PDA

View Full Version : WHO suppresses DU report




diamond geezer
Feb 24, 2004, 03:04 AM
http://www.sundayherald.com/print40096

An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.

The 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), which 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.
Baverstock was the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government’s newly formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management.

While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant . Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more powerful pro-nuclear UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn’t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power,” he said. “That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq.”
The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as “the bystander effect”. This undermines the stability of the body’s genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses.

In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.

“The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to create a ‘cocktail effect’ that further increases the risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation,” he said.

Baverstock’s anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. “It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that,” he said.



krossfyter
Feb 24, 2004, 03:57 AM
oh my word...

Desertrat
Feb 24, 2004, 08:25 AM
The same problem arose from Gulf War I and to a lesser extend in the Balkans. We thus have other problem areas, and a reasonable timeline to draw on.

I have a bit of questioning, based in part on some knowledge of uranium and radioactive materials, and some ignorance as to some of the methodolgy of hazard. That is, the DU is U-238, and has no U-235. Yet, uranium strip mine areas such as those around the town of George West, south of San Antonio has U-235 as well as the U-238--which is why they mine it. People have been living there and plowing fields for eons. And the uranium is right at the surface, exposed in gullies and ravines. Folks breathe the dust...

I guess where I'm coming from is that, yeah, lots of stuff is indeed hazardous, but there is a threshold below which serious concern as to a problem is not justified.

Another for-instance is the large percentage of east Texas where a scintillometer lights up happily, indicating radioactive material in the soil. However, it's not commercially mine-able. People do live there in apparent good health, just as most anywhere else.

So, how much hazard is actually there in Iraq?

'Rat

'Rat

mactastic
Feb 24, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Another for-instance is the large percentage of east Texas where a scintillometer lights up happily, indicating radioactive material in the soil. However, it's not commercially mine-able. People do live there in apparent good health, just as most anywhere else.

Ahh perhaps we have found the reason folks from Texas do things like ban vibrators.... Didn't you say that was happening in East Texas?
:p

diamond geezer
Feb 24, 2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
So, how much hazard is actually there in Iraq?

'Rat

'Rat

Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

Maybe someone doesn't want us to find out.

3rdpath
Feb 24, 2004, 03:24 PM
here's a pretty descriptive article on DU in Iraq...horrible stuff for them and our troops.

click here (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml)

btw, this is about Iraq before dubya dubya II...it's gotta be even worse now.

Desertrat
Feb 24, 2004, 10:48 PM
The comparative radiation counts seem less important than the issue of the ceramic dust. It's quite possible that the area has a lower than common background count of radiation. That dust, however, is another story. Once it settles in the lungs, it's not only a bit radioactive--accepting the "40% less"--but SFAIK almost all heavy metals have some degree of toxicity...

'Rat