Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Depleted Uranium. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Depleted Uranium. Afficher tous les articles

dimanche 13 avril 2014

European Parliament urges progress on depleted uranium munitions

European Parliament urges progress on depleted uranium munitions

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/european-parliament-urges-progress-on-du

For pictures please click on the link above

The European Parliament has long supported a global moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons and with a fifth United Nations General Assembly resolution on the topic approaching this autumn, the parliament is growing increasingly vocal.
12 April 2014 - Doug Weir

The bill for cleaning up the 300-350 sites in Iraq that are known to be contaminated with depleted uranium (DU) munitions has been estimated at between US$30-45m. Then there are the sites that the Iraqi Ministry for the Environment doesn’t know about. It doesn’t know about these sites because there is currently no obligation on the users of the weapons to release targeting data to affected states after conflict. Nor is there currently an obligation to decontaminate sites or provide risk education or health and exposure monitoring to communities. 

The United States and United Kingdom have disclosed that they used around 400 tonnes of DU munitions in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. The United Nations Environment Programme believes that the total may be nearer 1000 tonnes. Persistent and consistent reports from medical staff across Iraq have associated this legacy from the conflict with increased rates of certain cancers and congenital birth defects. The extent to which DU may be associated with these health problems is still unclear as the conditions since 2003 have not been conducive to studying civilian exposure and health outcomes. That little data is available on where the munitions were used has also helped confound research.    
DU is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process, which contains proportionally less of the fissionable uranium isotope U235, and more of the isotope U238 than natural uranium. As a material it is highly dense and pyrophoric, meaning that it has an incendiary effect upon impact. This effect can generate an aerosol of micron and sub-micron particles that can spread between tens and hundreds of metres from the target. Recent studies have shown that these particles can persist in the environment for at least 30 years. DU ammunition is fired by tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and aircraft and its use can generate huge quantities of contaminated scrap and soils.

Even without comprehensive studies on civilian health, it is clear that remedial measures should be undertaken to reduce exposure to DU residues. Yet unlike explosive remnants of war, there is no obligation on DU users to support or undertake this work. The need for post-conflict management of DU contaminated sites if recognised by the UK Royal Society and the World Health Organisation, which states that: “If high concentrations of depleted uranium dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished…particular emphasis should be placed on the protection of children. Small children could receive greater exposure to depleted uranium when playing in or near depleted uranium impact sites.”

It can be argued that the legacy of the use of DU in Iraq has significant implications for the acceptability of the weapons. From targeting transparency to post-conflict management capacity, to the use of DU against non-armoured targets and in populated areas, Iraq’s experience clearly demonstrates many of the problems associated with the use of this radioactive and toxic heavy metal in conventional weapons.
The European Parliament recognised the intrinsic unacceptability of DU in 2001 after its in the former Yugoslavia. Since then, resolution after resolution has called for a moratorium on its use – most notably in 2008 where a wide-ranging text was supported by 94% of MEPs.

In spite of the parliament’s clear decade-long position, voting by EU member states on UN General Assembly resolutions remains split. DU users the UK and France side with the US and Israel, who together are the only four states to oppose the resolutions. A bloc of more DU-progressive states led by Germany and Italy vote in favour, while a third bloc, primarily comprising Eastern European and Baltic states but including Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Portugal abstain. Globally, 155 states supported the most recent UN text in 2012 and the split position within the EU is something of a regional anomaly in the face of an emerging global consensus.

EU member state voting positions on UNGA resolutions
Author: ICBUW
EU member state position on 2012 UNGA resolution on depleted uranium, red = oppose, amber = abstain, green = support. Bulgaria was absent from the vote but has historically abstained.

With a fifth United Nations resolution on DU approaching this October, and conscious of the need to resolve the DU issue, the parliament is urging EU member states to adopt a common position in favour of a ban, and to help provide clearance and assistance for affected communities. The resolution on Iraq that includes the call was pursued by the parliament’s committee on relations with Iraq. Speaking at a recent hearing of the committee, which considered field research undertaken in Iraq by the Dutch peace organisation PAX, the committee’s chair, British MEP Struan Stevenson of the conservative ECR group stated that there was a: “demonstrable case for a strong and robust resolution calling on member states like the United Kingdom and France to stop using DU”.

Led by Stevenson, a group of MEPs and from across both Europe and the political spectrum, have also submitted questions to the EU’s foreign affairs chief Cathy Ashton to ask what the European Commission has been doing to encourage the development of a common position within the EU. They also call on the EU to demonstrate leadership on the DU issue. The questions remained unanswered at the time of writing. 

The call in the resolution and the questions to Baroness Ashton have now been lent further weight by a recommendation to Europe’s Council of Ministers, calling on EU member states to: “support UN General Assembly resolutions on depleted uranium weapons and to develop an EU Common Position that better reflects Parliament’s repeated calls for a precautionary global moratorium and the developing global consensus on the potential civilian health risks, complex post-conflict management burden and financial costs associated with their use".

The parliament’s green political groups have consistently supported action on DU weapons and have repeatedly ensured the topic’s inclusion in resolutions and hearings. Reflecting on the need for a common EU position on DU, Tarja Cronberg MEP, spokesperson of the Greens/EFA group for security, defence and disarmament said: "We want several things, first, that the issue is recognised institutionally as a problem we have to address. Secondly, that some day soon the High Representative for EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will initiate a process leading to an EU common position banning the use, the production and investments in DU ammunition by EU member states.

"This should also mandate the EU to work towards a global ban on DU weapons in a similar way as in the context of the Arms Trade Treaty or the 2010 NPT Review Conference. In both cases, an EU common position made it possible that the EU spoke with one voice and was able to have a positive impact".

As was the case with the landslide 2008 resolution, that current initiatives have garnered support from across the political spectrum appears to show that DU’s unacceptability remains as persistent as its legacy in Iraq. The parliament’s message to EU governments is clear but whether it will be acted on will only become apparent this October when the UN General Assembly meets.
Material from this article was published by The Ecologist magazine.


mercredi 19 mars 2014

MEPs submit questions on DU in Iraq to Cathy Ashton

MEPs submit questions on DU in Iraq to Cathy Ashton


Following a global Day of Action event last November, where PAX’s Wim Zwijnenburg briefed members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Iraq, a cross party group of MEPs have submitted a question to the EU’s foreign affairs chief Cathy Ashton.

14 March 2014 - ICBUW
The question asks what the EU has been doing to encourage member states to respect the views of the EP, which has repeatedly called for a global moratorium on DU and work towards a ban. It also asks the EU to better support Iraq in dealing with the legacy of DU and for it to take a lead on the increased regulation of military toxics. The question and list of signatories is available below, an official report of the Iraq Committee hearing is available here. The initiative was led by Struan Stevenson MEP. ICBUW awaits the answer with interest.
27 February 2014
O-000045/2014
Question for oral answer
to the Commission
Rule 115
Sari Essayah, Catherine Stihler, Mark Demesmaeker, Sandrine Bélier, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Vittorio Prodi, Norbert Neuser, Barbara Lochbihler, Tarja Cronberg, Jiří Maštálka, Jean Lambert, Pavel Poc, Svetoslav Hristov Malinov, Giancarlo Scottà, Bas Eickhout, Judith Sargentini, Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Stephen Hughes, Andrea Zanoni, Chris Davies, Cristiana Muscardini, Alyn Smith, Struan Stevenson, Tunne Kelam, Anthea McIntyre, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Andreas Mölzer, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Vicky Ford, Liam Aylward, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Susy De Martini, Sonia Alfano, Bart Staes, Marian Harkin, Helmut Scholz, Konrad Szymański, Heide Rühle

Subject: The use of depleted uranium for military purposes
Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemically toxic and radioactive by-product of the uranium enrichment process whose radioactivity increases over time. It is used by a number of states in armour piercing munitions for use in tanks, armoured vehicles and aircraft. Six states are known to produce these weapons, and it is thought that around 20 currently possess them in their stockpiles. DU munitions combust, generating a fume of uranium oxide particles that present an inhalational hazard to civilians and military personnel. Munitions that miss their target can contaminate soils and groundwater. Significant quantities of DU munitions have been used in Iraq and the Balkans by the US and the UK. There are ongoing concerns over its potential use in Afghanistan. DU-contaminated vehicles pose significant risks to scrap metal collectors and children who often play on them. DU munitions have been deployed in spite of considerable data gaps in DU’s environmental behaviour, chemical and radiation hazards, the level of contamination likely to be created in different scenarios and, crucially, the extent to which civilian populations may be exposed to DU residue. Parliament has consistently questioned and opposed the use of DU munitions for more than a decade. Concern over the use of DU munitions has been growing at the United Nations General Assembly, where a fifth resolution on the topic will be tabled in October 2014. In some areas of Iraq, childhood cancers and severe congenital birth defects have increased exponentially, up to the point where women no longer want to have children. In consideration of the issues raised above, could the Commission specify:

1. what action has been taken to date to promote restrictions and/or prohibitions on the use of DU munitions among Member States and to demonstrate leadership on this issue internationally?
2. what efforts have been undertaken to develop a common EU position in favour of the prohibition of the use of DU munitions?
3. what assistance the EU is able to provide to help the Iraqi Government to better manage the legacy of DU in its country?
4. DU is just one of many hazardous substances used in conventional munitions that have the potential to impact on civilian health. In light of the EU’s position as a leader on chemicals regulation, will the Commission support research into the impact of these toxic remnants on civilians?
Notes:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+OQ+O-2014-000045+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=en

samedi 21 septembre 2013

Revisiting “Red Lines” by Felicity Arbuthnot

Revisiting “Red Lines” by Felicity Arbuthnot

by Felicity Arbuthnot
Writer, Dandelion Salad
London, England
September 20, 2013
“Two centuries ago, a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.” Frantz Fanon, 1961. (1925-1961)
Against all odds, given the circumstances, the Syrian government has, of Friday (20th September) sent an “initial declaration” of the country’s (arguably defensive) weapons to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. “The organization is looking at ways to fast-track moves to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.” (i)
Putting aside the complexities of “fast-tracking” in a war zone, flooded with foreign and foreign backed, armed and financed insurgents, Syria is now, as Iraq and Libya before it, vulnerable to the massive attack threatened by  John Kerry, Acting Enforcer for the current Nobel Laureate War-Monger-in-Chief, should he so choose.
“The threat of force is real”, said Kerry, speaking aside his other Master, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Israel after a hasty shuttle there last Sunday (15th September.). “We cannot have hollow words”, said Kerry, a man without peer in vacuous idiocies.
The following day the UN produced the weapons inspectors report on the chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs on 21st August. Although the thirty eight page Report did not apportion blame and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (news, websites) the Syrian government was deemed culprit.
“It is the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988, and the worst use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century,” said UN Secretary General Ki-moon.. “The international community has a responsibility to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.”
Talking to reporters the same day, Kerry pitched in with:  ”…  the military option is still on the table.”
However, a document, of August 2013, seems to show, despite official denials by the Obama administration, that the Syrian insurgents are capable of producing such poison gas.
“The document (ii) reveals that sarin was confiscated earlier this year from members of the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, the most influential of the rebel (fundamentalists) fighting in Syria.
“ … sarin from al-Qaida in Iraq had made its way into Turkey and that while some was seized, more could have been used in an attack last March on civilians and Syrian military troops in an artillery attack in the major Syrian city of Aleppo:
[Moreover, Al Qaida in Iraq:] “had produced a ‘bench-scale’ form of sarin in Iraq and then transferred it to Turkey where opposition forces, including Islamist militant foreign fighters had access to it.
“There’s apparently a large stockpile of sarin in Baghdad …Insurgents are using it to threaten the government there in order to get prisoners released.”
But blind eye turning in US war mongering is the order of the occasion – for both eyes.
The US, of course is a collective veteran when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. The destroyed generations of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, emerging in Libya, of Yugoslavia, with their cancers and unimaginable deformities are silent, ignored, decimated witnesses – and will be for generations to come. Now Syria is threatened with chemical weapons on a war crime defying scale.
On the September 11th, as America mourned its dead twelve years on, a near unnoticed, interminably delayed World Health Organisation Report was released into Iraq’s birth defects, cancers, and health anomalies linked to the country’s twenty year bombardment by the US and UK with Depleted Uranium – chemical and radioactive weaponry. White phosphorous and other yet to be identified “exotic” people and child exterminators were also used.
The UN-US Incorporated have done a shameful job of burying the staggering, horrific resultant health epidemic along with the bodies..
As former UN Under Secretary General and UN Head in Iraq Hans von Sponeck has noted:
“The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.”
His colleague Denis Halliday also former UN Head in Iraq and Under Secretary General Under commented:
“The World Health Organisation (WHO) has categorically refused in defiance of its own mandate to share evidence uncovered in Iraq that US military use of Depleted Uranium and other weapons have not only killed many civilians, but continue to result in the birth of deformed babies.”
See: “Cover-up of War Crimes in Iraq: When ‘Damning Evidence’ on Congenital Birth Defects becomes ‘No Clear Evidence’: Much-Delayed WHO Report” (iii) a shaming, shocking, and comprehensive read of indeed, a cover-up of enormity.

dimanche 1 septembre 2013

We've moved on from the Iraq war – but Iraqis don't have that choice, by John Pilger

Great article by John Pilger:

We've moved on from the Iraq war – but Iraqis don't have that choice



Like characters from The Great Gatsby, Britain and the US have arrogantly turned their backs and left a country in ruins



John Pilger
The Guardian, Sunday 26 May 2013 18.00 BST

Iraq's ministry of social affairs estimates 4.5 million children have lost one or both parents. This means 14% of the population are orphans. Photograph: Reuters




The dust in Iraq rolls down the long roads that are the desert's fingers. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat; it swirls in markets and school playgrounds, consuming children kicking a ball; and it carries, according to Dr Jawad Al-Ali, "the seeds of our death". An internationally respected cancer specialist at the Sadr teaching hospital in Basra, Dr Ali told me that in 1999, and today his warning is irrefutable. "Before the Gulf war," he said, "we had two or three cancer patients a month. Now we have 30 to 35 dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48% of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long after. That's almost half the population. Most of my own family have it, and we have no history of the disease. It is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us; the mushrooms grow huge; even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

Along the corridor, Dr Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician, kept a photo album of the children she was trying to save. Many hadneuroblastoma. "Before the war, we saw only one case of this unusual tumour in two years," she said. "Now we have many cases, mostly with no family history. I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. The sudden increase of such congenital malformations is the same."

Among the doctors I interviewed, there was little doubt that depleted uranium shells used by the Americans and British in the Gulf war were the cause. A US military physicist assigned to clean up the Gulf war battlefield across the border in Kuwait said, "Each round fired by an A-10 Warthog attack aircraft carried over 4,500 grams of solid uranium. Well over 300 tons of DU was used. It was a form of nuclear warfare."

Although the link with cancer is always difficult to prove absolutely, the Iraqi doctors argue that "the epidemic speaks for itself". The British oncologist Karol Sikora, chief of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme in the 1990s, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Iraq sanctions committee]." He told me, "We were specifically told [by the WHO] not to talk about the whole Iraq business. The WHO is not an organisation that likes to get involved in politics."

Recently, Hans von Sponeck, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations and senior UN humanitarian official in Iraq, wrote to me: "The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers." A WHO report, the result of a landmark study conducted with the Iraqi ministry of health, has been "delayed". Covering 10,800 households, it contains "damning evidence", says a ministry official and, according to one of its researchers, remains "top secret". The report says birth defects have risen to a "crisis" right across Iraqi society where depleted uranium and other toxic heavy metals were used by the US and Britain. Fourteen years after he sounded the alarm, Dr Jawad Al-Ali reports "phenomenal" multiple cancers in entire families.

Iraq is no longer news. Last week, the killing of 57 Iraqis in one day was a non-event compared with the murder of a British soldier in London. Yet the two atrocities are connected. Their emblem might be a lavish new movie of F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Two of the main characters, as Fitzgerald wrote, "smashed up things and creatures and retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness … and let other people clean up the mess".

The "mess" left by George Bush and Tony Blair in Iraq is a sectarian war, the bombs of 7/7 and now a man waving a bloody meat cleaver in Woolwich. Bush has retreated back into his Mickey Mouse "presidential library and museum" and Tony Blair into his jackdaw travels and his money.

Their "mess" is a crime of epic proportions, wrote Von Sponeck, referring to the Iraqi ministry of social affairs' estimate of 4.5 million children who have lost one or both parents. "This means a horrific 14% of Iraq's population are orphans," he wrote. "An estimated one million families are headed by women, most of them widows". Domestic violence and child abuse are rightly urgent issues in Britain; in Iraq the catastrophe ignited by Britain has brought violence and abuse into millions of homes.

In her book Dispatches from the Dark Side, Gareth Peirce, Britain's greatest human rights lawyer, applies the rule of law to Blair, his propagandist Alastair Campbell and his colluding cabinet. For Blair, she wrote, "human beings presumed to hold [Islamist] views, were to be disabled by any means possible, and permanently … in Blair's language a 'virus' to be 'eliminated' and requiring 'a myriad of interventions [sic] deep into the affairs of other nations.' The very concept of war was mutated to 'our values versus theirs'." And yet, says Peirce, "the threads of emails, internal government communiques, reveal no dissent". For foreign secretary Jack Straw, sending innocent British citizens to Guantánamo was "the best way to meet our counter-terrorism objective".

These crimes, their iniquity on a par with Woolwich, await prosecution. But who will demand it? In the kabuki theatre of Westminster politics, the faraway violence of "our values" is of no interest. Do the rest of us also turn our backs?

www.johnpilger.com

• This article was amended on 27 May 2013. The original referred to the A-10 Warthog aircraft as the A-10 Warhog.

samedi 31 août 2013

War Crimes Are US Depleted Uranium weapons

The term "Depleted Uranium" is fundamentally Orwellian. Depleted Uranium is NOT depleted in any meaningful sense. DU is natural Uranium (more than 99% U-238) with the fissionable Uranium (less than 1% U-235) removed.



War Crimes Are US
Depleted Uranium weapons: Why shouldn’t it be a war crime to poison civilians with radiation?

By William Boardman


28duindex.jpeg



August 28, 2013



Depleted Uranium [DU] is a very dense, inexpensive, easy-to-shape metal which provides excellent protection against conventional munitions. The same qualities that make depleted Uranium excellent defensive armor turn lethal when used as offensive munitions." - U.S. Army training film




An anonymous phone call to the Florida Dept. of Emergency Management alerted airport officials that there was an open 55-gallon drum full of old airplane parts made with depleted Uranium near a fence in a scrap section of the Opa-locka Executive Airport near Miami, Florida. The first thing everyone did was panic.




They evacuated that part of the airport and established a 150' radius "hot zone" around the suspect drum. They called the local fire and rescue team and called the state and federal environmental protection agencies, and all that calling brought the media in for a one-day story that played on the major TV networks and other media, with headline language like "Uranium scare forces evacuation" and "found exposed" and "hazmat crews on the scene."

"It's a radioactive substance no one wants to be exposed to, radiation it's not something you want to be exposed to, it can affect your bodily functions," Miami-Dade Fire Rescue spokesman Lt. Arnold Piedrahita told CBS News.




That was July 25, and by the end of the day, the most interesting part of the news was a report, only in USA Today, that from the start the 55-gallon drum was labeled "depleted Uranium" containing U-238 (a radioactive isotope of Uranium that remains radioactive for billions of years). Properly handled and contained, DU is not all that dangerous, as the emergency teams soon concluded. And the DU in the drum was in solid form, which is the safest form - DU is a far greater threat to humans as liquid, dust, or aerosol, forms far more common in combat zones.




The Opa-locka DU turned out to be an integrated element of airplane parts decades old, dating from the time when the heavy metal (about 68% denser than lead) was commonly used in airplanes for counterweights. (Boeing and McDonnell Douglas dropped this practice in the 1980s.)




Once officials understood the problem, they reduced the "hot zone" to a five-foot radius, and pictures show firefighters chatting within arm's length of the drum. And the story dropped out of the news without further clarification.




Only one news report among those sampled, by PressTV, connected the unnecessary American panic over a DU drum in Florida with the equally unnecessary American disregard for its genocidal use of DU weapons in Iraq and elsewhere, poisoning civilian populations for generations to come.

Suppose that for more than 20 years, a nation uses weapons that it knows are not only a threat to its own soldiers, but will cause civilian casualties for at least a generation. Would such a nation be a serial war criminal?

Military experimentation with depleted Uranium began in the 1950s, with the goal of developing an effective anti-tank weapon to use against Soviet tanks. As a dense, heavy metal that sharpens itself as it penetrates a hard surface, DU had the added military virtue of igniting spontaneously and burning at temperatures of 3,000 to 6,000 Degrees C.

In 1991, the United States, the United Kingdom, and likely other allies used DU weapons in Kuwait and Iraq during the Gulf War. This was the first time these weapons had been used extensively in combat (Israeli forces had battle-tested them in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War). The weapons - DU bombs, missiles, shells, and bullets - worked to devastating effect militarily. They also poisoned the ground, water, and air around their targets, most of which were not cleaned up.




"The primary impact that [depleted Uranium] had in the Gulf War was - it's one of the reasons that the war was so short. It's one of the things that helped us win that war so quickly," Col. Eric Daxon, U.S. Army, says in the documentary "Invisible War."




DU weapons are weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), as defined by international law and the U.S. Code (18 USC, sec. 2332c).




DU weapons are arguably illegal under international law, both as low level nuclear weapons and as indiscriminate civilian-killing weapons. In a July 1996 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (or World Court) somewhat fudged on the question, ducking on the legality of weapons, but stating that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would likely be contrary to international law.




In June 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia publicly explained its decision not to conduct a criminal investigation of alleged war crimes committed by NATO for killing civilians with depleted Uranium weapons, cluster bombs, and other weapons. There was no need to conduct "an in-depth investigation" into the whole bombing campaign or into specific incidents, the Tribunal explained, because there was "simply no evidence of the necessary crime base for charges of genocide or crimes against humanity." The Tribunal did not add that an in-depth investigation would run the risk of finding such evidence (some of which had already been provided by Amnesty International in a report titled "Collateral Damage").

DU weapons are a low-intensity form of atomic warfare, absent nuclear explosions. The weapons penetrate, explode, and burn on contact. They leave radioactivity behind to kill civilians in much the same way as Robert Oppenheimer proposed, by spreading plutonium on enemies in World War II (a proposal that was apparently not implemented). But they do it with lower intensity.




Since 1991, the United States and other countries have used depleted Uranium WMDs fighting in a number of other countries, reportedly including (but not limited to) Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. American drone strikes presumably use missiles armed with DU penetrators. Israel has used DU WMDs in Gaza.




All the target countries have significant Muslim populations.




The term "Depleted Uranium" is fundamentally Orwellian. Depleted Uranium is NOT depleted in any meaningful sense. DU is natural Uranium (more than 99% U-238) with the fissionable Uranium (less than 1% U-235) removed.




Discovered in 1789, natural Uranium is widely distributed around the world (more common than silver, mercury, or gold in the Earth's crust). Uranium is the source of most of the world's radioactivity and contributes to background levels of radiation everywhere. Natural Uranium comprises three radioactive isotopes: Uranium-238 (99.27%), Uranium-235 (.72%) and Uranium-234 (.005%), all of which remain radioactive for thousands of years (U-238 has a half-life of more than 4.4 billion years). "Natural Uranium" is not "natural," it is not Uranium as found in nature. "Natural Uranium" has been mined, milled, and concentrated for enrichment - it is roughly 1,000 times more radioactive than Uranium in nature.

Natural Uranium can serve as nuclear reactor fuel, but most reactor fuel has been enriched by increasing its percentage of U-235 about five-fold (to 3-4%). To make nuclear weapons grade Uranium, U-238 is usually enriched to 85-90% U-235. The atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima in 1945 used 64 kilograms (about 141 pounds) of 80% enriched Uranium.

Enriching Uranium for reactor fuel and weapons leaves most of the U-238 behind as unenriched waste, or "depleted" Uranium. As nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors have proliferated since 1945, the nuclear nations of the world have accumulated more than a million tons radioactive waste, which seemed at first to have little or no apparent use, but have required continuous care and expense to keep it from endangering the public.

Accurate current figures are hard to get, but generally accepted estimates are that the United States and Russia each have close to 500,000 tons of depleted Uranium (although one estimate by Nukewatch in 2013 puts the U.S. total at 740,000 tons). As many as 15-18 other nations are thought to have another 100,000 tons or more of depleted Uranium, mostly held by the United Kingdom (50,000), France (30,000), Germany (16,000), Japan (10,000), and China (2,000).

Every ounce of that million-plus tons of depleted Uranium is hazardous waste that would need to be safely stored for billions of years - if someone hadn't thought to use it as a weapon. Who cares how lethal the stuff is when you're using it on your enemy?

In the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. used up a mere 400 of its 500,000 tons of depleted Uranium on parts of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, firing thousands of DU bullets, tank shells, and artillery shells, and dropping thousands of bombs.

The U.S. got rid of another 10-20 tons or so in the Balkans during 1994-99, and has used unmeasured amounts on target ranges in Hawaii, Okinawa, Panama, Puerto Rico, South Korea, and elsewhere.

At the same time, something unexpected was happening: Depleted Uranium was apparently dangerous to soldiers on the American side as well. Soldiers who handled the munitions got sick. Soldiers who went to depleted Uranium targets got sick. What became known as Gulf War Syndrome was apparently caused, at least in part, by exposure to the low level radioactive debris that could cover the skin or be easily inhaled or swallowed.

When UN investigators inspected depleted Uranium targets in the Balkans, they found that American DU was contaminated with other radioactive elements - including Americium, Neptunium, Technetium, and Plutonium. Americium decays into Plutonium. Plutonium is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238.

While others countries issued warnings to their troops, the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Victor Warzinski told the Christian Science Monitor, "Residual depleted Uranium from battlefield engagements in Kosovo does not pose a significant risk to human health."

Taking a contrary view, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) studied post-war Balkan ecological conditions and recommended closing contaminated areas to public access and decontaminating the sites as quickly as possible. Noting that DU particles remained in the air two years after the war, UNEP recommended continued monitoring of air and groundwater, where DU is most likely to be ingested into the human body, where its alpha radiation is most dangerous.

"The people responsible for the spreading of 400 tons of DU there [Southern Iraq] in 1991 were conducting a very peculiar sort of experiment - one in which the 'guinea-pigs' were the soldiers and civilians present ... and in which the 'experimenters' did not want to know the results." - Peter Low, introduction "Depleted Uranium" (2003)

Officially, 679,000 American soldiers served in the 1991 Gulf War. More than a third of them, approximately 250,000, have been categorized as suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Preferring not to use that term, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) describes the same phenomenon as " a cluster of medically unexplained chronic symptoms that can include fatigue, headaches, joint pain, indigestion, insomnia, dizziness, respiratory disorders, and memory problems ... a chronic multisymptom illness." Symptoms identified by others also includemuscle pain, cognitive problems, rashes, diarrhea, and terminal tumors.

The VA could focus on treating soldiers' symptoms without being overly concerned about causality. The stakes are very different for the Pentagon. If depleted Uranium was debilitating a third of their troops, the military might have to give up one of its more effective weapons - one that no enemy had any defense against, and one that no enemy had in its arsenal for retaliation. Sacrificing the health of some soldiers (and maybe enemy civilians) was an easy choice for military leaders. The hard part would be to conceal the starkness of that choice, an effort now in its third decade.

As evidence continues to mount that depleted Uranium in the environment is a lifetime health threat, public awareness has risen only slowly, even among most members of Congress. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the Pentagon has taken the necessary course to defend its control of a unique weapon - always denying that there's any problem, withholding as much information as possible, stonewalling investigation as long as possible, controlling studies whenever possible, employing misdirection and confusion, and silencing truthtellers within.

At the end of the Gulf War, the Pentagon had some 4,000 Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles that were destroyed by DU weapons. The Pentagon recognized that these radioactive wrecks represented a "substantial risk" to human health, and so they buried as many as they could in Saudi Arabia.

So far the Pentagon has been remarkably effective in burying reality. The effects of depleted Uranium are a war crime being covered up in plain sight.

"Unborn children of the region [are] being asked to pay the highest price, the integrity of their DNA." ­- Ross B. Mirkarimi, The Arms Control Research Centre, from his report: "The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Gulf Region with Special Reference to Iraq," May 1992.

In 1991, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a former U.S. Army colonel, was chief of the Nuclear Sciences Division of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, and worked at the VA hospital in Wilmington, Delaware, treating veterans, including Gulf War veterans. He had served in the Gulf War. In his new job, the government mandated him to test other veterans for radiation exposure.

Educated at the University of Zagreb (MD and PhD) and Oxford University in England, Dr. Durakovic was then 51 and a published poet, with a distinguished academic career in Canada and the U.S. By all accounts, he took his work seriously and soon discovered American veterans suffering from radiation exposure from DU weapons debris. He described his experience in a 2004 interview for Indybay.org:
... after Gulf War I, I found that about 75 percent of the patients that were referred to me from the New Jersey veteran's hospital were contaminated with depleted Uranium isotopes. When I started this work, I sent the samples of urine of those patients who showed the symptoms, which I associated with internal contamination of isotopes, to the military radiochemistry lab in Aberdeen, Maryland. And they were never analyzed.

Furthermore, they claimed they never received those urine samples. After pressure was placed on them, after a few months, they said they analyzed them but all of them were negative. But they would not release the results. I repeated the studies of the same soldiers, and I found that many of them were positive. So it was obvious the government lied.

After that time, I received an order by the director of the military hospital, the Veterans Adminstration hospital, in Wilmington, where I was the chief of nuclear medicine. The order was to stop my work on Uranium. I refused, because I was mandated by the government of the United States to do that work.

Since I did not want to stop the work, they put pressure on me. They got my access to the computer for the patient management [files]. They harassed me on a daily basis. And ultimately, they said to me if I don't stop the work, I'll be fired and nobody will ever hire me again.

I still refused, even after calls from the highest levels of the government. They even used my colleagues from the military to call me from different parts of the country to stop the work. Since I continued, they fired me in 1997. And I was the only doctor who was a specialist in nuclear medicine for the state of Delaware, working for the government. So obviously, they had good reason to eliminate me from the health care system.

In February 1997, Durakovic wrote President Clinton on behalf of Gulf War vets asking for an inquiry into DU contamination. There is no record of a response from Clinton. Two months after writing his letter, Durakovic lost his job. A year later, two of his original 24 soldier-subjects were dead and 12 seriously ill.

Fired by the government and blacklisted, Durakovic returned to Canada, where he founded the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC, umrc.net), whose "mission is to conduct and publish independent, objective, and expert scientific and medical research on the effects of Uranium and transuranic elements." UMRC's current projects include Uranium exposure studies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, and Port Hope, Canada, as well as a project titled "Social Geography of Uranium Battlefields."

After tests, Dr. Durakovic found decay products of DU in 14 of the 24 patients. "I only discovered indirectly in September 1991 that depleted Uranium had been used on the battlefield. I was horrified. When scientists conduct experiments using this material, we dress like astronauts. Our soldiers had no protection. And this attack could have potentially exposed the entire population of the Gulf region. Soil samples from Iraq show radiation levels more than 17 times the acceptable level." - Felicity Arbuthnot, New Internationalist, Issue 305 (September 1998).

Mainstream media have not covered depleted Uranium to any significant extent, especially in comparison to such arguably much less dangerous killers as O.J. Simpson (1994) or George Zimmerman (2013). During that same 20-year period, CBS News' "60 Minutes" (for example) has apparently devoted 12 minutes to the issue, in December 1999, when the program focused on the contrast between the protective gear (including gloves and respirators) the Army gave clean-up crews and the absence of any protective gear for soldiers doing clean-up.

This isolated 12-minute segment nevertheless drew a prompt response from the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Undersecretary of the Army Bernard Rostker, head of DoD's Office of Gulf War Illnesses. In a DoD press release, Rostker didn't challenge the accuracy of CBS reporting negligent exposure of U.S. troops to depleted Uranium and other toxins. Instead he complained that CBS "did not focus on whether or not those exposures have proven to be harmful."

The press release went on to quote Rostker saying: "We had an obligation to do the training. We told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in our licensing that we would provide this training. It's something we should have done.... Yes, we didn't do what we should have, but ["60 Minutes"] chose to gloss over the fact that the lack of training did not result in any medically significant consequences for any of the people that were exposed.... The danger of being exposed was known to be so trivial - nonexistent."

According to the press release, "After years of monitoring service members exposed to DU, the VA has determined DU has had no health impact on these service members.... There is no lingering danger in the Gulf from the substance.... Service members deployed there have absolutely nothing to fear...." DU is now part of America's arsenal and it's here to stay, Rostker said, because it gives U.S. forces an important advantage both offensively and defensively.

Rostker touted a Pentagon five-year study of 33 vets who suffered depleted Uranium wounds from friendly fire (since no one else had DU weapons): "Those were the 33 that were most exposed to depleted Uranium. Sixteen of those still have depleted Uranium fragments in their bodies in ways that can't be surgically removed without destroying underlying muscle.... There were some elevated Uranium counts in those who still have fragments, as one would expect, but no radiological impact that could be noted and no impact on the kidneys, which is the organ where one would expect to see damage if there was to be damage."

Take a dim view of Pentagon testing, warned Dr. Durakovic in 2004:
... what they did, they studied only soldiers who were wounded by the shrapnel. And we know very well the shrapnel wounds are not an important contributing factor in contamination with Uranium isotopes. Not many people are wounded by DU shrapnel.

They did not select the proper population, and furthermore, they tested only total Uranium, which was not elevated, even in my patients. They did not test different isotopes of uranium, which would provide an insight into the ratio of the isotopes, which determines what kind of uranium it is. So the Pentagon, their laboratory, measured only total concentration of uranium, which is of no importance.

In 2001 the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan. The U.S. denies accusations that depleted Uranium weapons have been used there. The Germans prepared a training manual for the troops they sent as part of the NATO force in Afghanistan, published in late 2005, that said: "US-aircraft used, amongst others, armour-piercing incendiary munitions with a DU-core" during the invasion and thereafter.

In the spring of 2011, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accused the U.S. and its 47 Nato and other allied countries of using weapons with chemical and nuclear components, apparently a reference to depleted Uranium weapons. A Scientific American review of Karzai's remarks took it for granted that DU weapons have been used in Afghanistan, but minimized their likely scope and danger. Perhaps tellingly, the review noted "the U.S. military's claims that it is no longer using DU weapons in Afghanistan." [emphasis added]

Last year an Afghan researcher, Dr. Mohammad Daud Miraki, said he and others were finding 62.7% o Afghanis showed signs of radiation poisoning, with Uranium isotopes in their urine at 300-2,000% above normal. Miraki criticized both U.S. and Afghan governments for failing to investigate the findings: "We forwarded [our] reports to the US three years ago to the State Department, and from US officials we have gotten only lip service unfortunately. But the Afghan government equally, since it has no control, it's an installed regime."




No such ambiguity exists in Iraq, where the U.S. admittedly used tons of depleted Uranium weapons, starting with the "shock and awe" bombardment even before the invasion of 2003.

"A decade after the night that American bombs first rained down on Baghdad, the president joked about wearing a green tie for a belated St. Patrick's Daycelebration. Congress noisily focused on whether spending cuts would force the cancellation of the White House Easter egg roll. Cable news debated whether a show about young women has too much sex in it. But on one topic, there was a conspiracy of silence: Republicans and Democrats agreed that they did not really want to talk about the Iraq war." - N.Y. Times, March 19, 2013

In Baghdad, the anniversary was marked by a dozen of so bombings that killed at least 56 and injured more than 200 Iraqis. And that was the good news.




In a different sort of commemoration of the beginning of the second war on Iraq, a Dutch peace organization funded by the Norwegian government, IKA Pax Christi, published "In a State of Uncertainty," a 52-page book that begins to do what the United States, the United Nations, and most of the rest of the world have failed to do - provide a broad assessment of the use of DU weapons, their location and quantity, their environmental and health consequences, and the means and costs of restoring a devastated country and its people.




That's the bad news: Iraq's two-decade-old health crisis. Iraq is a country that had decent, modern health conditions until the U.S. waged the 1991 Gulf War, then imposed crippling sanctions followed by the 2003 illegal war and occupation. In the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein was an American friend against Iran, the CIA judged Iraq to have health facilities that were among the best in the Middle East.




The wars were destructive, but a decade of sanctions, mostly under the Clinton administration, may have been worse. In May 1996, then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright appeared on "60 Minutes." Correspondent Leslie Stahl asked: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"




"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it," Albright replied. 




She later said she regretted the remark, but she never spoke out for a more humane policy. "Half a million dead children," that's when American policy crystallized - half a million dead children, the price is worth it, when it's not our children.




"I have worked in Fallujah as a Pediatrician since 1997 but began to notice something was wrong in 2006 and began logging the cases; we have determined that 144 babies are now born with a deformity for every 1000 live births. We believe it has to be related to contamination caused by the fighting in our city, even now, nearly 10 years later. It is not unique to Fallujah; hospitals throughout the Anbar Governorate and many other regions of Iraq are recording increases. Every day I see the strain this fear puts on expectant mothers and their families. The first question I am asked when a child is born is not 'is it a boy or a girl?' but 'is my child healthy?'" - Dr. Samira Alaani, petition on Change.org




Now the country that the U.S. destroyed and abandoned struggles with an epidemic of epidemics - an epidemic of miscarriages, an epidemic of stillbirths, an epidemic of birth deformities, an epidemic of cancers, an epidemic of death and deformity of biblical proportions, largely brought on by attacks by one of the world's newer nations against the Cradle of Civilization.




The catalogue of sufferings is framed this way by Project Censored:
America's Gulf War, intermittent bombings in the 1990s, the 2003 war, and aftermath left a toxic legacy.

mardi 12 mars 2013

Iraq and the betrayal of a people – Impunity forever?


Iraq and the betrayal of a people – Impunity forever?
March 8th, 2013 | Author: Jan
http://blog.transnational.org/2013/03/iraq-and-the-betrayal-of-a-people-%E2%80%93-impunity-forever/


By Hans von Sponeck



Iraq’s recent history includes two far reaching events, on the 2 August 1990 Iraq’s invasion into Kuwait and on 19 March 2003 the US/UK invasion into Iraq. Whether political leaders will draw lessons from these events will be, at best, questionable. Iraqis continue to be wronged. Danger to life and turmoil remain a cruel part of Iraq’s reality in early 2013. The collective suffering of a nation is visibly all pervasive. It can not be hidden.

The Iraqi puzzle of life confirms an endless number of tragedies
Ethnic tension and sectarianism have become a major element in Iraqi politics since the US/UK invasion of 2003, a polarization of inter-group relations Iraqis had not known before. This explains much of the existing hideous crime including murder, kidnapping, property destruction and, most noteworthy, the deteriorating relationships between Baghdad and the three northern Kurdish governorates.

Since the years of war, sanctions and occupation, Iraq’s once state-of-the-art medical system has all but collapsed. Malnutrition and diseases, almost forgotten in Iraq, such as respiratory infections; measles; typhoid fever and tuberculosis have re-emerged on a large scale. The planned destruction of water and sanitation facilities, especially in the 1991 war, and recurrent drug shortages, throughout the period of sanctions and after the 2003 invasion, promoted significantly ill-being, morbidity and mortality in the country (WHO).

Depleted uranium, the armour-piercing radio-active munition, and white phosphorus used by the US military in 1991 and 2003 have created serious health and environmental dangers in Iraq. In early 2000 the US Government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where DU had been used. It also rejected any causality with increases in lung cancer, leukaemia and congenital birth defects. Fortunately national and international efforts have not deterred the collection of more evidence to show the relevance of these war contaminants.

A 2009 Iraq Government mental health survey concluded that mass displacement, a climate of fear, torture, death and violence have contributed to the high ratio of mental illness in the country. It reflects what an old man in Mosul observed:
“First they destroyed our economy and now they are trying to kill our minds.”

mardi 26 juillet 2011

Iraq Inquiry Will Slam Blair,Straw, Campbell - Channel 4

Iraq Inquiry Will Slam Blair,Straw, Campbell - Channel 4


published by Tony  in 'Wolves in the City'



Confirmation from a Whitehall source of something the Independent on Sunday mentioned last weekend. “Salmon letters” from the Iraq Inquiry are about to wing their way to witnesses including Tony Blair.

These are letters that inform individuals who may be criticised in the final report of the terms of the criticism so they get a chance to argue for changes. They’re named after Lord Salmon who held an inquiry into public ethics in the 1970s.

It means that the Inquiry will publish its final report some time after 10 October, when Parliament returns after the party conferences. Quite when after 10 October is an unknown – even to the Inquiry, I understand.

Individuals who are criticised may demand sight of the confidental material that hasn’t yet been put on the Iraq Inquiry website.

The Inquiry has not finished all its battles for disclosure of government documents. There are many battles still to be fought. But the report is being written.







Posted by TONY on 25.7.11

mardi 14 juin 2011

Le Monde report on birth defects in Falluja

Le Monde report on birth defects in Falluja

In Falluja, "monster babies" raise questions over US weapons used in 2004

LEMONDE.FR
10.06.11
20h48 • Mis à jour le 10.06.11
21h02





"Did the American army use nuclear weapons in Iraq?" This is the surprising question raised by France Info on Friday June 10. In partnership with Paris-Match, Angélique Férat, radio correspondent for the area, returned to the city of Fallujah, about fifty kilometers from Baghdad. The city, a stronghold of the Sunni insurrection, was attacked and partially destroyed by American forces in April 2004 and again in November the same year. Since then the city has seen a very high number of birth defects - so much so that, according to Angélique Férat, "almost every family has its own 'monster baby'". The Iraqi authorities refuse to consider the subject and there are no official statistics.

Ms. Férat is not the first journalist to consider the fate of the city's children. In May 2008, the British television channel Sky News sounded an alarm about the rate of congenital malformations there. An official of a local human rights organisation spoke of 200 cases of congenital malformations, the majority of which happened after the bombardment of the city. In November 2009 the British daily newspaper The Guardian ran two articles a photo collection and a video report. The newspaper summarised information collected by a Fallujah hospital paediatrician who saw 37 malformed babies born in less than three weeks. The mother of three children between three and six years old said they were all unable to walk or feed themselves.



This is incomprehensible to the hospital's doctors. For lack of evidence, they refuse to draw a direct link with the combat which touched the city in 2004. According to them, multiple factors can explain these malformations: air pollution, radiation, chemical pollutants, the drugs used during pregnancy, malnutrition or stress in the mother. In March 2010, it was a BBC journalist's turn to go (video and report). After seeing a photograph of a baby with three heads he said "When you are over there, the evidence is ghastly."



In normal circumstances, the probability of such phenomena is zero

The various reports attracted the attention of scientists. Christopher Busby, director of environmental consultancy Green Audit and famous for his denunciation of weapons using depleted uranium, went to the site. With Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi he carried out a population survey based on a questionnaire. The results were published in July 2010 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (pdf). In the period 2006-2009, infant mortality in Falluja rose to 80 per 1000 births, while the rate in Egypt and Jordan stayed at 19,8 and 17 per 1000 respectively.

In December 2010, a new study carried out by another research team appeared in the same Journal. The results are eloquent: in Falluja, a newborn had eleven times more chance of being born with malformations than in the rest of the world. "It is important to understand that in normal circumstances, the probability of such phenomena is zero" explained Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the authors of the report. For May 2010, 15% of the 547 newborns presented serious deformities, while 11% were born prematurely (before thirty weeks of pregnancy). For the first time, this report clearly mentions the possibility that the genetic damage observed is related to the weapons used by the United States, and in particular depleted uranium.



Less radioactive than natural uranium, depleted uranium is a heavy metal and very dense. It is used in artillery shells to improve their penetrating ability. Like all heavy metals, it presents a toxic risk if it gets into the body or if its radiations penetrate the skin. Its military use is regularly denounced but no link with the children of Falluja has ever been proved.



Enriched Uranium? "It's absurd"

In the most recent study, soon to appear in the British scientific journal The Lancet, British scientist Christopher Busby goes further. He says traces of enriched uranium were found in samples of soil, air, water, and human hair. But Jean-Dominique Merchet, a journalist specializing in military issues and author of the blog Secret defence said that, unlike depleted uranium, enriched uranium is radioactive. "It has military uses in nuclear bombs and in propelling submarines or aircraft carriers. Using it on battle fields where your own soldiers are is absurd. Merchet also points out that there was a time when Saddam Hussein made use of deformities in young children. "He took journalists to visit orphanages where the children suffered from malformations", he remembers. So Merchet calls for caution until The Lancet article is published, and pending possible proof.

Translation by LLRC. 12th June 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related

New Scientist 6th September 2008 (pay per view) and complete article free to view.

Ex-soldier died of cancer caused by Gulf War uranium .

mardi 31 mai 2011

Britain and the US have the obligation to clean up the remains of DU they used in Iraq!

UK to aid Iraq DU removal

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Farmer, cow and tank   AP
Local people may be at risk
The UK Government says it will help to clean up depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in Iraq.
The US has said it has no plans to remove DU debris, despite international recommendations for its retrieval.
There is widespread controversy over the use of DU, which some veterans believe has made them ill.
One UK adviser on DU welcomed the British announcement as evidence of a fresh approach.
A spokeswoman for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) told BBC News Online: "Legally, we have no obligation to clean up the remains of the DU we used. It's the responsibility of the new regime in Baghdad.
"But morally we do recognise an obligation, as we have in the past. We helped in the removal of DU from Kosovo.
"We'll be helping in any way we can, specifically by providing money for the clean-up, and by making available records of where the ammunition was fired.
Silver bullet
"There may not always be any records, for instance where there was a skirmish - but insofar as we have them, we'll make them available."
Children play on tank barrel   AP
The evidence is piling up that DU is not benign at all
Professor Malcolm Hooper, Gulf Veterans' Association
DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and very effective for punching through armoured vehicles.
When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Both the US and the UK acknowledge the dust can be dangerous if inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation.
Almost all the UK ammunition containing DU was fired from Challenger 2 tanks, the MoD says.
It is also used in "bunker-busting" bombs, in some naval armaments, and in the ammunition of A-10 anti-tank aircraft.
The MoD could give no figure for the amount of DU used in Iraq: one unconfirmed estimate suggests the total could be about 1,500 tonnes, five times more than was used in the 1991 Gulf war.
Long-lived hazard
A Pentagon spokesman said on 14 April he believed the US had no plans for a DU clean-up in Iraq. The British initiative is an unusual departure from a common Anglo-American approach.
Iraqi child with eye tumour   AP
Iraqis blame 1991 DU for many ills
The United Nations Environment Programme's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit has published a report on DU contamination found in Bosnia-Herzegovina up to seven years after the conflict there.
It recommends collecting DU fragments, covering contaminated points with asphalt or clean soil, and keeping records of contaminated sites.
Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Sunderland, is chief scientific adviser to the UK Gulf Veterans' Association.
He told BBC News Online: "I welcome what the MoD has said, because it suggests someone may now be starting to say: 'Hang on, perhaps this stuff isn't as benign as we thought'.
"And I think the evidence is piling up that DU is not benign at all. The inhalation of these fine dust particles represents a health hazard that was known to the military as long ago as 1974.
"The ministry is right to say it has a moral duty to act. I think it has a legal duty as well, in the light of the child cancers and birth defects we've been seeing in Iraq since DU was used in the 1991 war."

Many UK and US veterans of that war believe exposure to DU has damaged their health, and in some cases killed their comrades.
They also blame it for some of the health problems seen in southern Iraq, though many scientists say there is no known mechanism by which DU could have caused the damage.