Negative legacy of nuclear development
Feb. 26, 2011
by Noritaka Egusa, Editor and Senior Staff Writer
Depleted uranium (DU) shells, which are referred to as radiological weapons, were first used in large numbers in actual warfare in the 1991 Gulf War. Twenty years have passed since then. Because they have great destructive power, DU shells have been used in conflicts throughout the world, and residents of the areas in which they were used and returning soldiers have continued to complain of health problems that are believed to be related to the effects of radiation. DU shells, which are produced by reusing nuclear waste, are truly a negative legacy of nuclear development. Is there no way to ban their manufacture and use? The Chugoku Shimbun looked at the harm DU shells cause and the movement to ban them.
DU weapons were developed in the United States during the Cold War for use against tanks. The use of heavy DU in their cores gives the shells great penetrating power. Large quantities of DU shells were used in the Gulf War. The militaries of the United States and Great Britain used a total of approximately 950,000 DU shells, equivalent to 320 tons.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces that intervened in the conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Kosovo acknowledged having used 10,800 and 31,500 DU shells in those conflicts, respectively.
DU shells were later used again in air strikes on Afghanistan and in the Iraq War. The United States has said it used a very small amount of DU shells in Iraq, but some believe at least 800 tons were used, and a U.S. newspaper reported the use of 300,000 30-millimeter shells alone.
DU is a waste material that results when natural uranium is enriched for use in nuclear weapons or for nuclear power plants. It includes minute amounts of radioactive material. When DU shells hit their target, they burn at a high temperature and ultra-fine particles of uranium oxide are released into the atmosphere. This is believed to release alpha rays and other types of radiation. When this radiation is absorbed, it accumulates in the body and is believed to lead to health problems.
U.S. military personnel who returned from the Gulf War complained of poor health, a problem referred to as “Gulf War Syndrome.” There has been an increase in various cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer, and other health problems among Iraqi citizens, and many Iraqi doctors believe that this is the result of the effects of DU shells. A link is also suspected between DU and an increase in babies born with congenital disorders.
NATO military personnel complained of similar health problems, referred to as “Balkan Syndrome.” The European Parliament passed a resolution temporarily halting the use of DU shells, and Italy included compensation in the government’s budget for its soldiers who had been dispatched to the Balkans.
But the U.S. Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense have not acknowledged a causal relationship between DU shells and health problems. Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which people were exposed to high levels of radiation from outside their bodies, there has been insufficient scientific analysis of the effects of internal exposure to radiation like that caused by DU shells. It has been suggested that in order to reverse this situation large-scale epidemiological studies must be conducted by third parties in Iraq and other areas.
In March 2003, prior to the start of the Iraq War, approximately 6,000 citizens gathered in Hiroshima to form the words “NO WAR, NO DU!” This action sought to protest preparations for war by the United States, particularly the use of DU shells in Iraq, which had suffered the same experience during the Gulf War. The protestors demonstrated a lot of enthusiasm for the cause.
In October of that year non-governmental organizations from around the world gathered in Belgium to form the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons.
Taking a cue from the ban on anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs, one of the goals of this grassroots movement is to encourage the governments of the world’s nations to formulate and put into effect a treaty banning the manufacture and use of DU weapons.
Belgium is a country that has pioneered the effort at the national level. In 2007 a domestic law banning the manufacture, use, and transport of DU weapons was enacted.
In the past, the United Nations General Assembly has passed three resolutions. In 2007 and 2008 countries were asked to submit their opinions on DU weapons and other information. Last year a step forward was taken with a resolution that required countries that have used DU weapons to disclose the locations of their use to the countries in which they were used. It was adopted by an overwhelming majority.
The Japanese government, which has not officially recognized the health problems caused by DU, has supported the U.N. General Assembly resolutions.
Like nuclear weapons, DU shells are inhumane weapons that are in clear violation of international law. But the movement to abolish them is lackluster. How can a groundswell of support for a total ban be created and pressure applied to the nations in possession of these arms? Trying times seem certain to continue for citizens’ groups as they press on in their efforts.
The Chugoku Shimbun asked Nobuo Kazashi, director of the Hiroshima Office of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), a body which addresses DU issues, about the prospects for the movement to ban DU shells and the challenges the movement faces. The following are excerpts from that interview.
It is highly significant that resolutions have been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly three times since 2007. Unfortunately, these resolutions don’t propose a total ban on DU weapons, but they have provided opportunities for countries to consider this issue a problem for which they have responsibility.
The Japanese government has supported these resolutions from the start, but in its opinion submitted to the U.N. the government said that “no definitive conclusion has been reached about their impact on health or the environment” thus merely taking a wait-and-see attitude. I would like the government to take the lead on a global level.
I don’t sense any change in the stance of the United States even under the Obama administration, either. If DU weapons are recognized as harmful, it will lead directly to the problem of compensation. That’s the Achilles tendon of the issue. The United States will probably continue to deny that there are any effects on health or the environment.
In that sense as well, the case of Belgium, which passed a domestic law banning DU weapons, is highly interesting. Poison gas was used in Belgium during World War I. In response to that, in 1933 a domestic law was passed banning inhumane weapons. Since then, the law has been revised several times to add anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs as well as DU shells, continuously transforming itself into a new domestic law.
This trend toward passing domestic laws is spreading to other countries such as Costa Rica. There are many ways in which Japan, which experienced the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, should learn from Belgium’s tradition of taking a stance against inhumane weapons.
In terms of the effects on health, epidemiological studies are underway in Iraq, the nation that has incurred the greatest damage, and reliable data is being obtained. The ICBUW would like to continue this effort and conduct similar studies in other areas, and some countries, including the government of Norway, have offered their support.
But I would like to emphasize that we should not take the position that this problem cannot be resolved if harmful effects on health are not elucidated. Radioactive materials are being dispersed in the environment by these weapons. From a common-sense point of view, that is outrageous. That is the starting point.
It is encouraging that a supra-partisan study group of Diet members has been created since the Democratic Party came to power in Japan. The number of politicians who are taking action on this issue with strong will is increasing, and they may be able to form an international network.
DU shells have harmful effects even when used in situations other than actual warfare. They have been used in live-ammunition training in areas near U.S. military bases throughout the world. And further damage occurs even after conflicts have ended through U.N. peace-keeping operations and in other ways. Simply because nations do not possess or use these weapons does not mean they should not take an interest in this issue.
A treaty banning the use of anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs was enacted. Momentum is growing to make DU shells next.
Profile
Nobuo Kazashi
Professor of philosophy at the Graduate School of Humanities, Kobe University. Also serves on the steering committee of the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. Resident of Hiroshima. Fifty-seven years old.
(Originally published on February 21, 2011)
To comment on this article, please click the link below. Comments will be moderated and posted in a timely fashion. Comments may also appear in the Chugoku Shimbun newspaper.
Public opinion is key to ban on depleted uranium
Depleted uranium (DU) shells, which are referred to as radiological weapons, were first used in large numbers in actual warfare in the 1991 Gulf War. Twenty years have passed since then. Because they have great destructive power, DU shells have been used in conflicts throughout the world, and residents of the areas in which they were used and returning soldiers have continued to complain of health problems that are believed to be related to the effects of radiation. DU shells, which are produced by reusing nuclear waste, are truly a negative legacy of nuclear development. Is there no way to ban their manufacture and use? The Chugoku Shimbun looked at the harm DU shells cause and the movement to ban them.
Use of DU
DU weapons were developed in the United States during the Cold War for use against tanks. The use of heavy DU in their cores gives the shells great penetrating power. Large quantities of DU shells were used in the Gulf War. The militaries of the United States and Great Britain used a total of approximately 950,000 DU shells, equivalent to 320 tons.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces that intervened in the conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Kosovo acknowledged having used 10,800 and 31,500 DU shells in those conflicts, respectively.
DU shells were later used again in air strikes on Afghanistan and in the Iraq War. The United States has said it used a very small amount of DU shells in Iraq, but some believe at least 800 tons were used, and a U.S. newspaper reported the use of 300,000 30-millimeter shells alone.
Harmful effects
DU is a waste material that results when natural uranium is enriched for use in nuclear weapons or for nuclear power plants. It includes minute amounts of radioactive material. When DU shells hit their target, they burn at a high temperature and ultra-fine particles of uranium oxide are released into the atmosphere. This is believed to release alpha rays and other types of radiation. When this radiation is absorbed, it accumulates in the body and is believed to lead to health problems.
U.S. military personnel who returned from the Gulf War complained of poor health, a problem referred to as “Gulf War Syndrome.” There has been an increase in various cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer, and other health problems among Iraqi citizens, and many Iraqi doctors believe that this is the result of the effects of DU shells. A link is also suspected between DU and an increase in babies born with congenital disorders.
NATO military personnel complained of similar health problems, referred to as “Balkan Syndrome.” The European Parliament passed a resolution temporarily halting the use of DU shells, and Italy included compensation in the government’s budget for its soldiers who had been dispatched to the Balkans.
But the U.S. Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense have not acknowledged a causal relationship between DU shells and health problems. Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which people were exposed to high levels of radiation from outside their bodies, there has been insufficient scientific analysis of the effects of internal exposure to radiation like that caused by DU shells. It has been suggested that in order to reverse this situation large-scale epidemiological studies must be conducted by third parties in Iraq and other areas.
Movement to ban DU weapons
In March 2003, prior to the start of the Iraq War, approximately 6,000 citizens gathered in Hiroshima to form the words “NO WAR, NO DU!” This action sought to protest preparations for war by the United States, particularly the use of DU shells in Iraq, which had suffered the same experience during the Gulf War. The protestors demonstrated a lot of enthusiasm for the cause.
In October of that year non-governmental organizations from around the world gathered in Belgium to form the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons.
Taking a cue from the ban on anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs, one of the goals of this grassroots movement is to encourage the governments of the world’s nations to formulate and put into effect a treaty banning the manufacture and use of DU weapons.
Belgium is a country that has pioneered the effort at the national level. In 2007 a domestic law banning the manufacture, use, and transport of DU weapons was enacted.
In the past, the United Nations General Assembly has passed three resolutions. In 2007 and 2008 countries were asked to submit their opinions on DU weapons and other information. Last year a step forward was taken with a resolution that required countries that have used DU weapons to disclose the locations of their use to the countries in which they were used. It was adopted by an overwhelming majority.
The Japanese government, which has not officially recognized the health problems caused by DU, has supported the U.N. General Assembly resolutions.
Like nuclear weapons, DU shells are inhumane weapons that are in clear violation of international law. But the movement to abolish them is lackluster. How can a groundswell of support for a total ban be created and pressure applied to the nations in possession of these arms? Trying times seem certain to continue for citizens’ groups as they press on in their efforts.
Belgium: Learning from a pioneer
Interview with Nobuo Kazashi, director of the ICBUW Hiroshima Office
The Chugoku Shimbun asked Nobuo Kazashi, director of the Hiroshima Office of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), a body which addresses DU issues, about the prospects for the movement to ban DU shells and the challenges the movement faces. The following are excerpts from that interview.
It is highly significant that resolutions have been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly three times since 2007. Unfortunately, these resolutions don’t propose a total ban on DU weapons, but they have provided opportunities for countries to consider this issue a problem for which they have responsibility.
The Japanese government has supported these resolutions from the start, but in its opinion submitted to the U.N. the government said that “no definitive conclusion has been reached about their impact on health or the environment” thus merely taking a wait-and-see attitude. I would like the government to take the lead on a global level.
I don’t sense any change in the stance of the United States even under the Obama administration, either. If DU weapons are recognized as harmful, it will lead directly to the problem of compensation. That’s the Achilles tendon of the issue. The United States will probably continue to deny that there are any effects on health or the environment.
In that sense as well, the case of Belgium, which passed a domestic law banning DU weapons, is highly interesting. Poison gas was used in Belgium during World War I. In response to that, in 1933 a domestic law was passed banning inhumane weapons. Since then, the law has been revised several times to add anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs as well as DU shells, continuously transforming itself into a new domestic law.
This trend toward passing domestic laws is spreading to other countries such as Costa Rica. There are many ways in which Japan, which experienced the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, should learn from Belgium’s tradition of taking a stance against inhumane weapons.
In terms of the effects on health, epidemiological studies are underway in Iraq, the nation that has incurred the greatest damage, and reliable data is being obtained. The ICBUW would like to continue this effort and conduct similar studies in other areas, and some countries, including the government of Norway, have offered their support.
But I would like to emphasize that we should not take the position that this problem cannot be resolved if harmful effects on health are not elucidated. Radioactive materials are being dispersed in the environment by these weapons. From a common-sense point of view, that is outrageous. That is the starting point.
It is encouraging that a supra-partisan study group of Diet members has been created since the Democratic Party came to power in Japan. The number of politicians who are taking action on this issue with strong will is increasing, and they may be able to form an international network.
DU shells have harmful effects even when used in situations other than actual warfare. They have been used in live-ammunition training in areas near U.S. military bases throughout the world. And further damage occurs even after conflicts have ended through U.N. peace-keeping operations and in other ways. Simply because nations do not possess or use these weapons does not mean they should not take an interest in this issue.
A treaty banning the use of anti-personnel land mines and cluster bombs was enacted. Momentum is growing to make DU shells next.
Profile
Nobuo Kazashi
Professor of philosophy at the Graduate School of Humanities, Kobe University. Also serves on the steering committee of the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. Resident of Hiroshima. Fifty-seven years old.
(Originally published on February 21, 2011)
To comment on this article, please click the link below. Comments will be moderated and posted in a timely fashion. Comments may also appear in the Chugoku Shimbun newspaper.
