Should war become obsolete?


Wars are becoming increasingly destructive to the planet and to civilian life. In a recent interview by Yes Magazine, Major Doug Rokke, a health physicist who was a assigned to a depleted uranium (DU) assessment team after the Gulf War, stated: “War has become obsolete, because we can’t deal with the consequences on our warriors or the environment, but more important, on the non-combatants. When you reach a point in war when the contamination and the health effects of war can’t be cleaned up because of the weapons you use, and medical care can’t be given to the soldiers who participated in the war on either side or to the civilians affected, then it’s time for peace.” The question we can ask along with Rokke is, have the environmental and humanitarian consequences of war become so great that it is no longer an ethical option?

At one time wars were fought out by opposing armies. Battlefields may have been ugly but they could be cleaned up and when peace resumed, the land would be farmed again and towns and villages rebuilt. As military technology has advanced, civilian casualties have increased and the environment often left beyond repair. The use of defoliants and uranium metal, the bombing of chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical and nuclear plants and the targeting of civilian infrastructure has meant a huge environmental and humanitarian toll - to a degree that when the war ends, the killing has only just begun.

The risks are the same for allied troops as for the inhabitants of target countries. At the end of the Gulf War of 1991 the United States reported 760 troops casualties: 294 dead and the rest wounded or ill. Now 221 000 of those same troops are claiming disability benefit and 8000 are dead. In the UK 9 000 troops are sick and more than 600 have died This amounts to around 30%of all troops who went to the Gulf. No one knows how many Iraqis died in that war. Estimates are between 100 000 and 200 000. The average monthly death rate in Iraq has increased from just over 2000 a month in 1989 to over 15 000 in recent years[1]. By 1998, UNICEF was reckoning half a million excess deaths of children under 5 years of age. This is due in part to the bombing of vital civilian infrastructure and the continuation of sanctions. But more insidious has been the unexplained illnesses, the rise in cancers and leukaemias and children born with genetic defect.

This is reflected in the experience of allied veterans. A survey made by the Veteran’s Administration of 251 Gulf War Veterans families in Mississippi showed a that 67% of children conceived and born since the war had rare illnesses and genetic problems[2]. Many babies in Iraq are now born with serious genetic defects. Sometimes without limbs or head and misformed internal organs. Neural tube defects have substantially increased as have Down’s Syndrome births. Many young children now have cancer or leukaemia. The majority of these are under five years of age which is itself an indicator of early exposure to radiation. An epidemiological study made in Iraq by Dr. AlimYacoub shows a direct correlation between the rise in childhood cancer and leukaemia and the high exposure to DU dust in certain parts of Basra[3]. The rise has been 384% and 300% respectively. Both allied veterans and the Iraqi population are also suffering from neurological disorders, respiratory problems, immune deficiency syndromes and rare kidney and bowel diseases. These are all consistent with the radiological and toxic effects of internal exposure to DU. Additional factors were the cocktail of vaccines given to military, the misuse of pesticides - hazards which did not apply to Iraqi civilians - and the release of chemical gases through bombing. A similar story has been repeated in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

What can be expected from the proposed war on Iraq?

The UN and many NGO’s are addressing the appalling consequences of a full scale military attack on Iraq. A leaked draft UN document dated 3 January 2003 predicts that “In the event of a crisis, 30 percent of children under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition". This amounts to 1.26 million children. It also concludes that "the collapse of essential services in Iraq ... could lead to a humanitarian emergency of proportions well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organizations"[4]. Only 39% of Iraqis may have even rationed access to water in the event of war. Iraq is a far worse position to withstand a military attack today than it was in 1991.

What has not been mentioned by these UN bodies, is the possible radiological and toxic consequence of the war. This may be far worse than in 1991 because of a strategic change in the use of uranium metal. The US military is now more concerned with aerial bombing of fortified structures and underground bunkers than with targeting Iraqi tanks. For this they need a very dense metal and preferably one, like uranium, with powerful incendiary effect. Patents for the use of depleted uranium in hard target guided missile systems go back to 1985 and it is also known to be used in shaped-charge warhead technology, widely used in small, tactical missile systems and in two kinds of cluster bombs. There are now 23 weapon systems suspected of using from 300 grams to 7 tons of DU metal[5].

In February the Pentagon announced the main types and numbers of guided bombs and missiles they would be using initially in Iraq. These included some 9 700 guided bombs, plus 700 cruise or similar missiles. The high density metal used in these systems has been strictly classified but in a recent press conference in Geneva, Stephen Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, admitted to the use of DU but argued that these weapons were not radiological[6].

While the primary ‘intent’ is not to use DU as a radiological weapon, if the radiological effects are known and the use is continued then governments must take responsibility. In a worst case scenario the 10 000 or more guided bombs and missiles involved in the proposed ‘shock and awe’ attack on Iraq could release as much as 1 500 tonnes of radioactive uranium oxide dust within a 48 hour period. The air would become a thick haze of dust with minute radiological particles, many of which would be inhaled into the deep lung or ingested. Over time, this contamination could create the same number of casualties as a full scale nuclear attack. The first symptoms for those who did not die immediately from the blast or fatal burns, would be a burning sensation in the throat and frequent nose bleeds. These may also be accompanied by flu-like symptoms within a few days. More severe exposure may result in severe respiratory problems, vomiting and internal bleeding. In March 2002, the Royal Society reported that severe uranium contamination may lead to death within a few days of its toxic effects on the renal system[7]. This may be compounded by radiation effects on the immune system.

Afghanistan

On 29 October 2001, Taliban doctors in Kabul reported mystery deaths of women and children near bombing targets. These patients had “superficial injuries with symptoms of chemical weapons” and “acute diarrhoea an breathing problems”[8]. Several outbreaks of mystery illnesses, sometimes fatal epidemics with similar symptoms have been reported for civilians and some troops. Eyewitness reports also tell of babies born with extreme deformity - one with no head and one arm, another with a mass of tissue protruding from inside the mouth - identical to those seen in Iraq. In one village alone 23 babies were born with such deformities. Taliban fighters returning to there villages have also been dying, not of any injury, but from symptoms which include sudden weight loss, vomiting blood and passing blood in the stool, and severe pain in the lower back and kidney region [9].

In September 2002, the Uranium Medical Research Center made a field survey in Afghanistan in areas where similar weapons had been used. The Team reported that “Those exposed at the time of the bombing reported immediate health effects within minutes to hour of the attacks. Reports include a common profile of flu-type illnesses throughout entire neighbourhoods, beginning within the first few weeks and lasting two or more months after the bombing. The more seriously ill show progressive symptoms which have persisted for 10 to 12 months up to the present... community reports - corroborated by the Team’s examination of two infants - may indicate that up to 25% of newborns suffer congenital and post-natal health problems. These infants’ musculature is underdeveloped, their head appear disproportionate to body weight, and they have unusual complexions and skin problems”[10].

The same study took samples from people near Jalalabad and the results showed levels of uranium contamination in urine samples between 400 to 2000 higher than normal. This raises the question as to whether the US may be using uranium as well as depleted uranium metal. Research has not as yet provided conclusive evidence but no industrial or other sources of uranium are known in this area.[11]

No protection or contingency plans for civilians in Iraq

Because the radiological consequences of this war are not being discussed, there are no plans being made for even the most minimal protection of civilians. According to UK military documents the health and safety requirements for being in the presence of DU oxides is a service respirator and protective clothing, preferably a full NBC suit with pureflow hood, and two pairs of gloves. Even aircraft maintenance workers handling corroded DU counterbalance weights are expected to wear protective clothing with respiratory protection and are instructed to “wash thoroughly before eating, smoking or touching another individual”.[12]

So what about Iraqi children?

Since the bombing of the civilian shelter in Baghdad in 1991, where over 400 children, the sick and the elderly were incinerated or boiled to death, Iraqis are preferring to stay away from all shelters and say they would rather be in the open air if the bombing begins. In the absence of 23 million NBC suits and pureflow hoods, the very minimum would be to issue every Iraqi with a service respirator, warn them to stay away from bomb craters, not to touch any metal from munitions and to wash their hands thoroughly before eating - if they have any access to water! The same advice should go to all NGOs, medics, media workers and indeed anyone entering a bombed area. The lack of civilian protection or warning in DU contaminated areas is a scandal bordering on criminal negligence. The Iraqi government was never officially informed that DU had been used in 1991 and allied governments still refuse to disclose the full measure of its use in guided weapons in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Environmental Impact

If US hard target guided weapons are using uranium warheads then the reality is that very little can be done for those remaining in the country including allied troops. DU particles can settle on the ground and in the water. They are easily resuspended and particles were monitored in the air in Iraq 5 years after the initial bombing. DU enters the soil, surface water and eventually the ground water. The dust is deposited on the leaves of plants and grazed by animals which are then used for meat. Studies in Iraq have shown that there is a strong correlation between polluted soil and the proximity of polluted vegetation. Food such as onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, watermelon, garlic, meat and fish all had higher levels of radioisotopes[13]. Children are particularly vulnerable to radiological pollution because of their fast cell growth. Studies have also shown that, when ingested, soluble uranium absorption is greater in the young and enhanced by fasting [14]. This would indicate a greater uptake in children who are malnourished. The greatest danger is through the inhalation of insoluble particles. These will lodge in lung, move to the trachea-bronchial lymph nodes or be deposited in the bone. Urine samples of Gulf veterans taken nine years after the end of the war showed that small amounts of DU were still being excreted by the body[15].

Internal radiation sources create a slow but cumulative radiation exposure risk for body cells - even for those who are only in contamination area for a short period of time. Chronic exposure for civilians living in contaminated areas creates even greater cumulative radiation exposure effects. Hence the medium and long term effects of uranium and other radiological weapons on health lead to increasing numbers of casualties and increasing severity of illnesses including cancers, lymphomas and birth defects. These post-combat and inter-generational effects directly contravene international law and conventions as weapons of indiscriminative effect.


Pollution knows no boundaries.

Pollution cannot be confined to a target country. During the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the rise in background radiation was noted as far away as Hungary and Northern Greece. The depleted uranium dust of the 1991 Gulf War was blown by the prevailing winds into Kuwait From the Afghan war, it will have gone to Western China. The oil fires of the Gulf War, which US veterans are now alleging were started by the Americans, effected much of the globe. The bombing of Iraq should be of environmental and health concern to all neighbouring countries and should be taken seriously by their governments. Medical experts and governments were alerted to this risk by Dr Asaf Durakovic at the 3rd Gulf Countries Conference on Military Medicine in Qatar on 20 October 2002. Health effects from the last Gulf War are known to have been greatly suppressed by the ruling elites of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

But is there really a radiological weapons problem?

Many high-profile reports maintain that the use of DU is not a significant threat to health. For example the Euratom report concludes that “on available information, exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received.”[16], and the World Health Organisation states that, “General screening or monitoring for possible depleted uranium-related health effects in populations living in conflict areas where depleted uranium has been used is not necessary”[17]. None of these bodies however, have conducted original field work or tested victims exposed to DU. Their information is based upon simulated models and they refer only to studies made on workers exposed to low concentrations of uranium dust in uranium ore. They have taken as a ‘given’ the dose-limits set by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and have applied them to internal as well as external radiation, ignoring the more recent research in radiation biology and human epidemiology[18]. It is now known that even one particle of alpha radiation can cause damage at a cellular level[19]. Veterans testing positive for DU have also showed significant chromosome damage and a variety of symptoms which accord with the known effects of internal radiation and chemical toxicity. Such symptoms are increasing in all regions which have been contaminated with DU. At the very least this alarm should be taken seriously by governments and world health bodies. Ironically, the hazard of DU is frequently mentioned in military reports which regard it as “a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.”[20]

Millions around the world are concerned about the prospect of further war, but while the media focus remains on the search and inspection of Iraq’s possible weapons of mass destruction, insufficient attention is being paid to the types of weapons being amassed by the US. Uranium remains a threat to the environment for far longer than chemical or biological weapons. It has a half life is 4.5 billion years. On 13th February 2003, a European Parliament resolution on the harmful effects of unexploded ordnance (landmines and cluster submunitions) and depleted uranium ammunition was passed. This was largely ignored by the British press. It called for EU Member States to “ immediately implement a moratorium on the further use of cluster ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition (and other uranium warheads), pending the conclusions of a comprehensive study of the requirements of international humanitarian law”. [21]
The development of guided weapons and uranium warheads has proceeded undetected by international arms control agencies and unquestioned by governments since 1985 until the EU Parliament resolution in February 2003. NATO blocked investigation of bomb and missile targets by UNEP in Kosovo and Serbia after the Balkans war. The UK government was warned of potential uranium contamination in the Afghan bombing in October 2001 but rejected calls for weapons inspection, health and environmental surveys. Military radiation surveys and medical records in Afghanistan have not been published.

The amount of uranium being used by the US military in guided weapons systems is unknown and unproven. The figures in this article are speculative. However, as Saddam Hussein is frequently told, it is for them to disclose, not for us to prove. All governments using radiological material in weapons should be open to inspection. Until such time, the greatest precautionary measures should be taken for the protection of both civilians and troops. A debate on the nature and effects of the weapons being developed and used by the US in its new wars is long overdue. If the continuing ‘war on terror’ is to render tracts of the earth uninhabitable and is going to maim and kill for generations, we should be saying, like Rokke, that war must become obsolete!

Joanne Baker B.Ed MSc Human Ecology
Pandora DU Research Project
 pduproject@yahoo.co.uk
 http://www.pandoraproject.org

References

1.Iraqi Ministry of Health figures. Used by UNICEF and other UN bodies.
Available:  http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Statistics2001.htm.
2. Flanders L “Mal de Guerre” , The Nation March 7 1994 p. 292

3.Yacoub, A., Al-Sadoon, I. and Hasan, J. The Evidence for Causal Association between Exposure to Depleted Uranium and Malignancies among Children in Basrah by Applying Epidemiological Criteria of Causality Available:  http://www.pandoraproject.org

4. Source: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "Integrated Humanitarian Contingency Plan for Iraq and Neighbouring Countries", confidential draft, 3 January 2003
Available: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/ocha030107notes.html

5. Williams D., (October 2002) Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq. Eos.  http://www.eoslifeworks .co.uk/u23.htm

6. Refer to Robert James Parsons, Geneva United Nations Office, Press Room No 1
CH - 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

7.The Royal Society (2002) The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions Part II The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW17 5AG

8. Reuters, October 29, 2001

9. Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD, Freelance Academic Afghan-American Interviews, December 2002

10. Uranium Medical Research Center Field Report from Afghanistan  http://www.umrc.net/projectAfghanistan.asp

11. Ibid.

12.Gulf Veterans Illness Unit (March 15, 2001) Depleted Uranium - Safety Guidance to UK Armed Forces and MOD Civilians Para 24 Ref 17 and Para 31

13. Al-Azzawi S, Marouf, B Abdul-Rahman M S, Al-Saji A, Rasheed W, Mugwar A, Environmental Pollution Resulting From the Use of Depleted Uranium Weaponry Against Iraq During 1991 Available:  pduproject@yahoo.co.uk

14. Durakovic, A. (1999) Internal Contamination with Uranium Croation Med. J.;40:49-66 p. 53

15. Drakovic, A., Horan, P., Dietz, L., (2002) The Quantitative Analysis of Depleted Uranium Isotopes in British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans Military Medicine, 167, 8:620, p. 625

16.European Commission (6th March 2001) Opinion of the Group of Experts Established According to Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty Jean Monnet, Rue de Alcide de Gasperi, L-2920 Luxembourg p14

17.World Health Organisation Report (March 2001) Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects Executive Summary www.who.int/environmental_information/ radiation/depluraniumexecsume.htm

18. See Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).
The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition  http://www.euradcom.org/


19. See work by Professor Eric Wright i.e. Background to the Research Available:  http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pathology/ew.htm Also Radiation and Genome Stability Unit Recent findings of Radiation-Induced Stability Sub-Group  http://www.ragsu.har.mrc.ac.uk/instability/index.htm

20. SAIC July 1990 Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environmental and Health Considerations
Vol 1 2.2

21. European Parliament resolution on the Harmful Effects of Unexploded Ordnance (landmines and cluster submunitions) and Depleted Uranium Ammunition. Plenary debate: Strasbourg. 12th February 2003