Uranium Weapons: Does anyone care about our planet? – 2
by Peter Eyre on 08 Sep 2009 5 Comments

Can we force our governments to hold a full and transparent enquiry on the true effects of Low Level Radiation and Depleted Uranium aerosols on the human body? Can we force our governments to acknowledge that the respective so called war syndromes and the alarming rise in cancer, diabetes, infertility and birth defects are directly related to the exposure of uranium based weapons in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan and the entire world?

To most people WMD means Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there is another meaning, which is Weapons of Mass Deception that has been employed to cover up the horrors created by uranium based weapons. Many organisations must be held responsible for allowing this deception to continue for decades namely: The United Nations (UN); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Health Organisation (WHO); The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP); International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Governments: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); Departments of Defence; Military; The Nuclear Industry; and the Pharmaceutical Industry, etc.; all of whom have covered up and caused the suffering of thousands of military personnel and millions of  innocent civilian populations around the world.

The truth behind this mass slow genocide has never been covered by the media, thus allowing it to expand and continue out of control. It is obvious that this deception is part of a bigger picture involving the highest level of economic greed and to seize control of the world’s natural resources.

It is imperative that we fully understand the implications relating to the unchecked usage of uranium products in its many forms. Do we really fully understand the extreme danger to human health if uranium is continued to be used in the manner the scientists and inventors want it to be used.

A study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), who employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.

Albert Einstein once quoted:
- “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe”.

- “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it”.

- “Real progress of humanity depends on not so much creativity as much as on conscience.”

It was interesting to note that the UNEP/81 report (16/01/01) confirmed that Uranium 236 had been found in DU Penetrators. The WHO also gave reference to this problem in their Report of the World Health Organisation Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo (22–31 January 2001) when they reported that  in addition to U235, U234 and U238, the mission was confronted with questions on the presence of plutonium or other radioactive chemicals in the munitions. KFOR informed the mission that it did not exclude the possibility that traces of plutonium could be present in depleted uranium. Other laboratories have also revealed similar finds giving reference to enriched uranium, possibly indicating a new type of 4th Generation Weapon. It is quite obvious that Depleted Uranium is only the tip of the iceberg and much more sinister weapons are in the making, hence the term “Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bombs, Dirty Shells and Dirty Bullets”. 

What was so ironic was the fact that in this WHO report it stated “Penetrators that hit armoured vehicles or hard rocks would be crushed on impact and residual fragments and dust would be deposited on the ground.” “It is reported that most of the depleted uranium dust will be deposited within a distance of 100m from the target” (US Army Corps of Engineers 1997).

People, most likely soldiers, close to an impact could therefore be exposed to dust by inhalation. It gave no reference to the fact that DU Dust aerosols can travel beyond the target area, cross international borders and around the world. This same scenario has been repeated in other research laboratories, indicating that such weapons also contain Recycled Uranium

Let’s now look at the many uses of Uranium based materials in the military sense and also in its application or possible application in the commercial world. We must also be cautious and understand that Enriched, Depleted and Recycled Uranium play a major role in all sectors. This mass deception makes us believe that such products are essential in our everyday lives when in actual fact the only application that is acceptable (if I dare say) is in the field of medicine.

The entire lists of products are not available, but the variety and usage demonstrates what can be achieved by recycling nuclear waste.

One such company called Manufacturing Sciences Corporation (MSC) based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee show the following photograph on their webpage highlighting the broad range of so called Depleted Uranium items.

The complete range and its usage are beyond imagination when one considers that this is a very toxic waste product from the Nuclear Industry that can now enter our environment in so many forms. 

MSC explain that they have converted approximately 6 million pounds of depleted uranium (DU) into more than 70,000 useful products. They say they have the unique capability to take the customers unwanted DU, and by utilizing our DU experience and specialized facilities, can recycle the DU into useful products. One could ask the question what constitutes a useful product.

Kinetic energy penetrators (as used in many weapons) are made of DU because of its high density, fabricability, pyrophoricity, availability and low cost (Toxic nuclear waste) compared to other heavy metals. Shape Charge Liners and Explosively Formed Penetrators Lenses: Depleted uranium SCLs and EFP lenses are under investigation as a material for warhead applications in missiles, ammunition and sub munitions.  The US Army has revealed that depleted uranium is used as armour protection in the Abrams main battle tank. This is also used by other nations with the same application.

We know that DU penetrators have and are still part of the arms arsenal and there is even a suggestion that enriched penetrators have been used. This now brings us to the use of Shape Charge Liners that are made from DU - Shaped charges increase the power by focusing explosives in one direction e.g. by containing them with a conical liner. A wide variety of guided weapons use “shaped charge” technology. These range from Maverick and Hellfire missiles to torpedoes, sub-munitions in cluster bombs and the first stage of BROACH MWS warheads. Hellfire missiles have been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza and now Pakistan.

Tungsten is not only expensive; it also has a very high melting point (3422 C). DU liners are inexpensive compared to Tungsten as the Nuclear Industry almost gives it away. It melting point is perfectly suitable for the task required (170c).  The quantity of DU involved may range from a few kilograms up to 250 kg in larger warheads as was the case in the Broach MWS warhead.

In the medical fields, depleted uranium has been used for biomedical isotope shields, calorimeters and radiographic cameras.

MSC go on to say another application for depleted uranium is as a counterweight. Currently, depleted uranium is used as a counterweight in both commercial and military aircraft. Because of its density, 18.95 gm/cc, depleted uranium can supply a significant mass in a small area. Counterweights can be moved to compensate for fuel consumption or shifting cargo loads.

Depleted uranium is currently being investigated as a replacement for lead in elevator counterweights, fork truck counterbalances, and crane counterweights. Because of the density of depleted uranium, the appropriate mass takes up significantly less space allowing for either a more compact design or room for additional components.

Can one imagine how this nuclear waste, that is almost given away by the nuclear industry and respective /governments, is spread around us all in such a haphazard way. Does anyone evaluate the fact that all these products are radioactive and that no safe dose exists? If one looks at the Hazard Brief for Cameco – Port Hope, Ontario, Canada (Facilities for Reconversion to Uranium Metal), the instructions for dealing with uranium metals is stated very clearly:
Uranium is pyrophoric and starts to burn in the air at between 150c-170c. It ignites in oxygen at 170c. The brief goes on to say that dust inhalation can result in radiation dose to lungs. Kidney damage can occur due to chemical toxicity. Skin contact can result in Low Lever Radiation (LLR) dose from continued exposure. Ingestion can result in radiation dose and kidney damage can occur due to chemical toxicity. The UNEP, WHO and others say that LLR is safe!

It would now be appropriate to analyse “Weapons of Mass Deception” in order to see what lies behind this major cover up. At we have seen time and time again, many authorities such as UNEP, WHO, ICRP, IAEA, Government Health Specialists, Radiological Specialists and all those associated with the analysis of internal exposure to DU/LLR continue to use the outdated ICRP Model. This single mistake has played a major role in the wrong assessment of the many thousands of victims.

We have seen the denial by Governments and their respective military units on their use of DU weapons. We have seen how those in senior positions have attempted to manipulate the outcome of a particular test or enquiry. We have seen vital evidence withheld or hidden from public viewing and finally we have seen the cruelty handed out to those experts and whistleblowers that exposed the truth, some of whom have paid the ultimate price.

Finally I can reveal the outcome of a very important conference that took place in Greece on 6 May 2009: the European Committee on Radiation Risk Conference held in Molyvos, Lesvos, Greece. The report is not only very critical, but also shows that existing methods are clearly outdated. Paragraph I is of particular interest when it states “Whereas, there is an immediate, urgent and continuing requirement for appropriate regulation of existing situations involving radioactivity, to protect the human population and the biosphere.” The report is signed by 16 world experts and is a clear warning to us all.

European Committee on Radiation Risk
Comité Européenne sur le Risque de l'Irradiation
The Lesvos Declaration
6th May 2009

A] Whereas, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has promulgated certain risk coefficients for ionizing radiation exposure,

B] Whereas, the ICRP radiation risk coefficients are used worldwide by federal and state governmental bodies to promulgate radiation protection laws and standards for exposure to workers and the general public from waste disposal, nuclear weapons, management of contaminated land and materials, naturally occurring and technologically enhanced radioactive materials (NORM and TENORM), nuclear power plant and all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, compensation and rehabilitation schemes, etc,

C] Whereas, the Chernobyl accident has provided the most important and indispensable opportunity to discover the yields of serious ill health following exposure to fission products and has demonstrated the inadequacy of the current ICRP risk model, especially as applied to foetal and early childhood exposures to radiation,

D] Whereas, by common consent the ICRP risk model cannot validly be applied to post-accident exposures, nor to incorporated radioactive material resulting in internal exposure,

E] Whereas, the ICRP risk model was developed before the discovery of the DNA structure and the discovery that certain radionuclides have chemical affinities for DNA, so that the concept of absorbed dose as used by ICRP cannot account for the effects of exposure to these radionuclides,

F] Whereas, the ICRP has not taken into consideration new discoveries of non-targeted effects such as genomic instability and bystander or secondary effects with regard to understanding radiation risk and particularly the spectrum of consequent illnesses, 

G] Whereas, the non-cancer effects of radiation exposure may make it impossible to accurately determine the levels of cancer consequent upon exposure, because of confounding causes of death,

H] Whereas, the ICRP considers the status of its reports to be purely advisory,

I] Whereas, there is an immediate, urgent and continuing requirement for appropriate regulation of existing situations involving radioactivity, to protect the human population and the biosphere,

We the undersigned, in our individual capacities

1] assert that the ICRP risk coefficients are out of date and that use of these coefficients leads to radiation risks being significantly underestimated,

2] assert that employing the ICRP risk model to predict the health effects of radiation leads to errors which are at minimum 10 fold while we are aware of studies relating to certain types of exposure that suggest that the error is even greater,

3] assert that the yield of non-cancer illnesses from radiation exposure, in particular damage to the cardio-vascular, immune, central nervous and reproductive systems, is significant but as yet unquantified,

4] urge the responsible authorities, as well as all of those responsible for causing radiation exposures, to rely no longer upon the existing ICRP model in determining radiation protection standards and managing risks,

5] urge the responsible authorities and all those responsible for causing exposures, to adopt a generally precautionary approach, and in the absence of another workable and sufficiently precautionary risk model, to apply without undue delay the provisional ECRR 2003 risk model, which more accurately bounds the risks reflected by current observations,

6] demand immediate research into the health effects of incorporated radionuclides, particularly by revisiting the many historical epidemiological studies of exposed populations, including re-examination of the data from Japanese A-bomb survivors, Chernobyl and other affected territories and independent monitoring of incorporated radioactive substances in exposed populations,

7] consider it to be a human right for individuals to know the level of radiation to which they are exposed, and also to be correctly informed as to the potential consequences of that exposure,

8] are concerned by the escalating use of radiation for medical investigation and other general applications,

9] urge significant publicly funded research into medical techniques which do not involve radiation exposures to patients.

Statements contained herein reflect the opinions of the undersigned and are not meant to reflect the positions of any institution to which we are affiliated.
Prof Yuri Bandazhevski (Belarus), Prof Carmel Mothershill (Canada), Dr Christos Matsoukas (Greece), Prof Chris Busby (UK), Prof Rosa Goncharova (Belarus), Prof Alexey Yablokov (Russia), Prof Mikhail Malko (Belarus), Prof Shoji Sawada (Japan), Prof Daniil Gluzman (Ukraine), Prof Angelina Nyagu (Ukraine), Dr Hagen Scherb (Germany), Prof Alexy Nesterenko (Belarus), Prof Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake(Germany), Dr Sebastian Pflugbeil(Germany), Prof Michel Fernex(France), Dr Alfred Koerblein(Germany), Dr Marvin Resnikoff(United States)                 

In closing, I would like to make the following statement:
Millions of military personnel and innocent civilians in all the theatres of war have been affected by the use of weapons containing uranium. Many of them have been deceived, intimidated and neglected with no recourse and that is a grave injustice. I hope and pray that you will all have your day in court and receive your respective compensations that you so respectfully deserve. Bless you all.

(To be continued…)
Peter Eyre, a former British Naval officer, worked at NATO headquarters in cryptology, and spent a lot of time in the Middle East and South East Asia as a petroleum consultant; he lives in the UK and writes regularly for the Palestine Telegraph

User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top