Reply #83: Wesley Clark and DU in his own words- Spring 2001 [View All]

[FubarFly]

WESLEY CLARK | There are very well-known safety standards for exposure to radiation, set internationally by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and other institutions, based upon extensive research and testing by the US and other governments over the years. NATO has always abided by those standards.
We thus know very well what the correlation of radiation content to risk of depleted uranium is. It is measurable, and it is very low-40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. There has never been any correlation between this level of radiation and a specific effect. Simply put, depleted uranium falls within the scale of what is safely admissible.

Depleted uranium is used in weapons not because it is radioactive. It is used because it is a heavier metal than lead and thus carries more impact against an armored target.

NATO acted completely within international legal restrictions on this. We did all we could to avoid large-scale environmental damage. We deliberately did not target areas we thought had Serb chemical weapons in them.

--snip--

CLARK | I would never put it that way because an issue like this must be taken very seriously. But I am certain no new, unexamined correlation between DU weapons and health will be found.

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html


--

I have yet to find a more recent quote from Clark on DU, but it's obvious that he underestimated DU's longterm effects. If he still feels this way, despite the more recent facts which have proven him wrong, then this is cause for concern. If he now realizes the error of his ways, then he has an obligation to set the record straight.


Either way, we haven't heard the last of this issue.