsten = 19.2 and the
hardness (Brinell) of basic U238 is 3.4x harder than Titanium and 4.9x harder
than Iron. Strength can be further increased in alloys. DU is
slightly softer than tungsten which 5.2x harder than
iron.
Whoever wrote Dr Moonie's letter for him
was either ignorant of these facts, or perhaps hoped
to baffle me with science and the secrecy currently surrounding
new penetrator materials. Almost every other feature of these systems is in the
public domain. It is obviously very heavy. Unless it is toxic or
radioactive why should it be secret? DU is both. Tungsten is
not.
Despite asserting that DU has not been
used in Afghanistan Dr Moonie went on to say:
I am concerned that these errors,
inconsistencies and claimed ignorance of US weapons systems come from the
office of the Minister responsible for UK Government policy on DU
weapons and on health policy for UK Gulf and other war veterans. The
safety of UK troops and civilians in Afghanistan is his responsibility together
with Secretary of State Geoff Hoon, a confident advocate for DU from his
previous Hansard reports. Both men have assured Parliament that DU
has not been used in the Afghan war. I hope they are right but
on the basis of Dr Moonie's replies they simply do not know, or are not prepared
to say.
The safety of Afghan civilians in, and
after the bombing seems of minimal consideration to both the UK and US
Governments.
DU health risks
Dr Moonie's letter also stated that:
This view will be familiar to CASI researchers. It
implies that if DU has been used in the Afghan bombing the UK
Government would not consider this a serious health risk. However in
a written answer to Pete Wishart on 5th November (Hansard) Geoff Hoon did
undertake that:
To date I have heard no reports of such precautions being
taken, or of environmental monitoring to see if they are necessary. This
seems curious since I understand that Dr Moonie was formerly a
community health physician.
Health effects and DU Oversight
Board
However the UK government has recently set up a DU
Oversight Board with military and civilian scientists to review recent research
including Chris Busby from the Low Level Radiation campaign see www.llrc.org . I think several CASI
members are familiar with his work. Also Prof Malcolm Hooper, adviser
to UK Veterans suffering Gulf War syndrome.
The population of Iraq appear to have had the highest DU
exposure to date but they have also had the longest time for carcinogenic and
mutagenic effects to appear. Significant quantities of hard target guided
weapons were used in the Balkans, including the regions policed by Italian
and Spanish troops several of whom have died from
Leukaemia. With warheads ranging from 1000 lbs to 2
tons large quantities may have been used in Afghanistan - possibly
comparable with the tonnage's used in Iraq. Medical evidence is bound
to emerge whatever attempts the US and UK governments make to conceal the truth
about these weapons. If so the UN may need to revisit its recent
resolution to ignore the DU issue in Iraq.
My questions were put to the Oversight Board at its
meeting on 30 November. There can be no doubt that the UK Government and
MoD are now well aware of these concerns. At the least this may increase
the MoD's vigilance for troops assigned to Afghanistan. If it is
established that DU has been used in some guided systems then all guided
systems must be checked at least back to 1989. Also new systems e.g.
the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant and UK/French Stormshadow cruise
missiles need evaluation for DU warheads.
My involvement with DU started with a warning from Rosalie Bertel
in March 1999. These disturbed me as an independent Chartered
Occupational Psychologist concerned with health and safety at work, from my
involvement in implementing an occupational health monitoring programme in
Shell Canada, and from personal concerns for peace and justice. I am not a
member of any political or campaigning organisation though I exchange
information with DU researchers (e.g. at the recent Prague DU conference) and
with campaign groups concerned about DU - hence this message to
CASI. My Internet sources and interpretation are available for others
to check in several papers on the DU-list Internet discussion group
archives or on request by Email.
I apologise for a long message. But these questions
overlap with the plight of many Iraqis that concern
CASI. If some guided systems do contain DU this could alter many assessments of DU exposure to troops and
civilians and in locations not previously suspected. It might require
a fundamental re-appraisal of UN medical aid to the people of Iraq,
the Balkans and Afghanistan, and wider ramifications. For the people
of Afghanistan I hope that I am wrong but Geoff Hoon's denials and Dr
Moonie's inconsistent re-assurances only increase my suspicions.
yours
Dai Williams, DU researcher, Surrey
|