(549.5281) Laka Foundation - Since the 1991 Gulf War many reports have been appeared about the possible health impacts of the military use of depleted uranium. Just like the recent publication of the Royal Society all of these reports are literature studies, which are mainly based on models of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Despite the call in the General Accounting Office report "US Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium" (GAO, January 1993) for a representative epidemiological research amongst US Gulf War veterans, the group of 33 US Gulf War veterans has not been extended since 1992. While tens of thousands of soldiers have been exposed to depleted uranium dust, we are still waiting for an adequate epidemiological research from which a model could be derived for internal contamination with depleted uranium dust. Nevertheless the report of the Royal Society is worth reading. It presents some interesting recommendations, which is probably the result of the influence of some independent researchers who were consulted by the Royal Society.
In their first part the researchers of the Royal Society focus on the radiological risks on the
battlefield. The next part, which highlights the potential health risks of populated
post-battlefield areas, will be published later this year. Although the authors of the report admit
that there are many uncertainties in using the ICRP models, they venture to draw firm conclusions.
They calculate that a soldier within any vehicle struck by a depleted uranium penetrator, the most
dangerous scenario, has only a slightly increased risk of lung cancer. Overall, they conclude that
the use of DU munitions does or does not lead to a significant excess risk of cancer. In order to
parry the critics of the ICRP models, the report states:
"It has been suggested by some that the ICRP approach to calculating radiation risks
underestimates the risk of leukemia from the inhalation of radioactive particles by a factor of
100. Even if this were true, the central estimate excess lifetime risk of fatal leukemia, for all
exposure scenario's, would still be less than 1 in two thousand."
Such a remark doesn't make any sense. It's not just a problem of factors. The main problem is the enormous and chronic lack of basic medical data. While maybe hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians have been internally contaminated with DU dust particles, researchers are still extrapolating the impact of radon gas (a strong alpha-particle emitter) to the impact of uranium 238 (a weak alpha-particle emitter). Why are they not doing basic medical research among people who have been internalized with DU dust particles? More and more studies of the impact of low-level radiation are pointing towards potential health risks, which can't be clarified by simple extrapolation of alpha doses. Moreover, so far there hasn't been any significant study on the possible synergetic effects of radiological and chemical properties of DU. Just like other heavy metals, such as lead, nickel and cadmium, uranium is also a potential chemical carcinogen. Consequently, it's very difficult to predict the consequences for the human body.
Although one could raise serious arguments about the independence of the Royal Society, the authors make some interesting recommendations for follow up research. One of them is the long-term in vivo studies of the dissolution of DU oxides formed from penetrator impacts and fires involving DU. Among other things, this study will focus on the doses to thoracic lymph nodes, which are especially sensitive to the long dissolution rate of DU oxides in the lungs.
Another of their recommendations is outrageous. "It should be incumbent on nations using DU munitions in future conflicts to advise the local population of the potential dangers of handling fragments of penetrators." This is not in line with the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which forbid the contamination of civilians. Why not a ban on the use depleted uranium until it has been proved that this sort of stuff is absolutely harmless?
Sources: The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions, Part I, The Royal Society, 2001.
Contact:Laka Foundation, Ketelhuisplein 43, NL-1054 RD Amsterdam, Netherlands Tel: +31 20
6168294; fax: +31 20 6892179
Email: laka@antenna.nl
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |