Depleted uranium risk 'ignored'

[cal04]

UK and US forces have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings they pose a cancer risk, a BBC investigation has found.

Scientists have pointed to health statistics in Iraq, where the weapons were used in the 1991 and 2003 wars.

A report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2001 said they posed only a small contamination risk.

But a senior UN scientist said research showing how depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld.

The UK Ministry of Defence said that there was no evidence linking depleted uranium use to ill health.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6105726.stm

[acmavm]

1. These corrupt bastards. Why would anyone think, or try to

make anyone believe, that the toxic effects of a radioactive material that can't get any kinder to human tissue as it is broken down won't hurt a person????? We all know about the dangers of cigarette smoke, asbestos, and a number of other things that common sense would tell you are a lot less toxic and dangerous than depleted radioactive materials.

They'll do and say anything to justify their murders.

[dipsydoodle]

2. This will crawl out of the woodwork

at a later date no doubt as did agent orange. The main thing for the present is that there is an actual record of dissent shown by the UN scientist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. That short BBC news item leaves out that the missing research was peer reviewed

Here's a larger piece, including the broadcast interviews with Dr Baverstock and Dr Repacholi (who, if you listen to the audio, sounds lying a lying weasel to me):

DR REPACHOLI: We want a comprehensive report - we want to include everything that we can - but we don't want fairytale stuff - it wasn't collaborated by other reports - that was felt to the level that science would say this was established.

ANGUS STICKLER: My understanding is that at the time that there were eight published peer reviewed research studies - attesting to the genotoxic nature of uranium - all of which could have been included in the monograph?

REPACHOLI: Yep - these - er - papers were speculative at the time and W.H.O. will only publish data that they know is established.

...
We asked for an interview with the scientist who conducted these studies - Dr Alexandra Miller – the US Department of Defense refused. The BBC has been told that she applied to the US Army Research Programme to do further work on the effects of depleted uranium in 2004, five and six. All the applications were turned down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/uranium_20061101.shtml

It seems to be that peer reviewed research casts real doubt on the 'established' science. The US fired 320 tons in Gulf War I – and possibly as much as 2,000 tonnes in Gulf War II. The UN has trained Iraqi scientists to assess the problems Iraq may be seeing from DU - but they won't be able to show anything without information on how much DU was used, and where. So far, the US has just stonewalled them with "it'll take a long time to get that information together".

[sabra]

4. k & r

[donsu]

5. kicking for justice

nt

[Gregorian]

6. Just look at the birth defects.

Last night on an Iraq documentary (Linktv), you could see the evidence.

Not to mention the cluster bombing witnesses.


What we have done there is criminal. Ignoring it is criminal.


Sorry. I don't have much to post except my exclamations. Than god for Dem Underground. We can all speak our guts.