Question Eleven
by Leuren Moret
[ politics | opinion - november 03 ]
According to Professor Marc Herold's conservative estimate, the US military used more than 1,000 tons of DU weaponry in Aghanistan, three times as much as was used in Gulf War I. This is part of the testimony Leuret Moret will deliver to the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in December 2003 in answer to Question Eleven: What does the US government know about depleted uranium?
1943
Manhattan Project: Memo to General Leslie R Groves October 30, 1943 - Blueprint for depleted uranium weapons
Recommendation from Manhattan Project physicists (Compton, Urey, Connant) to develop radioactive battlefield weapons "which would behave like a radioactive gas" using nuclear trash from the atomic bomb program in order to beat the Germans who might do it first. Depleted uranium was specifically mentioned in other communications.
Source: Major Doug Rokke, US Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after 1991 Gulf War.
1946
Open literature
'Actions of Radiations on Living Cells', DE Lea, Cambridge University Press 1946. (includes early research beginning in 1927 by HJ Muller on genetic mutations in Drosophila from ionizing radiation); through collaboration with the Radiological Society of North America, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, and the Royal Society.
1950
US Army pamphlet: The effects of atomic weapons
9.40 "...The uranium and plutonium which may have escaped fission in the nuclear weapon represent a further possible source of residual nuclear radiation...."
9.41 "The alpha particles from uranium and plutonium... are completely absorbed in an inch or two of air... indicates that uranium and plutonium deposited on the earth do not represent a serous external hazard."
9.42 "Although there is negligible danger from uranium and plutonium outside the body, it is possible for dangerous amounts of these elements to enter the body through the lungs, the digestive system, or breaks in the skin. Plutonium, for example, tends to concentrate in bone and lungs, where the prolonged action of the alpha particles can cause serious harm."
'The Effects of Atomic Weapons', US Army, 1950. Republished 1957, 1962 & 1964 as 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons', Dept. of the Army Pamphlet No 50-3, Headquarters, Dept. of the Army (March 1977).
1974-99
US Military: Research report summaries on depleted uranium
Major research on military use of depleted uranium, 1974-1999, Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses - GulfLINK
These summaries represent extensive research to test and characterize depleted uranium as a military weapon. The summaries confirm everything that was known in 1943 in the Groves Memo.
1976
US Air Force: 'International law - the conduct of armed conflict and air operations' 19 November, 1976
Judge Advocate General Activities Air Force Pamphlet AFP 110-31
The US Department of the Air Force manual, 'International Law: The conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations', AFP 110-31, November 19, 1976 (hereinafter 'USAF manual'), governs the actions of all US Air Force pilots including operators of the A-10 Thunderbolts. This Air Force manual acknowledges that the Department of the Air Force must adhere to international and US military law regarding bombardment and air operations.
"It is especially important that treaties, having the force of law equal to laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, be scrupulously adhered to by the United States armed forces." This is the legal policy of the US Department of Defense. (USAF manual, p1-7)
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States says: "...all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
"The following are relevant examples of treaties to which the US is a party: Hague Conventions IV of October 18, 1907 (USAF manual, p1-7); Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 1925 [the Geneva Gas Protocol, 17 June, 1925] (USAF manual, p1-7); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, 12 August, 1949." (USAF manual, p1-8)
Even without a formal declaration of war, the United States Department of Defense is legally obligated under the US Constitution to obey the laws of war. "The law of armed conflict applies to an international armed conflict regardless of whether a declared 'war' exists." (USAF manual, pp1-10) "The Armed Forces of the United States will comply with the law of war in the conduct of military operations and related activities in armed conflict however such conflicts are characterized." (USAF manual, p1-8)
Although uranium weapons are not banned by name in an existent treaty, they are illegal under binding Air Force law and international conventions. "Any weapon may be put to an unlawful use." (USAF manual, pp6-1) "A weapon may be illegal per se if either international custom or treaty has forbidden its use under all circumstances. An example is poison to kill or injure a person." (USAF manual, p6-1) The International Court of Justice recognizes this rule in its Advisory Opinion, 'Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons' (International Court of Justice Reports, 1996). In paragraph 87 of that Opinion, the Court found that the principles and rules of humanitarian law apply to all weapons, including nuclear ones. In other parts of the Opinion the Court stresses the duty to evaluate legality or illegality prior to use in military operations.
The Geneva Gas Protocol prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices." (USAF manual, p6-3, 6-4) The Geneva Conventions now include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Protocol Additional I, and Protocol Additional II. [The two protocols strongly set out prohibitions of military operations that would unleash hazardous forces (such as an attack on a nuclear power facility or a dam) or would damage the natural environment or water supply.]
The 1907 Hague Convention IV, at Section II, Article 23, absolutely forbids any use of poison. It states: "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation army;
e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." (USAF manual, p5-1)
Poison is defined in the Air Force manual in a way that clearly describes uranium munitions: "Poisons are biological or chemical substances causing death or disability with permanent effects when, in even small quantities, they are ingested, enter the lungs or bloodstream, or through the skin. The longstanding customary prohibition against poison is based on their uncontrolled character and the inevitability of death or permanent disability as well as on a traditional belief that it is treacherous to use poison." (USAF manual, p6-5)
US Air Force Pamphlet [Manual] AFP 110-31
'US Air Force and International Law Forbid the Use of Uranium Weapons' by Karen Parker, JD, Diplome (Strasbourg) and Piotr Bein, PhD.
Source: John LaForge, Nukewatch
1978
95th Congress and US President: Speech by Senator Bob Dole - Making bullets out of Depleted Uranium
Mr Dole: "Mr President, an article appeared in the Washington Star on March 14 [1978], reporting that the Pentagon is about to start using depleted-uranium to produce bullets. They seem to have chosen this material for bullets because uranium metal is dense, and because depleted uranium is cheap. Needless to say, I find this proposal shocking. On the one hand this shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the general fear of using radioactive materials. On the other hand, only a strange set of policy decisions could have made this material so cheap that anybody would consider using it for bullets."
Opening paragraph of 140-line long statement by Senator Bob Dole at the 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol 124 (part 29) 17 March, 1978, p7416.
1979
US Army: Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command
The US Army Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command, March 7, 1979, states: "Not only the people in the immediate vicinity (emergency and fire fighting personnel) but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to air borne uranium dust."
1984
US Department of Energy: Testing problems from DU contamination
'Prototype Firing Range Air Cleaning System' by JA Glissmeyer, J Mishima and JA Bamberger, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, Proceedings of the 18th DOE Nuclear Airborne Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, August 12-16, 1984. Published March 1985, Editor MW First, US Dept. of Energy and The Harvard Air Cleaning Laboratory; CONF-840806 Vol 2.
"The Ballistics Research Laboratory, a component of the US Army Research and Development Command, contracted with Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) to provide a prototype air cleaning system for a new large caliber firing range where depleted uranium munitions are testfired. ...too costly to operate... rapid particle loading results in short filter life necessitating frequent replacement and disposal as low-level radioactive waste. The rapid particle loading also results in decreased airflow causing an excessive waiting period before personnel can reenter the target area."
The US Army Material Test Directorate (MTD) and the Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) both operate two firing ranges (Ranges A, B, and C, D respectively) for the testing of large caliber depleted uranium (DU) penetrators. The targets are housed in enclosures which contain DU aerosols and fragments produced by the test firings. One of the drawbacks of using a target enclosure is that the airborne DU must be removed by ventilation and air cleaning before personnel can enter the enclosure without respiratory protection."
US Department of Transportation (DOT) EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
FAA Advisory Circular 20-123, 'Avoiding or Minimizing Encounters With Aircraft Equipped With Depleted Uranium Balance Weights During Accident Investigations', dated 12/20/84, signed by MC Beard, Director of Airworthiness.
This memo circulated to all FAA crash site investigators, which is still valid and in effect (1/11/01 - FAA spokesman Les Dorr to M Ruppert), describes the health hazard of depleted uranium aircraft balance weights at crash sites. The US Government has always treated depleted uranium as a hazardous material. This memo reveals that it has been used as a component of aircraft manufacturing for years with full knowledge by the US Govt.:
"While the depleted uranium normally poses no danger, it is to be handled with caution. The main hazard associated with depleted uranium is the harmful effect the material could have if it enters the body. If particles are inhaled or digested, they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue."
"Personnel handling the balance weight should wear gloves.
Industial eye protection should be worn.
Respirator mask should be worn to ensure no radioactive dust particle ingestion.
...any articles used in the handling of damaged balance weights [should be] discarded [..] and labeled as radioactive waste..."
Aircraft manufacturers such as McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing have routinely advised health advisory and safety precautions in their aircraft manuals.
From The Wilderness subscriber bulletin, 01-01.
[At the Pentagon crash site on Sept 11, 2001, Leuren Moret reported that EPA official Bill Bellinger of the agency's Region III Environmental Radiation Monitoring Office, confirmed that crash rubble, was radioactive and "probably depleted uranium. He was convinced that depleted uranium is not radiologically toxic, but commented that it is more of a hazard when aerosolized."
'Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad', San Francisco Bay View, 7 November, 2001
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Devastation-Moret7nov01.htm
This was also reported in Natur magazine, 10 January, 2002, 'Todliches Uran-Recycling', pp10-12.]
1989
US Navy: Changes from depleted uranium to tungsten alloys
"The interesting aspect in the history of this application is that after deciding in 1978 to use a uranium alloy, the US Navy decided in 1989 to change to tungsten alloys, 'based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact'."
B Rostker, 'Development of DU munitions', in Environmental Exposure Report: Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) 2000.
www.gulflink.osd.mil/
1990
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, AH Passarella, Dir
Freedom of Information and Security Review, February 11, 1990 letter to Mr Dan Fahey
"Depleted uranium (DU) material can constitute a heavy metal poisoning and radiation poisoning hazard in the pulverized (powder) state only if it is either ingested or inhaled."
'Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures', 2nd Ed., 2 July, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, pp197-198.
1990
SAIC: government contractor
"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategic Study, Danesi, July 1990. This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.
US Army: Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command [AMCCOM]
"...reported in July 1990, that depleted uranium is a 'low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.'" (AMCCOM's radiological task group has said that "long term effects of low doses [of DU] have been implicated in cancer... there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero."
'Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures', 2nd Ed., 2 July, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., p.i)
1991
Los Alamos memo: Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Laboratory
Subject: The Effectiveness of Depleted Uranium Penetrators
From: Lt Col MV Ziehm
To: Major Larson "Studies and Analysis Branch" (WR 13)
"There is a relatively small amount of lethality data for uranium penetrators, either the tank fired long version or the GAU-8 round fired from the A-10 close air support aircraft. The recent war has likely multiplied the number of du rounds fired at targets by orders of magnitude. It is believed that du penetrators were very effective against Iraqi armor; however, assessments of such will have to be made.
There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of du on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of du on the battlefield, du rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal.
If du penetrators proved their worth during our recent combat activities, then we should assure their future existence (until something better is developed) through Service/DoD proponency. If proponency is garnered, it is possible that we stand to lose a valuable combat capability.
I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at mind when after action reports are written."
Los Alamos National Laboratory Memorandum March 1, 1991
Source: Major Doug Rokke, Head of Depleted Uranium Cleanup Project for Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War 1991.
1992
United States Central Command log - following a major fire at a depleted uranium ammunition storage facility in Doha
"EOD POC (point of contact) states that burning depleted uranium puts off alpha radiation. Uranium particles when breathed can be hazardous. 11ACR has been notified to treat the area as though it were a chemical hazard area; i.e. stay upwind and wear protective mask in the vicinity."
United States Central Command log, '11ACR Fire in Doha: Updates from CENTCOM Forward', 12 July, 1991, entry 10.
1993
US General Accounting Office (GAO)
"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk."
'Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination', United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp17-18.
US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM)
"When a DU penetrator impacts a target surface, a large portion of the kinetic energy is dissipated as heat. The heat of the impact causes the DU to oxidize or burn momentarily. This results in smoke which contains high concentration of DU particles. These uranium particles can be ingested or inhaled and are toxic."
US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM). 'Depleted Uranium Facts', photocopy in Bukowski, et al, Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad, March 1993, p97.
US Army
Colonel Robert G Claypool, Medical Corps Director, Professional Services of the Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, August 16, 1993 letter to US Army Chemical School
"When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk. The magnitude of that increase can be quantified (in terms of projected days of life lost) if the DU intake is known (or can be estimated). Expected physiological effects from exposure to DU dust include possible increased risk of cancer (lung or bone) and kidney damage."
Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures
, 2nd Ed., 2 July, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., pp263-264.US Army
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff For Operations and Plans, Washington DC, 19 August, 1993
Memorandum Thru Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans - Director Army Staff - for Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installation Logistics & Environment)
Subject: Review of Draft Report to Congress - Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the US Army - ACTION MEMORANDUM
[This was a response to a GAO report to Congress on DU issues]
"In response to the GAO report, the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) issued a tasking memorandum on 8 June 1993. The memorandum directs the Secretary of the Army to:
1 Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with DU contaminated equipment.
2 Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War.
3 Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations."
Signed - Brigadier General Eric K Shinseki
[The rest of the memorandum is in regard to implementation of this order.]
[General Shinseki served four years as the Army Chief of Staff and retired in June 2003 after two years of tension between him and Donald Rumsfeld over resources needed for the Iraq war.]
Source: Major Doug Rokke, US Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after1991 Gulf War.
US Army: Operations Support Directorate - Unclassified Section
Subject: Medical Management Of Unusual Depleted Uranium Exposures
October 2, 1993
4. "Unusual exposures to DU are also expected to cause no medical problems. But in the interest of documenting the expected minimal exposures, the exposures should be documented and specimens taken. Unusual exposures include situations which could result in ingestion/inhalation of DU dust; or the contamination of wounds by DU dust or fragments. These unusual exposures could result from:
a. Being in the midst of the smoke from DU fires resulting from the burning of vehicles uploaded with DU munitions or depots in which DU munitions are being stored.
b. Working within environments containing DU dust or residues from DU fires.
c. Being within a structure or vehicle while it is struck by a DU munition.
5. Safety guidance on appropriate soldier response to accidents involving DU is contained within reference A. and guidance on appropriate management of potentially DU-contaminated equipment is contained within reference B.
6. In cases such as those in described in Paragraph 4, the following steps should be taken:
a. A MED-16 report (RCS MED-15(R4)) should be submitted in accordance with Paragraph 5-10 of Reference B.
b. Specimens should be collected and forwarded for analysis in conformance with the information provided in subsequent paragraphs and paragraph 9-6 of Reference A.
i. Nasal swipes could be collected... Nasal swipes can be useful if confirming exposure to DU dust environments...
ii. Any filters used for respiratory protection (Protective mask canister, dust masks, field-expedient cloths placed over the nose etc.) should be sealed in plastic bags or other protective containers...
iii. Twenty-four hour urine specimens should be collected..."
Source: Major Doug Rokke, US Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after1991 Gulf War.
1995
US Army: Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) Report to Congress
"If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate 'significant medical consequences'. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."
"The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk estimates can be determined."
"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
"Very few remediation technologies have actually been used to clean up DU-contaminated sites."
"No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium."
"The Army should determine the full life-cycle cost of DU weapon sytems. This analysis must take into account not only production costs, but also demilitarization, disposal and recycling costs; facility decontamination costs; test range remediation costs; and long-term health and environmental costs."
"The only systematic DU contamination of Army land occurs during the research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) cycle for DU ammunition."
"The Army needs to review particle data from Army studies and elsewhere to determine data gaps and conduct experiments to generate the requisite data to fill these gaps."
"The Army needs to develop a better understanding of DU particles generated from impacts or burning."
"The Army should be prepared to provide guidance to other governments on the health and safety risks associated with DU for affected battlefields. This guidance may include information on environmental measurement, monitoring, migration and remediation techniques."
From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), 'Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army', June 1995
1997
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI)
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, has discovered in animal studies that embedded DU, unlike most metals, dissolves and spreads through the body depositing in organs like the spleen and the brain, and that a pregnant female rat will pass DU along to a developing fetus.
The Nation magazine, 26 May, 1997, pp17-18.
State of Nevada - Denies US Air Force resumption of use of DU rounds at Nellis Air Force range target 63-10
State of Nevada Review Comments to Colonel MF Fukey, September 15, 1997
RE: SAI # E1997-160: Draft Environmental Assessment of Resumption of Use Depleted Uranium Rounds at Nellis Air Force Range Target 63-10
"Our review of the Draft EA and accompanying materials suggest that the environmental effects that could be anticipated from the resumption of air-to-ground firing of depleted uranium (DU) munitions have not been adequately assessed. ...neither the Draft EA nor its predecessor, the Limited Site Assessment, reflect awareness of the scant scientific and technical information on the use of DU and the large uncertainties that characterizes the issue of using DU munitions in the environment. ...the Draft EA cites the study involving the Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG), LA-13156-MS, September 1996, but fails to capture the large degree of uncertainty about the impact of DU in the environment."
"...attempted to construct an environmental transport mechanism for DU as a means of evaluating the risks that environmental DU poses to ecosystems and to humans. ...impossible because of insufficient data and an incomplete understanding of DU in the environment. ...conclusions from the YPG study were based on unsubstantiated conjecture."
"...study found DU residues in all components of the environment, that environmental concentrations varied widely, that corroded DU residues are soluble and mobile in water, that wind dispersal during testing is the prevalent means of dispersal of DU particles, and that an unknown degree of risk was posed to human health by DU in the environment. Moreover, there appears to be no insight into the issue of long-term (100 to 1,000 years and longer) environmental threats posed by DU residues."
"...lack of attention by the Air Force to implementing a comprehensive monitoring program to assess DU airborne emissions and/or transport of DU particulates in surface and groundwater at Target 63-10. ...the potential for short and long-term effects on humans and ecosystems from transport and corrosion of DU in the environment... wind dispersal of dust containing DU generated from air-to-ground firing..."
"...the proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Draft EA says that airborne emissions of DU particulates "would settle quickly resulting in minimal air migration." Yet the Draft EA provides no factual evidence, through either on-site monitoring or modeling, to substantiate that dispersal of DU would in fact be minimal and contained to the vicinity of the target area. The document simply states that "air migration of DU particulates is not likely to occur at any great distance due to the extreme density of these particulates and the oxides."
"...the document fails to mention that a major state institution, the Southern Desert Corrections Center, (with an inmate population of over 1,400), is located in the same general vicinity and is likely to be closer to the target [less than 12 miles] than the community of Indian Springs."
"...significant issue given the Air Force's failure to provide specific information on the physical forms and probable locations of the estimated 27,000 kilograms (30 tons) of DU that has already been deposited in the target area and on target vehicles. [..] this volume of contamination would be expanded by an estimated 2,370 kilograms, or 2.6 tons of DU per year."
"...by not assessing the "cradle to grave" management of existing and expected to be generated DU materials and soil contamination, the EA is deficient in scope, in terms of compliance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for defining the "range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered" (CFR Parts 1508.25)."
"...if Target 63-10 is to be used for DU test and training activities, then a detailed Environmental Radiological Monitoring (ERM) program (i.e., risk assessment/DU transport model) should be developed, peer reviewed, and implemented for actual site conditions..."
Source: http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dustate.htm
[Contamination of military test ranges has occurred all over the United States. The State demanded that the Air Force pick up the DU ordinance on the Nellis Test Range and it was buried in ammunition boxes as radioactive waste at the Nevada Test Site.]
1998
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for occupational exposure, the 186,000,000 grams of depleted uranium released during the Gulf War combat operations is enough to poison every American man, woman, and child 100 times.
'Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures', 2nd Ed., 2 July, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., p3.
US Department of Labor/OSHA
Health Hazards Data, the Materials Safety Data Sheet from the US Department of Labor/OSHA, says this about depleted uranium: "Increased risk of lung carcinoma and chemical toxicity to kidney. Hazardous decomposition products..."
'Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures', 2nd Ed., 2 July, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.
2000
United States Department Of Energy (DOE)
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has said, "One may normally expect that depleted uranium contains a trace amount of plutonium." In a 20 January, 2000, letter, DOE Assistant Secretary David Michaels formally admits that, "As background, I would note that our historical information shows that recycled uranium, which came straight from one of our production sites, e.g., Hanford, would routinely contain transuranics [americium, neptunium, plutonium] at a very low level. [..] We have initiated a project to characterize the level of transuranics [americium, neptunium, plutonium] in the various depleted uranium inventories."
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health, US Department of Energy, letter, 20 January, 2000.)
2001
DU: The Blacklist - 283 entities are holders of 539 (U238 U235) Patents
The patent holders include universities (Univ. Texas 4, Univ. Duke 3, MIT 2, Univ. Ohio 2, Univ. New Mexico 1); nuclear energy companies; branches of the US military (US Army 17, US Navy 3, US Air Force 2); Military industrial complex corporations; United Kingdom Government 1; and individuals. The patents are held but not limited to entities in the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada, and Korea.
The weekly Christian newspaper Famiglia Cristiana" (Italy), 1 million copies, published the DU-Blacklist.
2003
Media: Pentagon controlling the news
John Hanchette, former editor, USA Today (national daily newspaper)
During a speaking tour in the Eastern United States in January 2003 with Gulf War Veteran Major Doug Rokke, I was introduced to John Hanchette, who in Doug's words, is "one of the good guys on the depleted uranium issue". Mr Hanchette told me that from 1991 to 2001, as editor of USA Today, he published news breaking stories on the effects of depleted uranium on Gulf War Veterans. Each time he was ready to publish a story about devastating illnesses in Gulf War soldiers, he got a phone call from the Pentagon pressuring him not to print the story. He has been replaced as editor at USA Today and is now teaching journalism to college students.
Interview with former USA Today editor John Hanchette by Leuren Moret, Olean, New York, 29 January, 2003.
Pentagon: US Army Colonel
Journalist: "What about the health risks that are associated with DU? Or do you deny there are any?"
US Army Colonel: "You are determined to get me to make a statement about the health risks aren't you?"
Journalist: "If you will, I want to see what the behind the scenes view of DU is in the Pentagon."
US Army Colonel: "Well... (long pause, followed by heavy profanity) Okay, I'll give you some dirt if that's what you're looking for. The Pentagon knows there are huge health risks associated with DU. They know from years of monitoring our own test ranges and manufacturing facilities. There were parts of Iraq designated as high contamination areas before we ever placed any troops on the ground. The areas around Basra, Jalibah, Talil, most of the southern desert, and various other hot spots were all identified as contaminated before the war. Some of the areas in the southern desert region along the Kuwaiti border are especially radioactive on scans and tests. One of our test ranges in Saudi Arabia shows over 1,000 times the normal background level for radiation. We have test ranges in the US that are extremely contaminated, hell they have been since the 80s and nothing is ever said publicly. Don't ask don't tell is not only applied to gays, it is applied to this matter heavily. I know that at one time the theory was developed that any soldier exposed to DU shells should have to wear full MOP gear (the chemical protective suit). But they realized that it just wouldn't be practical and it was never openly discussed again."
Journalist: "So the stories that they know DU is harmful are true?"
US Army Colonel: "Yes, there is no doubt that most high level commanders who were around during the 80s know about it."
Interview by Jay Shaft, Editor Coalition for Free Thought in Media, 'US Colonel Admits That 500 Tons of DU Were Just Used in Iraq' 5 May, 2003.
Sandia National Laboratories - US Govt Nuclear Weapons Lab
Research funding provided by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and Sandia's Laboratory Directed Research and Development.
'Sandia nanolaser may help extend life-spans by rapidly analyzing possible neuroprotectant drugs' by Neal Singer
"Helping Gulf War victims" Sandia has been doing research on the role of mitochondria malfunctions identified as the most immediate cause of Parkinson's, Huntington's, and Alzheimer's. Loss of brain function is caused by neurons killed by malfunctions in the mitochondria. "Malfunctioning mitochondria have also been linked to battlefield aftereffects caused by radiation or by nerve agents like sarin." Gulf War victims frequently develop Lou Gehrig's disease or "ALS (the neuron disease amytrophic lateral sclerosis) which is a neurodegenerative disorder that kills motor neurons causing paralysis and death in three years." It affects both Gulf War veterans and civilians.
Funding is now being requested from the US Congress for research "to help Gulf War victims".
SandiaLabNews, Vol 55, No 19, 19 September, 2003
[An extremely important US Govt admission that cancer and birth defects are not the only diseases caused by radiation exposure.]
Media: White House/Pentagon controlling the news - TBRNews.com
In the middle of March, 2003, tbrnews received an email from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive with a major American television network. He stated in this, and subsequent, emails that he was in possession of "thousands" of pages of in-house memos sent from his corporate headquarters in New York City to the head of the network's television news department. He went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of the network.
This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it... All are on corporate stationary, signed or initialed by the senders and again, signed or initialed by the recipients in the news division...
If these memos were true, they showed with a terrible clarity that at least one part of the American mass media was strictly controlled and that the news was so doctored and spun that it might as well be official news releases from the White House and Pentagon:
(Sept 28) There is to be nothing said about the high levels of radiation in Iraq. Depleted uranium is the culprit but if it becomes too widespread, it is to be blamed on Saddam's "hidden A-bomb arsenal"! Our man in the Pentagon was moaning that when GIs start losing their hair and fingers in a few years, there will be more lawsuits. As they say in the military, "not on my watch, Charlie!"
(Nov 17) the Supreme Court is busting Bush's balls now. They are going to take cases about the Gitmo [Guantanamo] gulag and the White House is shrieking with rage. I guess the Court doesn't realize that Bush thinks he is the one to decide what is constitutional and not the Court. He has a rude surprise coming very soon as I understand...
To read more than 1,400 memos since February 2003, with daily updates, go to www.tbrnews.org.
