Depleted Uranium - the Government position

From: Simon Bridewell
To: juliadrownmp@parliament.uk
Subject: Radioactive substances

Dear Julia

I was recently given the following information regarding the use of heavy metals in weapons used by our armed forces:

[snip]

During the Gulf War of 1991 allied forces used around 350 tons of depleted uranium weapons. More recently, a highly secret and classified 'dense metal' has been used in hard target guided weapons. It is pyrophoric and twice the density of steel. The only metal to fulfil these requirements is uranium. If uranium is used in large explosive hard target warheads (up to 1500 kg) it will create levels of radioactive contamination 100 times higher than the depleted uranium weapons used in the Gulf War. The use of uranium weapons will permanently contaminate the land with alpha, beta & gamma radiation. The half life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. In Iraq it has already entered the water, soil and food chain. In some areas targeted in 1991 childhood malignancies have increased by 384% and leukaemia by 300%. When tiny particles are inhaled or ingested they can lodge in the body causing cancers, birth malformations, kidney damage, immune breakdown and neurological problems. The US attack planned for Iraq would release about another 1000 tons of uranium into the environment. This is tantamount to genocide and will affect allied ground troops and neighbouring countries as well as the Iraqi population. The hazard of using thousands of radiological weapons could be as high as that caused by several tactical nuclear weapons. We should be calling for UN inspections of all hard target weapons systems and manufacturing facilities in the US, UK, France and Israel.

[/snip]

It is commonly known that the allied forces used depleted uranium in projectile weapons during the 1991 war, nominally due to the high density of the metal, and therefore its greater ability to penetrate armour. It is also well known that the use of these weapons had long-term health consequences, not only for the personnel fighting in the war, but also the civilians of the area. I don't know what your level of understanding of nuclear physics is, but I'm sure you can appreciate that all radioactive elements, such as uranium, give off both high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays) and volatile sub-atomic particles (the mis-named alpha and beta 'rays') as they decay, both of which cause very serious damage to living cells, and if reproductive cells are damaged then this leads to permanent genetic defects in the victim's children. In the UK there are very strict rules surrounding the use and storage of such substances, to the extent that even relatively harmless low-power radiation sources, such as those which are used in Science lessons to demonstrate the principles of radioactivity, must be kept in lead-lined boxes to keep the radiation in. Yet depleted uranium was used in an uncontrolled manner, being fired off willy-nilly and left to pollute the local environment.

Incidentally, the term 'depleted' uranium doesn't mean that it's any less harmful or radioactive than 'normal' uranium. Instead, it means that the ratio of the fissile U235 isotope (the stuff which is needed to fuel a fission reaction, such as in a power station or a thermonuclear weapon) in comparison to the more common but non-fissile U238 isotope, is less than that occurring in naturally-sourced uranium. Depleted uranium is no use for fuelling a reactor, but both isotopes are radioactive, and decay, releasing the above mentioned radiation.

It is ironic that the government is warning of the possibility of a terrorist attack using a 'dirty bomb', and insisting that Iraq prove that it is not producing such weapons, yet at the same time may be preparing to attack that same country with weapons which would have much the same effects. If the Blair / Bush 'war on terror' is to maintain any semblance of the moral high ground, it must not use such weapons of mass destruction.

I would like to know what your position is on the use of radioactive substances as offensive weapons, and what steps you plan to take to prevent their use.

Simon Bridewell

Dear Julia

Thank you for your letter of 18 November to Geoff Hoon, enclosing an email from your constituent, about the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

UK Forces have two types of DU ammunition; 120mm anti-tank rounds (CHARM 3), fired by the Army's Challenger tanks, and 20mm rounds used by the Royal Navy's PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (a missile defence system). DU is not used in any missiles or bombs that are launched from the air by UK Forces, nor will it be used in any more missiles or bombs that are currently planned to enter UK Service.

Mr Bridewell drew comparison between depleted and naturally occurring uranium. We are all exposed to natural uranium every day through water, food and air without adverse effects on health. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency classifies natural uranium in the lowest hazard class for radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the process to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants. It is 40% less reactive than natural uranium. DU has many civilian applications such as shielding in hospitals, to protect radiographers and patients from radiation during X-rays, and as counterbalance weights in many types of aircraft.

Thus far, there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to link DU with ill-health. Many independent reports have been produced that consider the battlefield effects of using DU munitions, but none has found widespread DU contamination sufficient to impact the health of the general population or deployed personnel. The recently-published Royal Society reports on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" support the MOD's view that risks to the health of soldiers on the battlefield are minimal except for a small number of extreme cases. Of the approximate million Allied troops who served in the Gulf, only 33 US soldiers experienced extreme exposure when their vehicles were accidentally hit by DU rounds. It is reassuring to know that, of the 17 of them who have had embedded DU shrapnel for the last 11 years, none of them have shown signs of health problems attributable to DU. The Royal Society's two reports may be studied in detail by accessing the web site www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy and typing "depleted uranium' in the search tool box.

With regard to a link between exposure to DU and birth defects, no studies have looked specifically at this relationship. However, there is no scientific or medical evidence of an excess of birth defects in Gulf veterans compared with appropriately-selected control groups from major US studies. Nevertheless, MOD believes that it is an important issue and therefore placed a contract in 1997, through the Medical Research Council, for an independent study of the reproductive health of UK Gulf veterans compared with a matched control group. This study has been completed at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and will report soon. However, if an effect on reproductive health were to be observed, it would be very difficult to identify the cause.

After the use of DU-based weapons, any DU particulate will be dispersed and diluted by the wind and weather, leaving only very localised areas (near the point of impact of DU on a hard target) where DU levels may be such that precautions would need to be taken to prevent or reduce possible exposure. Increasing amounts of independent research by eminent scientists within groups such as the Royal Society DU Working Group and the United Nations Environment Programme support this view. With regard to civilians, the Royal Society's reports on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" state that "For those returning to live in areas where DU munitions were deployed, including peace-keepers, the inhalation intakes from resuspended DU are considered to cause any substantial increase in lung cancer or any other cancers".

Media reports of increased cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq certainly give cause concern. However, the Iraqi claim, that DU is the cause of an excessive rise in cancers amongst children, is not substantiated with credible scientific evidence. Many other factors need to be considered as possible causes, for example, some scientists have blamed the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Sadly, many of the "facts and figures" in media reports are based on Iraqi propaganda. The Iraqi regime would have the world believe that the US and UK are responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, rather than its own misrule. The southern and central regions of Iraq are the strongholds of the Hussein regime. Bearing this in mind, it is worth noting that, although the whole of Iraq is subject to UN controls, the UN reports infant mortality rates to be substantially lower in the northern region of the country than in the southern and central regions. In fact, infant mortality rates in the north fall below UN expectations, and are continuing to fall.

Your constituent is totally incorrect in his assumption that references to "dense metal penetrates" are references to uranium. DU munitions are certainly not radiological weapons. According to AAP-21 (the NATO Glossary of NBC Terms and Definitions), a radiological weapon is any device specifically designed to employ radioactive material by disseminating it to cause destruction, damage or injury by means of the radiation produced by the decay of such material. DU anti-armour ammunition is simply designed to penetrate and destroy targeted tanks.

Furthermore, DU munitions are definitely not "dirty bombs". "Dirty bombs" are intended to deposit highly radioactive gamma-emitting substances on the ground following an explosion. These gamma emitters could present a serious risk to health, even after relatively short exposure time. It is totally incorrect to connect this suggested use of radioactive material with DU, since it is only weakly radioactive and has negligible gamma emissions. DU has a much lower level of radioactivity than the radioactive material used in domestic products such as smoke detectors and luminous watches.

DU munitions are not classed as weapons of mass destruction. The use of DU ammunition is not prohibited under any international agreements or conventions, including the Geneva Conventions. DU ammunition is certainly not used indiscriminately. In fact, you may be interested to learn that an Iraqi proposition to designate DU as a weapon of mass destruction was solidly defeated on 25 October 2002 at the United Nations 1st Committee Meeting when 59 countries voted against it.

At present, no satisfactory alternative material to DU exists to provide the level of penetration necessary to defeat the most modern battle tanks. Hence, DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because we have a duty to provide our troops with the best available equipment with which to protect themselves and succeed in conflict. However, in recent years, a new tungsten round has been developed for the Royal Navy's close-in weapons system, which does not require anti-armour properties. Since 1996, all replacement ammunition for the Phalanx system has been of the tungsten variety.

I enclose two documents detailing facts and common misconceptions about DU for your information.

DR LEWIS MOONIE MP

Depleted Uranium - The Facts

DU is almost twice as dense as lead and has the ability to self-sharpen on impact with armour, thus making it ideally suited for use as a kinetic energy anti-armour penetrate. At present, no satisfactory alternative material exists to provide the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because when this country commits our forces to conflict we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. To deny them a legitimate capability would be quite wrong.

The use of DU is neither illegal nor prohibited under any international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions. DU is used in ammunition by several other nations. It has been fired operationally in the Gulf in 1991, Bosnia in 1994 and 1995 and Kazoo in 1999. British DU tank ammunition has only been used operationally during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, when fewer than 100 rounds were fired.

The UK Armed Forces have two types of depleted uranium ammunition:

120mm anti-tank rounds used by British Army Challenger 2 tanks

20mm ammunition used by the Phalanx close-in weapons system, mounted on some Royal Navy ships.

We recognise that there could be a small risk to our Service personnel from DU dust if they work unprotected close to a vehicle recently hit by DU ammunition. That is why we have issued guidance since the time of the Gulf conflict to soldiers about the protective measures they should take.

We remain open minded, but so far there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to link DU with the ill health of either Gulf or Balkans veterans or people living in these regions, including leukaemia and other cancers.

A medical study by King's College which examined nearly 3,000 Bosnia peacekeepers, found no difference in the level of symptoms between them and troops not deployed to the Gulf or Bosnia.

We have exchanged substantial amounts of data with out NATO allies and other nations who have troops in the Balkans. None of that data points to any increase in leukaemia or cancers in peacekeeping troops or ant unusual pattern of illness amongst them. Tens of thousands of peacekeepers have been to the Balkans - it is a sad fact of life that a few young men and women do contract leukaemia across the population at large.

Three authoritative independent reports published in March by the European Commission, the World Health Organisation and the UN Environmental Programme all concurred that DU fired in the Balkans presents minimal risks to the environment and the health of the local population. A further independent report issued by the Royal Society in May 2001 concluded that "except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime".

Test firings of the 120mm DU ammunition take place at the MOD range at Kirkcudbright on the Solway Firth. This is the only way to achieve confidence in the quality assurance process. A comprehensive environmental monitoring programme is operated at Kirkcudbright, which includes the marine environment. It has shown only very low levels of DU, well below any level that could be considered a health hazard.

MOD is taking urgent steps to put in place an appropriate voluntary screening programme for our Service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans which will be equally applicable to Gulf veterans. Our proposals have been to public consultation and are now being taken forward under the guidance of an Oversight Boars of eminent scientists and veterans' representatives.

Depleted Uranium - The Misconceptions

* Depleted uranium is dangerously radioactive.

~ ~ It is not. DU is a lot less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium to which we are all exposed every day in the soil around us, our drinking water, and our food.

~ ~ A tank crew would have to spend about 1,500 hours on operations, sitting in a tank fully loaded with DU ammunition, before they would even reach the UK statutory annual whole-body dose limit (the term given for the effective dose of radiation received uniformly throughout the body) for radiation exposure for employees aged 19 years and over.

~ ~ Similarly, a tank crewman would have to hold a DU round in his hands for 250 hours to reach the UK annual-dose limits for the skin for employees aged 18 years and over.

* Depleted uranium is causing widespread ill health amongst troops and civilians in those conflicts where it has been used.

~ ~ Despite the many claims made, there is no scientific evidence that DU has caused ill health. Indeed, a scientific study has shown that a slightly smaller percentage of UK Gulf veterans have since died of cancer than amongst their contemporaries who did not serve there.

~ ~ The US Government has very carefully monitored the health of some of its soldiers who were injured when DU rounds accidentally hit their vehicles during the Gulf Conflict. Some of 15 of them still have DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies ten years on, yet there have been no signs that the DU, as opposed to their injuries, has caused them any health problems.

~ ~ There is no consensus on the causes of the various ailments and illnesses that have been attributed to the so-called 'Gulf War syndrome', but research continues both in the UK and overseas.

* The MOD is covering up.

~ ~ The MOD has openly published the key documents relating to DU usage, including our assessment of the health risks its use might pose. We continue to pursue an open and honest debate on the issue - much information has been provided in our business with Parliament and our dealings with the local council where the UK test firing programme is undertaken. We have nothing to hide. A selection of recently published documents, which are available on the MOD website (www.mod.uk), are entitled:

~ ~ Depleted Uranium - Documents Explaining the Ministry of Defence Position on the Risks and Health Hazards, produced 25 January 2001

~ ~ Depleted Uranium - Safety Guidance to UK Armed Forces and MOD Civilians, produced 15 Match 2001

~ ~ Report of a Reconnaissance Visit to Develop an Enhanced Environmental Monitoring Programme in the UK Sector in Kazoo, issued June 2001

* Only the military use depleted uranium

~ ~ DU is used widely for a range of civilian applications. For example, it is often used as shielding in hospital to protect radiographers and patients from radiation during X-rays and in aircraft as counterweights.

* Depleted uranium used during training exercises is damaging the environment.

~ ~ No DU rounds have been fired in Army training exercises in the UK, Germany or Canada. Royal Navy ships occasionally fire limited quantities of DU rounds during exercises out at sea. US Air Force A-10 aircraft, which were are one time based in the UK, use 30mm DU anti-tank rounds. The A-10 units left the UK in March 1994 and, during their period in this country, did not fire DU rounds on UK ranges.