The Enemy Within Is Us
So, it turns out that many of our soldiers and reservists and National Guards are coming home with Uranium poisoning. One case was so bad that his unborn daughter had a condition common to those with radioactive exposure: atypical syndactyly, resulting in a hand with only two fingers. [“Radioactive Wounds of War” (In These Times)]
Now before you war-supporters start shouting “You see! WMD! We were right!”, it’s important to know that the exposure is courtesy of the U.S. military itself.
U.S. forces first used [Depleted Uranium] in the 1991 Gulf War, when some 300 tons of depleted uranium—the waste product of nuclear power plants and weapons facilities—were used in tank shells and shells fired by A-10 jets. A lesser amount was deployed by U.S. and NATO forces during the Balkans conflict. But in the current wars in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq, DU has become the weapon of choice, with more than 1,000 tons used in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 tons used in Iraq. And while DU was fired mostly in the desert during the Gulf War, in the current war in Iraq, most of DU munitions are exploding in populated urban areas.
The Pentagon has expanded DU beyond tank and A-10 shells, for use in bunker-busting bombs, which can spew out more than half a ton of DU in one explosion, in anti-personnel bomblets, and even in M-16 and pistol shells. The military loves DU for its unique penetration capability—it cuts through steel or concrete like they’re butter.
The problem is that when DU hits its target, it burns at a high temperature, throwing off clouds of microscopic particles that poison a wide area and remain radioactive for billions of years. If inhaled, these particles can lodge in lungs, other organs or bones, irradiating tissue and causing cancers.
Worse yet, uranium is also a highly toxic heavy metal. Indeed, while there is some debate over the risk posed by the element’s radioactive emissions, there is no debate regarding its chemical toxicity. According to Mt. Sinai pathologist Thomas Fasey, who participated in the New York Guard unit testing, the element has an affinity for bonding with DNA, where even trace amounts can cause cancers and fetal abnormalities.
Dr. Doug Rokke, a health physicist at the University of Illinois who headed up a Pentagon study of depleted uranium weapons in the mid ’90s after concerns were raised during the Gulf War, concluded there was no safe way to use the weapons. Rokke says the Pentagon responded by denouncing him, after earlier commending his work. [“Radioactive Wounds of War” (In These Times)]
So, we are poisoning our own brave soldiers who we asked to go to war to fight the noble fight.
According to Dr. Rokke, a former Army health physicist, individuals suffering from depleted uranium exposure “include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.” [“Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium” (Seattle PI)]
But wait, there’s more. The Pentagon does not want to acknowledge the danger and the U.S. soldiers who may have been contaminated are getting the run-around when they ask to be tested. Without testing, it’s unlikely they’ll receive proper treatment as well.
“When we asked to be tested at Ft. Dix, they wrongly told us we didn’t have to worry unless we had DU fragments in our body,” says Matthew. His buddy, Sgt. Ramos, who exhibits symptoms resembling radiation sickness and heavy metal poisoning, adds that at Walter Reed Medical Center he was grilled for hours about why he wanted to be tested and was then branded a troublemaker by his own unit. Matthew says Walter Reed “lost” his sample. [“Radioactive Wounds of War” (In These Times)]
This is how our patriotic servicemen are being treated. We are constantly told to support our troops, but apparently that only applies to the general public; the Pentagon is exempt from supporting our troops and doing the right thing by them. Have we become such a throw-away culture that our military considers the troops so disposable? “Thank you for risking your life in a foreign country, sorry we knowingly poisoned you, but don’t expect any medical treatment.” Once again, I feel like I can support my troops without supporting those in charge. Obviously those in charge don’t have our troops best interests at heart.
Fortunately not everyone feels that way…Several states are trying to pass legislation to force the Pentagon to provide the contamination tests as requested and at their own expense.
Connecticut State Representative Pat Dillon (D-New Haven), a Yale-trained epidemiologist, has crafted state-level legislation that Connecticut and Louisiana have unanimously passed, authorizing returned National Guard troops to request and receive specialized DU contamination tests at the Pentagon’s expense. This approach bypasses the Pentagon’s feet-dragging because National Guard troops fall under state, rather than federal, jurisdiction.
“This was not a Democratic or a Republican issue,” Dillon says. “These are our kids and someone needs to protect them.” [“Radioactive Wounds of War” (In These Times)]
Worldwide and national attempts to ban the use of depleted uranium in warfare appear to have been blocked by the U.S. and the Department of the Defense. At lease our government/military is “staying the course”, right?
Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.
Parker, who first raised the DU issue in the United Nations in 1996, contends that DU “violates the existing law and customs of war.”
She said there are four rules derived from all of humanitarian law regarding weapons:
- Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle.
- Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.
- Weapons may not be unduly inhumane.
- Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment.
“Depleted uranium fails all four of these rules,” Parker said last week.
On Oct. 17, 2001, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced a bill calling for “the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing, and export of depleted uranium munitions pending the outcome of certain studies of the health effects of such munitions. . . .”
More than a year later, the bill — co-sponsored by Reps. Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barbara Lee, D-Ca.; and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. — remains in committee awaiting comment from the Defense Department. [“Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium” (Seattle PI)]
One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. “DU is a war crime. It’s that simple,” Rokke says. “Once you’ve scattered all this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, you’ve committed a war crime.” [“Radioactive Wounds of War” (In These Times)]
Yeah, bet you forgot about the fact that we’re using these weapons in a country we’re supposed to be liberating. We’re leaving them a very special legacy. But at least we got Saddam out of power. In the end that’s all that matters.
“But if you’re going to be fighting wars for the goal of winning hearts and minds and bringing democracy and the altruistic things we associate with the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the last thing you want to be doing is poisoning the people you’re trying to help.” [“Is the Pentagon giving our soldiers cancer?” (Rolling Stone, 2005)]
Although the Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, Iraqi doctors believe that it is responsible for a significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region. [“Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium” (Seattle PI)]
…in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births — that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.
There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.
Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.
On a tour of one ward of the hospital, doctors pointed out boys and girls who were suffering from leukemia. Most of the children die, the doctors said, because there are insufficient drugs available for their treatment. [“Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium” (Seattle PI)]
*sigh*
tags: depleted uranium poisoning, American soldiers, Iraq, Pentagon, Defense Department
You may also enjoy...
2 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on August 27, 2005 at 10:51 am
Big Dog said:
I will have more to say later but before we jump on the band wagon more research needs to be done into the effects of DU. Not research on DU but research about it. Here is a link with information about the chances of cancer from DU to get you started. And I have never seen anyone denied a test for DU or any other heavy metal. Of course I just work in Occupational Health as a consultant to the DOD so I might not know.
on August 27, 2005 at 10:53 am
Big Dog said:
Somehow, I messed that link up.
DU Health Concerns.
If that link does not work, copy and paste this:
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/health.shtml