Today's Sunday Herald
(Scotland) carries the
following. See it on
www.sundayherald.com/40096
WHO suppressed scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq
Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by
Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraqs 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 also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed
in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their
use of DU weapons in last years war, and to clean up afterwards.
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.
Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq
could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population, Baverstock told
the Sunday Herald.
There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical
toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.
Baverstock was the WHOs 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 governments 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 didnt
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.
These allegations, however, are dismissed as totally unfounded by WHO.
The IAEA role was very minor, said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of
radiation and environmental health in Geneva. The article was not approved for
publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened
group of inter national experts considered the best science in the area of depleted
uranium, he added.
Baverstocks study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald, pointed out
that Iraqs arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to be blown
around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that, when inside
the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant
tumours.
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 bodys 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.
Baverstocks anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka
Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programmes Post-Conflict Assessment
Unit in Geneva. It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that,
he said.
UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen
to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told
by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around
Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a
lot more.
Haavistos greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired
and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence
suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the ministry of planning building
in Baghdad.
He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled
as scrap in Iraq. It could end up in a fork or a knife, he warned.
It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where
adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead
of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong.
22 February 2004
for more info: contact
Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign
bramhall@llrc.org
