Politics | December 16, 2008 | 48 comments

Iraq’s depleted uranium shells could kill 500,000

source: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/iraq-depleted-uranium-shells-could-kill-500000...

Image
aliasone
In the wake of the first Gulf War, the American Press was enamored with military technology in a way that they never had been before, trumpeting the ability of the modern Roman Legions to put a single bomb through a single window anywhere in the world, or of a soldier to see through the chaos of night combat. Part of the rush of positive media was reserved for the 21st century silver bullet, depleted uranium. It was harder than steel, we were all told, and could cut through enemy armor like it was mere paper. What we didn’t know, was that it would bring rise to a death toll higher than the atomic bombs used at the end of World War II.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs killed approximately 250,000 people at the end of the second world war; a grim statistic that’s been accepted to be relatively accurate. DU shells, however, are estimated to have claimed 500,000 lives in between 1990 and 2000, not through the force of their violence, but by inhalation and the cancers they’ve caused.

There were 200 tons of the stuff dumped into the Saudi and Iraqi deserts in the first Gulf Warl; a number that has only increased in light of the 2003 invasion. Fortunately, the need for depleted uranium shells has fallen as the current conflict has shifted from a force-on-force conflict to counterinsurgency. However, the toxic armaments are still carried and used, representing a serious threat to the Iraqi population and U.S. veterans of the conflict. So how significant can we expect the fallout from this conflict to be?

Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased sevenfold. In addition, more than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared to the 400 or so that were killed in conflict.
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Current News US
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Human Rights,  Bush,  Current News US,  8 more
  3.     
    |

48 comments // Iraq’s depleted uranium shells could kill 500,000

  • WhiteNoise
  • darkhorsejim
    • 0
      darkhorsejim  

    • Lung cancer worldwide, among a host of ailments, has increased dramatically as the nuclear fallout of war has spread globally, permeating our atmosphere & poisoning the Earth & its inhabitants. Humans & radiation have never mixed well & the gov’t will do everything in its power to dodge the bullet of obvious connection here, again attempting to avoid responsibility at all costs.

    • 3 years ago
  • orionblastar
    • 0
      orionblastar  

    • Depleted Uranium is not the problem here, but when the bullet fractures into bits and the uranium dust is in the air and water, it is carried into the civilians.

      This is not as bad as when mustard gas was used in World War I, mustard gas caused more deaths and birth defects than DU, but DU is deadly enough as it is by itself.

      Using DU was a bad choice but it wasn't just Bush but Congress that agreed to using it. I guess they didn't plan on winning and taking out Saddam and wanted to use DU to take out Saddam's terrorists and troops until he decided to turn over his WMDs. They justified DU because they claimed Saddam had WMDS and it would be fighting fire with fire.

      No need to use DU to pierce body armor, just use hollow points and titanium bullets. Those .50 caliber guns also can rip apart any body armor. They justified the DU to penetrate the body armor the terrorists were using.

      They never figured on building back up Iraq and they never had an exit plan.

      Like my friend Larry once said "If you don't want the cost of building stuff back up, don't blow up or destroy stuff in the first place. If you blew it up or destroyed it, you have to build it back up. Never use WMDs on a nation you plan on building back up as it will bite you on the rear end as it destroys the civilian population during the rebuilding phase."

    • 3 years ago
  • willyb
    • 0
      willyb  

    • Being a psych major, I am naturally critical of stats. Here are some comments:

      First, the link is to a blog that links to the real 'story'. From the original article:

      The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000.

      Seems like a really old study if it references the year 2000 as in the future. I'd like some current numbers since we actually have access to the people who are affected now.

      Second interesting item from the article:

      Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times.

      This claim is regarding a country that had little contact with the outside world prior to the Gulf War, covered up many internal problems, and didn't keep good records on this kind of thing. And we are sure about this how?

      While not a final authority, wikipedia sources say:

      DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, and is only very weakly radioactive because of its long half-life. While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.

      Despite this, somehow DU is responsible for a seven-fold cancer rate increase? Seems unlikely to me.

      Even so, I don't see any reason to use something like DU except in the most extreme situations. It should never be used when civilians are involved. I am not listing excuses for DU, only criticisms of the claims of the article.

    • 3 years ago
  • kaps145
    • 0
      kaps145  
    • willyb:

      Awesome post.

      It is true that it is hard to find any scholarly, credible, "hard" evidence supporting the links between DU and birth defects / gulf war syndrome.

      I, like you, do not condone the use of DU munitions, nor down play the possibilities of the horrendous side effects, but I have not seen enough credible proof; youtube's and .com's are not credible information.

    • 3 years ago
  • researchALLwars
    • 0
      researchALLwars  
    • willyb:

      what do you consider to be legit?

      Scholastic texts and "official" reports that are full of bold lies?

      I'll take my dot.coms and documentaries- and do my best to filter the bs just like you should from any source.

    • 3 years ago
  • researchALLwars
    • 0
      researchALLwars  

    • damn these comments are TOP RANKING! I love you guys! Seriously.

      Also check out the documentary "Beyond Treason"
      (probably in pieces on youtube)

      The 'illuminated' can no longer KEEP THE LIGHT to themselves.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • researchALLwars
  • Dmitri_Molotov
    • 0
      Dmitri_Molotov  

    • It's not the radiation that's dangerous, that's nearly harmless. DU is however, incredibly toxic, which has been causing a large number of birth defects.

    • 3 years ago
  • damnneargenius
  • MrTweed
    • 0
      MrTweed  

    • This is horrible. That video of the deformities in infants, appalling. How can human beings do this to one another? seems greed is to powerful for the empowered, bush, cheney, may you guys burn in hell for the pain and suffering you've caused.

    • 3 years ago
  • covelogibbs
    • 0
      covelogibbs  

    • Depleted uranium is a waste product of the nuclear industry.

      More nuclear power plants means more depleted uranium, that's why it is so important to stop all new nuclear power plant construction.

      "As a byproduct of uranium enrichment, DU became less expensive than other high-density ordnance candidates including tungsten in the 1960s. As the next best candidate, tungsten had to be obtained from China. With DU stockpiles estimated to be more than 500,000 tons, it was more economical to use depleted uranium than store it. Thus, from the late 1970s, the U.S., the Soviet Union, Britain, and France began converting their stockpiles of depleted uranium into kinetic energy penetrators.

      The U.S. military used DU shells in the 1991 Gulf War, Bosnia war, Serbia bombing, and the 2003 Iraq War." --Wikepedia

      So, once again it boils down to money. Someone saves a buck or two (or trillions?), and somewhere becomes polluted forever, people die. Bah, collateral damage!

      While we're dolling out bailout money like there's no tomorrow, maybe we should figure out how much money the military industrial complex and the corporate war machine is making off this death and pay them that much money to do something else. We're paying one way or another.

      Scary thought: It's not collateral damage. (Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.) We're doing this deliberately.

    • 3 years ago
  • razberry
  • covelogibbs
  • IMMININT
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  

    • The DoD is the single largest government polluter in the US. So it’s no surprise to me that the military is contaminating Iraq with a highly toxic substance. Obviously members of congress, and by that I mean everyone that voted for war and its continued funding, determined the effects of depleted uranium werea necessary price for the Iraqi’s to pay.

    • 3 years ago
  • tbowman131
    • 0
      tbowman131  

    • scientifically speaking, the only "safe" (i.e. not radioactive) form of depleted uranium is lead. end of story. using any other form of DU is not only immoral but should also be illegal.

      this will be our generations' agent orange

    • 3 years ago
  • BillCue
  • BillCue
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • tbowman131:

      FMJ ammo is just as lethal but leave a "cleaner wound" in those that don't die from it (also takes out 1 or 2 other solders from fighting to tend to the wounded)

      Consider the opposite is true when allied to hunting full metal jackets are considered "inhuman" to take out Bambi

    • 3 years ago
  • cerealforeal
    • 0
      cerealforeal  

    • It's justified for Bush and Cheney. They'll never be exposed to it, and it's in the name of killing more people easier. What do they care? Win-win for them.

    • 3 years ago
  • hippisteve
  • covelogibbs
  • Gustolingo
    • 0
      Gustolingo  

    • I had a teacher of mine tell me it wasnt the depleted uranium shells that gave our vets the gulf war syndrom but it was rather the diet coke sitting in the desert sun. He explained the heat broke down the slenda or nutri sweet and that gave them the syndrom...Mind you this is a COLLEGE TEACHER I am talking about.

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • IMMININT
  • BillCue
    • 0
      BillCue  
    • Gustolingo:

      It turns out that it was an experimental drug called PT given to our troops to test as an anti-nerve gas agent. This is a horrible chapter in the DOD's history of atrocities.

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • Image

    • WITH DUST STORMS THE SIZE OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY depleted uranium dust will take over the job of silver iodine as a global rain seeder for the next 300000 years

      thks clan Bush

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
  • KingTalo
  • oblivious
    • 0
      oblivious  

    • They have killed and will continue to do so.

      The troops don't have to live near depleted uranium shells.

      The Iraqi women and children do.

    • 3 years ago
  • BDiamond
    • 0
      BDiamond  

    • This is the way the world ends
      This is the way the world ends
      This is the way the world ends
      Not with a bang but a whimper.

    • 3 years ago
  • Deathlessones
    • 0
      Deathlessones  

    • Not to downplay this but there seems to be many flaws here. I fail to see the big deal of depleted uranium being left around, seeing that it has such a long half life there would be little radiation. Also, being basically pure uranium, there would be no daughter products to cause any higher dose. Since it is depleted it serves no real possibility of being used for proliferation. I don't see the big deal.

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  
    • Deathlessones:

      Depleted Uranium isn't so depleted is whats wrong. Please see the video of birth defects caused by depleted uranium below...

      Furthermore, read the article it says birth defects increased sevenfold.... What doesn't scream big deal?

    • 3 years ago
  • covelogibbs
    • 0
      covelogibbs  
    • Deathlessones:

      Deathlessones, please research DU. Your lack of knowledge is dangerous.

      Hey, I know let's seed your neighborhood with DU shells and your yard and your house and then you and your descendants could change your name to "Deathmoreones."

    • 3 years ago
  • BillCue
    • 0
      BillCue  

    • Now we taxpayers will have to spend billions cleaning up the horror we left behind in Iraq. We will also have to pay for thousands who will become sick from the filth we left behind.

      It is our own fault for electing Bush.

    • 3 years ago
  • Picasso9000
  • gp5241
  • geneonlbk
  • kaps145
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos