sabato 19 dicembre 2009

Italian court rules that Ministry of Defence failed to protect

Italian court rules that Ministry of Defence failed to protect Balkan peacekeepers

A tribunal in Rome has ruled that the Italian Ministry of Defence failed to adequately protect its troops from the hazards posed by exposure to depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo.
16 December 2009 - ICBUW

Another powerful precedent has been passed in the continuing flurry of court cases surrounding the high rates of death and sickness from lymphoma and leukaemia amongst Italian soldiers who served in conflicts where depleted uranium munitions were used.

In the latest case (10413/09) the judge ruled that there was a causal link between the soldier's service in Kosovo and Hodgkins Lymphoma - a type of cancer. The judge found the Ministry of Defence liable for €1.4m in damages having failed in its duty to protect the health of the soldier through the provision of warnings or adequate protective measures. The soldier, a corporal from Lecce in Puglia, southern Italy died in 2005, having returned from Kosovo in 2003. The compensation will go to the victim's family.

The ruling builds on the precedent set almost exactly one year ago by a court in Florence. In that ruling the court found that exposure to depleted uranium was the likely cause of paratrooper Gianbattista Marica's Hodgkin's lymphoma, from which he subsequently recovered. He was awarded €545,061 in compensation. The day after the ruling, the Italian government announced a 30m fund to compensate veterans. Data from the Ministry of Defence and published by the Mandelli Commission indicates that more than 2600 Italian veterans have been affected by lymphomas and leukaemia.

Marica had served in Somalia for eight months, from December 1992 to July 1993 as part of the Ibis Mission. There has never been a public admission from the US about the use of depleted uranium munitions in Somalia, although the US did warn its Italian allies that troops should be tested and supplied recommendations on urine testing. However Italian veterans' groups claim that the Defence Ministry failed to warn their troops of any potential risks. Records indicate that the US had Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft in Somalia during the mission there, but is unclear how much DU may have been used in the fighting.

Notes:

http://inchiestauranio.blogspot.com/2009/12/la-sentenza-del-tribunale-di-roma-ecco.html

ICBUW sends an open letter to the WHO

ICBUW sends an open letter to the WHO

ICBUW responds to the ongoing concern over the WHO's stance on the potential health impact of uranium weapons by sending an open letter to Dr Margaret Chan, Director General of the WHO.
23 November 2009 - ICBUW

Read ICBUW's open letter below.

Attachments

Reports from the 2009 Day of Action

Reports from the 2009 Day of Action Against Uranium Weapons

Day of Action 2009 saw events take place around the world, read on for a short summary of some of the actions that occurred. ICBUW was extremely impressed with the variety of actions this year and the ingenuity of our supporters.
16 December 2009 - ICBUW

Day of Action logo ICBUW’s International Day of Action takes place on November 6th each year. November 6th is the UN Day for the Prevention of the Exploitation of the Environment Through War and Armed Conflict. As has been the case in previous years, some national campaigns elected to stretch out their events throughout the month of November.

In Belgium, where uranium weapons are now banned, campaigners decided to start focusing on France’s uranium weapons and their state-owned arms manufacturer Nexter, which is currently the only active manufacturer of uranium ammunition in the EU. In Brussels on the morning of November 6th, passers-by were surprised to see President Sarkozy of France and a businessman from Nexter engaging in arms deals and ‘maintaining good relations’ in the street. Sarkozy and Nexter in good relations

Later campaigners visited the French Embassy in Brussels to hand over a request to the French government that, amongst other things, asked that they follow Belgium’s lead and ban uranium weapons. That afternoon they continued on to the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask the Belgian government to take a stronger role internationally in leading the campaign for a global moratorium and ban.

Davies-Monthan vigil In the US, campaigners from Nuclear Resister held a vigil at Davies-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson Arizona, which is home to the 355th Fighter Wing and train and manages A10 aircraft that have been engaged in ground support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Concord Massachusetts, activists from Grassroots Action for Peace protested about the residual contamination caused by DU manufacturer Starmet’s facility on Main Street – which is now a Superfund site.

In Greece IPPNW affiliate The Greek Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat held a well attended public meeting with several leading NGOs to discuss nuclear and uranium weapons. Materials were passed on to the Greek media and a letter and resolution passed to the new Greek President.

In Costa Rica, campaigners from the San Jose Quaker Peace Centre had arranged a screening of the film URANIO 238. The film had been produced in advance of the ICBUW conference in San Jose in March and directed by filmmaker Pablo Ortega. In a strange quirk of fate, on November 7th, it was announced that the film had won Best Documentary in Costa Rica’s annual film awards. The award opens the possibility of screenings across the country and region and produced more coverage in the national and regional media.

ICBUW/ICBL symposium In Japan campaigners had organised events throughout November. In Osaka a symposium was held on inhumane weapons entitled: Towards Banning Inhumane Weapons: From Cluster Munitions to Uranium Weapons. The event was co-sponsored by ICBUW- Japan/Kansai and the Japan Campaign to Ban Landmines (JCBL). Other events included talks in Tokyo, Fukuoka and Kanazawa City and photo exhibitions by Naomi Toyoda in Osaka and Hiroshima.

Brimar action

In the UK, CADU held two events. On November 6th itself, campaigners from CADU and the group Target Brimar held a morning and evening protest at the Manchester-based arms manufacturer Brimar. Brimar produce display screens for Abrams and Challenger tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft – all of which are capable of firing DU munitions. Throughout November, CADU remembered the life of veteran UK campaigner Richard Crump with a photo competition that received entries from across the globe. Bergen street action

Attachments

Irish depleted uranium ban bill up for consideration

Irish depleted uranium ban bill up for consideration in early 2010

A bill that would ban the use of uranium weapons and armour in Ireland will be discussed early in 2010. Similar bills are under discussion in Costa Rica and New Zealand following Belgium’s decision to ban the weapons in June 2009.
16 December 2009 - ICBUW

The Private Members Bill entitled Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons was submitted in the Seanad Éireann, the Irish parliament’s upper house by Green Senators Dan Boyle and Deirdre de Burca and Independent Fiona O'Malley. The bill is currently in its first stage and faces four more stages where it will face additional scrutiny and potential amendments. It is due to be debated in more depth early in 2010.

Senator Dan Boyle
Senator Dan Boyle

In common with other DU legislation, the bill would make it illegal to test, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, sell, deploy, retain or transfer, directly or indirectly, uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons to anyone. The text would also make it illegal to acquire or dispose of the pre-products necessary for the manufacture of uranium weapons.

Joe Murray of the Irish peace and human rights organisation AFRI said: "AFRI warmly welcomes this initiative that has been taken by Senator Boyle and we hope that this will be the beginning of a process that will lead to the enactment of a bill in the Irish Parliament that will ban the manufacture, use and stockpiling of uranium weapons. Ireland should do whatever it can to lead the world on this issue and should be happy to be competing with Costa Rica and New Zealand to become the next country in the world to ban these indiscriminate weapons."

News of the draft bill was also welcomed by fellow countryman Denis Halliday who served as the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from September 1997, until 1998. Halliday resigned in protest over the humanitarian impact of the UN sanctions regime and has long spoken out against the impact of depleted uranium munitions.

Definitions
During examination of the Belgian draft ban text in 2007, concerns were raised among parliamentarians that a general prohibition on any weapon with depleted uranium in would also cover US nuclear bombs stored on Belgian soil. This led to the introduction of the phrase ‘inert munitions containing depleted uranium...’ The Irish text presents the clearest and most wide-ranging definition yet seen on what constitutes a conventional uranium weapon, whilst excluding nuclear weapons:

“Uranium weapon” means a mechanism which serves to destroy or damage objects and uses uranium in its mode of action. Excluded from this definition are weapons that incorporate uranium and whose primary tactical purpose in this incorporation is the production, flux, or enhancement, of nuclear fission or fusion.

ICBUW believes that the inclusion of the above text would help to ‘future-proof’ any eventual legislation against the development of new conventional uranium weapons. As with the other states where uranium weapon bills are currently under consideration, Ireland is not a user or uranium weapons, nevertheless the successful passage of a ban would send out an important message internationally.

Notes:

http://www.afri.ie

Attachments

  • Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons (Ireland) Bill

    301 Kb - Format pdf
    Senators Dan Boyle, Deirdre de Burca and Fiona O'Malley - Source: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12381
    Irish Private Members Bill that would make it illegal to test, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, sell, deploy, retain or transfer, directly or indirectly, uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons.

domenica 13 dicembre 2009

CSB issues urgent recommendations in probe of Citgo refinery fire

Hello All,
It appears a very serious "near miss" accident, that could have seriously injured and killed many down in Texas, is making the news with videos and even some official CSB complaints of too little protection. Had that white plume of HF laden water vapor headed into the town it would have killed and injured lots of people. HF is very absorbed via skin contact and air inhalation and it highly affects cellular enzymes in the long term causing sickness and even causes heart attacks in the short term with calcium channel effects on the heart.
You can read where the refinery has tried to invoke "National Security" as a reason to cover up these dangerous risk factors associated with HF, just as DOE has done for decades around gas diffusion plants. Refinery risk for kill zones around refineries, like this one, run out to around a 30 mile radius, and are highly hushed up risks by industry.
What they, DOE and HF industry, don't tell everyone, is the risks from an operating DOE gas diffusion plant was a thousand times this factor, due to the simple fact they held in suspension thousands of tons of gaseous UF-6 that will convert almost instantly, due to plane crashes, bombs, or earthquakes, into lots of HF gas and cause huge heavier than air poisonous white clouds to form and engulf regions the plants and around them. There were even more risks from earthquakes opening up the huge systems or toppling rows to DUF-6 cylinders to air and more HF releases. The risks associated with HF releases are still the largest and most hushed up of the health risks for DOE workers and even the risks for total kill zones that would affect entire cities and regions have been covered up.
It is past time for DOE to release all the "Project F" documents from the Manhattan Project that conceal all these extreme risks the Manhattan Project allowed to get the nuclear bomb, plus it is time they admit the long term health effects that HF has had on gas diffusion and other like HF exposed workers in industry.
========================

CSB issues urgent recommendations in probe of Citgo refinery fire


Dec 10, 2009

Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

WASHINGTON, DC, Dec. 10 -- The US Chemical Safety Board issued urgent safety recommendations to Citgo Petroleum Corp., calling on the refiner to immediately improve the emergency water system at its Corpus Christi, Tex., refinery and to perform third-party audits of hydrogen fluoride units there and at its Lemont, Ill., refinery.

The federal agency took the action as it continued investigating a July 19 release of potentially deadline HF vapor which apparently caused an explosion and fire. CSB issues urgent recommendations before final investigations are completed in cases where its board members identify a potentially imminent hazard that might cause serious harm unless promptly rectified.

It said that on the day of the accident, hydrocarbons and hydrogen fluoride were suddenly released from the HF alkylation unit at Citgo’s 163,000-b/d Corpus Christi plant. The hydrocarbons ignited, leading to a fire which burned for several days and critically injured one employee.

CSB said its investigators determined that a blockage of liquid caused by the sudden failure of a control valve led to violent shaking in the process recycle piping, which broke threaded pipe connections and released a hydrocarbon cloud. That cloud reached an adjacent unit and ignited, causing multiple additional fires and the release of approximately 42,000 lb of HF from equipment and piping within the unit.

CSB said that the refinery used a water spray system to absorb the released HF but added that at least 4,000 lb likely escaped into the atmosphere.

Supply ran low
Investigators determined that during the first day of response, Citgo nearly exhausted the water mitigation system’s stored supply and began pumping salt water from the ship channel into the refinery’s water supply about 11.5 hr after the initial release. They said multiple failures occurred during the saltwater transfer, including ruptures of the barge-to-shore transfer hoses and water pump engine failures.

“Investigators found that the Citgo water mitigation system serves as the last line of defense to protect the Corpus Christi community from an HF release,” CSB Investigations Supervisor Robert Hall said.

The CSB’s urgent recommendations call on Citgo to develop and initiate plans within 30 days to ensure that the refinery’s HF mitigation system has an adequate emergency water supply. They also ask the company to report planned or completed actions to the refinery terminal fire company and local emergency planning committee every 30 days until all planned activities are fully implemented.

An additional urgent recommendation called on Citgo to commission independent, third-party audits of its two HF alkylation units at the Corpus Christi refinery and its 167,000 b/d plant in Lemont. CSB said the audits should compare safety practices at the alkylation units to those recommended by the American Petroleum Institute. Investigators said Citgo has never conducted such an audit of the units despite an existing industry recommendation for audits every 3 years.

Video released
The federal agency also released video of the initial pipe failure, release, ignition, and fire as captured by two refinery surveillance cameras. “The camera footage shows the release and spread of the flammable vapor cloud and the moment when the flammable vapor was ignited,” said CSB Chairman John S. Bresland. “It shows just how severe the release and fire were during this incident.”

He noted that the company objected, saying that releasing the information would raise substantial national security issues and sensationalize the accident. CSB subsequently received affirmation from the US Department of Homeland Security that the video did not fall under classifications requiring protection from disclosure. It is available online at CSB’s web site, www.chemsafety.gov.

Bresland cited a law passed by Congress following secrecy claims by Bayer CropScience in Institute, W.Va. The American Communities’ Right to Public Information Act, he said, “states that national security classifications may not be used to conceal corporate errors, prevent embarrassment, or improperly delay the release of information to the public.”

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

===============================================
[DOEWatch] List is for news and learning about energy issues related to DOE, energy, and industry. Fluoride and metal synergism's are top issues for energy production and health. Subscribe via email, send Email to: DOEWatch-subscribe@topica.com or via the
Web page at: http://www.doewatch.com
The [downwindersII] list is the companion discussion list to [DOEWatch].
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
--^^-------------------------------------

sabato 5 dicembre 2009

NATO's Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe

NATO's Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe




Global Research, December 4, 2009
Stop NATO - 2009-12-03

"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war."

"Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.”

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.”

"The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future."


Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike? Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?...Germany's air force couldn't possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?

The above is from the opening paragraph of a feature in Time magazine's online edition of December 2, one entitled "What to Do About Europe's Secret Nukes."

In response to the rhetorical queries posed it adopts the deadly serious tone befitting the subject in stating, "It is Europe's dirty secret that the list of nuclear-capable countries extends beyond those — Britain and France — who have built their own weapons. Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them."

The author of the article, Eben Harrell, who wrote an equally revealing piece for the same news site in June of 2008, cites the Federation of American Scientists as asserting that there are an estimated 200 American B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed in the four NATO member states listed above. A fifth NATO nation that is home to the warheads, Turkey, is not dealt with in the news story. In the earlier Times article alluded to previously, author Harrell wrote that “The U.S. keeps an estimated 350 thermonuclear bombs in six NATO countries." [1] They are three variations of the B61, "up to 10 [or 13] times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb" [2] - B61-3s, B61-4s and B61-10s - stationed on eight bases in Alliance states.

The writer reminded the magazine's readers that "Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation's air force in times of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war." [3]

The B61 is the Pentagon's mainstay hydrogen weapon, a "lightweight bomb [that can] be delivered by...Air Force, Navy and NATO planes at very high altitudes and at speeds above Mach 2."

Also, it "can be dropped at high speeds from altitudes as low as 50 feet. As many as 22 different varieties of aircraft can carry the B61 externally or internally. This weapon can be dropped either by free-fall or as parachute-retarded; it can be detonated either by air burst or ground burst." [4]

The warplanes capable of transporting and using the bomb include new generation U.S. stealth aircraft such as the B-2 bomber and the F-35 Lightning II (multirole Joint Strike Fighter), capable of penetrating air defenses and delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads.

The Pentagon's Prompt Global Strike program, which "could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal," including "the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph," [5] could be configured for use in Europe also, as the U.S. possesses cruise missiles with nuclear warheads for deployment on planes and ships. But the warplanes mandated to deliver American nuclear weapons in Europe are those of its NATO allies, including German Tornados, variants of which were used in NATO's 1999 air war against Yugoslavia and are currently deployed in Afghanistan.

There are assumed to be 130 U.S. nuclear warheads at the Ramstein and 20 at the Buechel airbases in Germany and 20 at the Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium. Additionally, there are reports of dozens more in Italy (at Aviano and Ghedi) and even more, the largest amount of American nuclear weapons outside the United States itself, in Turkey at the Incirlik airbase. [6]

Not only are the warheads stationed in NATO nations but are explicitly there as part of a sixty-year policy of the Alliance, in fact a major cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An article in this series written before the bloc's sixtieth anniversary summit in France and Germany this past April, NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe [7], examined the inextricable link between the founding of NATO in 1949 and the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems in Europe. One of the main purposes of founding the Alliance was exactly to allow for the basing and use of American nuclear arms on the continent.

Seven months after the creation of the bloc, the NATO Defense Doctrine of November 1949 called for insuring “the ability to carry out strategic bombing including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a US responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations.” [8]

The current NATO Handbook contains a section titled NATO's Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment which contains this excerpt:

"During the Cold War, NATO’s nuclear forces played a central role in the Alliance’s strategy of flexible response....[N]uclear weapons were integrated into the whole of NATO’s force structure, and the Alliance maintained a variety of targeting plans which could be executed at short notice. This role entailed high readiness levels and quick-reaction alert postures for significant parts of NATO’s nuclear forces.” [9]

At no time was the deployment and intended use of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe part of a nuclear deterrence strategy. The former Soviet Union was portrayed as having a conventional arms superiority in Europe and U.S. and NATO doctrine called for the first use of nuclear bombs. The latter were based in several NATO states on the continent as part of what was called a "nuclear sharing" or "nuclear burden sharing" arrangement: Although the bombs stored in Europe were American and under the control of the Pentagon, war plans called for their being loaded onto fellow NATO nation’s bombers for use against the Soviet Union and its (non-nuclear) Eastern European allies. The USSR itself, incidentally, didn't successfully test its first atomic bomb until four months after NATO was formed.

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, formed six years after NATO and in response to the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany in the bloc (and the U.S. moving nuclear weapons into the nation), and of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, the Pentagon withdrew the bulk of 7,000 warheads it had maintained in Europe, but still maintains hundreds of tactical nuclear bombs.

At the 1999 NATO fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C., during which the bloc was conducting its first war, the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, and expanding to incorporate three former Warsaw Pact members (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland), it also approved its new and still operative Strategic Concept which states in part:

"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.

“A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity...continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements. Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.” [10]

The Time report of 2008 wrote of the ongoing policy that it is:

"A ‘burden-sharing’ agreement that has been at the heart of NATO military policy since its inception.

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.” [11]

It also discussed the Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures released in February of 2008 which "recommended that American nuclear assets in Europe be consolidated, which analysts interpret as a recommendation to move the bombs to NATO bases under 'U.S. wings,' meaning American bases in Europe." [12}

Both Time articles by Eben Harrell, that of last year and that of this month, emphasize that the basing of nuclear warheads on the territory of non-nuclear nations - and Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are non-nuclear nations - is a gross violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], whose first two Articles state, respectively:

"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices."

"Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." [13]

The Time piece of December 2, then, points out that the continued presence of U.S. nuclear warheads in Europe is "more than an anachronism or historical oddity. They [the weapons] are a violation of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)...."

"Because 'nuclear burden-sharing,' as the dispersion of B61s in Europe is called, was set up before the NPT came into force, it is technically legal. But as signatories to the NPT, the four European countries and the U.S. have pledged 'not to receive the transfer...of nuclear weapons or control over such weapons directly, or indirectly.' That, of course, is precisely what the long-standing NATO arrangement entails." [14]

The author also mentioned the report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, Phase I [15] of which was released in September and Phase II [16] in December of 2008. The second part of the report contains a section called Deterrence: The Special Case of NATO which states:

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) represents a special case for deterrence, both because of history and the presence of nuclear weapons....[T]he presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe remains a pillar of NATO unity. The deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe is not a Service or regional combatant command issue — it is an Alliance issue. As long as NATO members rely on U.S. nuclear weapons for deterrence — and as long as they maintain their own dual-capable aircraft as part of that deterrence — no action should be taken to remove them without a thorough and deliberate process of consultation.

"The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future.

"The Department of Defense should ensure that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule. Further delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the Alliance."

The F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter multirole warplane discussed earlier, which its manufacturer Lockheed Martin boasts "Provides the United States and allied governments with an affordable, stealthy 5TH generation fighter for the 21st century." [17]

Far from the end of the Cold War signaling the elimination of the danger of a nuclear catastrophe in Europe, in many ways matters are now even more precarious. NATO's expansion over the past decade has now brought it to Russia's borders. Five full member states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Poland) and as many Partnership for Peace adjuncts (Azerbaijan, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) directly adjoin Russian territory and for over five years NATO warplanes have conducted air patrols over the Baltic Sea region, a three minute flight from St. Petersburg. [18]

If launching the first unprovoked armed assault against a European nation since Hitler's wars of 1939-1941 ten years ago and currently conducting the world's longest and most large-scale war in South Asia were not reasons enough to demand the abolition of the world's only military bloc, so-called global NATO, then the Alliance's insistence on the right to station - and employ - nuclear weapons in Europe is certainly sufficient grounds for its consignment to the dark days of the Cold War and to oblivion.

Notes

1) Time, June 19, 2008
2) Ibid
3) Time, December 2, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4) Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm
5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007
6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008
7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe
Stop NATO, March 31, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe
8) www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
9)
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm
10) NATO, April 24, 1999
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
11) Time, June 19, 2008
12) Ibid
13)
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
14) Time, December 2, 2009
15)
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf
16) www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf
17) Lockheed Martin
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35
18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict
Stop NATO, February 27, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/baltic-sea-flash-point-for-nato-russia-conflict
Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO’s War Plans For The High North
Stop NATO, June 14, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north


Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff

martedì 1 dicembre 2009

Rubbia: "L'errore nucleare Il futuro è nel sole"

REPUBBLICA / ENERGIA

Rubbia: "L'errore nucleare
Il futuro è nel sole"

Parla il Nobel per la Fisica: "Inutile insistere su una tecnologia che crea solo problemi e ha bisogno di troppo tempo per dare risultati". La strada da percorrere? "Quella del solare termodinamico. Spagna, Germania e Usa l'hanno capito. E noi..." di ELENA DUSI


Carlo Rubbia

ROMA - Come Scilla e Cariddi, sia il nucleare che i combustibili fossili rischiano di spedire sugli scogli la nave del nostro sviluppo. Per risolvere il problema dell'energia, secondo il premio Nobel Carlo Rubbia, bisogna rivoluzionare completamente la rotta. "In che modo? Tagliando il nodo gordiano e iniziando a guardare in una direzione diversa. Perché da un lato, con i combustibili fossili, abbiamo i problemi ambientali che minacciano di farci gran brutti scherzi. E dall'altro, se guardiamo al nucleare, ci accorgiamo che siamo di fronte alle stesse difficoltà irrisolte di un quarto di secolo fa. La strada promettente è piuttosto il solare, che sta crescendo al ritmo del 40% ogni anno nel mondo e dimostra di saper superare gli ostacoli tecnici che gli capitano davanti. Ovviamente non parlo dell'Italia. I paesi in cui si concentrano i progressi sono altri: Spagna, Cile, Messico, Cina, India Germania. Stati Uniti".

La vena di amarezza che ha nella voce Carlo Rubbia quando parla dell'Italia non è casuale. Gli studi di fisica al Cern di Ginevra e gli incarichi di consulenza in campo energetico in Spagna, Germania, presso Nazioni unite e Comunità europea lo hanno allontanato dal nostro paese. Ma in questi giorni il premio Nobel è a Roma, dove ha tenuto un'affollatissima conferenza su materia ed energia oscura nella mostra "Astri e Particelle", allestita al Palazzo delle Esposizioni da Infn, Inaf e Asi.

Un'esibizione scientifica che in un mese ha già raccolto 34mila visitatori. Accanto all'energia oscura che domina nell'universo, c'è l'energia che è sempre più carente sul nostro pianeta. Il governo italiano ha deciso di imboccare di nuovo la strada del nucleare.

Cosa ne pensa?
"Si sa dove costruire gli impianti? Come smaltire le scorie? Si è consapevoli del fatto che per realizzare una centrale occorrono almeno dieci anni? Ci si rende conto che quattro o otto centrali sono come una rondine in primavera e non risolvono il problema, perché la Francia per esempio va avanti con più di cinquanta impianti? E che gli stessi francesi stanno rivedendo i loro programmi sulla tecnologia delle centrali Epr, tanto che si preferisce ristrutturare i reattori vecchi piuttosto che costruirne di nuovi? Se non c'è risposta a queste domande, diventa difficile anche solo discutere del nucleare italiano".

Lei è il padre degli impianti a energia solare termodinamica. A Priolo, vicino Siracusa, c'è la prima centrale in via di realizzazione. Questa non è una buona notizia?
"Sì, ma non dimentichiamo che quella tecnologia, sviluppata quando ero alla guida dell'Enea, a Priolo sarà in grado di produrre 4 megawatt di energia, mentre la Spagna ha già in via di realizzazione impianti per 14mila megawatt e si è dimostrata capace di avviare una grossa centrale solare nell'arco di 18 mesi. Tutto questo mentre noi passiamo il tempo a ipotizzare reattori nucleari che avranno bisogno di un decennio di lavori. Dei passi avanti nel solare li sta muovendo anche l'amministrazione americana, insieme alle nazioni latino-americane, asiatiche, a Israele e molti paesi arabi. L'unico dubbio ormai non è se l'energia solare si svilupperà, ma se a vincere la gara saranno cinesi o statunitensi".

Anche per il solare non mancano i problemi. Basta che arrivi una nuvola...
"Non con il solare termodinamico, che è capace di accumulare l'energia raccolta durante le ore di sole. La soluzione di sali fusi utilizzata al posto della semplice acqua riesce infatti a raggiungere i 600 gradi e il calore viene rilasciato durante le ore di buio o di nuvole. In fondo, il successo dell'idroelettrico come unica vera fonte rinnovabile è dovuto al fatto che una diga ci permette di ammassare l'energia e regolarne il suo rilascio. Anche gli impianti solari termodinamici - a differenza di pale eoliche e pannelli fotovoltaici - sono in grado di risolvere il problema dell'accumulo".

La costruzione di grandi centrali solari nel deserto ha un futuro?
"Certo, i tedeschi hanno già iniziato a investire grandi capitali nel progetto Desertec. La difficoltà è che per muovere le turbine è necessaria molta acqua. Perfino le centrali nucleari in Europa durante l'estate hanno problemi. E nei paesi desertici reperire acqua a sufficienza è davvero un problema. Ecco perché in Spagna stiamo sviluppando nuovi impianti solari che funzionano come i motori a reazione degli aerei: riscaldando aria compressa. I jet sono ormai macchine affidabili e semplici da costruire. Così diventeranno anche le centrali solari del futuro, se ci sarà la volontà politica di farlo".

giovedì 26 novembre 2009

Depleted Uranium and the Medical Mismanagement of Gulf War Veterans

Depleted Uranium and the Medical Mismanagement of Gulf War Veterans

by: Paul Zimmerman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
(Photo: US Marines)

The United States insists that weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) pose no health hazards to exposed populations. This charade persists because an artful propaganda matrix has infiltrated and corrupted certain aspects of the radiation and biological sciences. The facts which follow will introduce how our debilitated veterans are being misinformed of the possible role played by uranium in their illnesses.

1. Within the medical system of the Veterans Administration (VA), veterans are misled into believing that no medical test exists that can determine DU contamination. This stance was echoed in a 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine, lauded as "... the authoritative word on Gulf War Illness."(1) In the preface of the IOM's definitive study, this quote appears: "Although there is a blood test that can provide an indication of exposure to Agent Orange and dioxin that occurred many years ago, there is not (sic) biological measure that can be employed today to assess exposures during the Gulf War."(2)

This statement is a lie. A protocol does exist which can determine DU contamination years after the exposure event. The methodology was published in 2002 by Durakovic, Horan and Dietz.(3) Essentially, it involves collecting a 24-hour urine sample and analyzing the uranium content by means of multicollector inductively coupled plasma ionization mass spectrometry. By this means, the relative concentration of the different uranium isotopes can be measured. This information can then be used to determine whether or not the test subject was contaminated with DU. This test has been reproduced by a number of research groups around the world and has been confirmed as the state-of-the-art means of accurately determining DU exposure. The VA ignores this scientific breakthrough and does not offer it to veterans attempting to come to terms with the cause of their illnesses.

2. The US government ardently wishes to convince the public that the only battlefield hazard posed by DU munitions is shrapnel injuries. Again, the Institute of Medicine study succinctly states this position: "... it is now understood that retention of DU-containing embedded shrapnel is the major source of increased DU exposure in military personnel."

This, too, is a lie. Its purpose is to draw attention away from the inhalation pathway. In the study by Durakovic et al., mentioned above, 27 veterans were studied. All presented complex, nonspecific symptoms of Gulf War Illness. None of them had suffered shrapnel injury. Among this cohort, 14 were found to have been contaminated with DU. It is important to note that this test was conducted nine years after the Gulf War, demonstrating the long residency time of inhaled uranium and the ability to identify such contamination years after the exposure event.

3. According to conventional wisdom, there are two vectors to uranium's toxicity: It is radioactive and it is a heavy metal capable of producing adverse chemical effects. These two phenomenon are usually treated separately despite the fact that abundant research has proven that the two work synergistically, each enhancing the deleterious effects of the other. Uranium's radioactivity is rejected out of hand as hazardous because the "dose" of radiation likely to be absorbed on the contaminated battlefield is too low to produce cancer.

Cancer? Why does cancer enter the discussion of the unexplained illness of Gulf War veterans? Unbeknownst to most people, the current science of radiation safety confines itself to cancer causation. This is a sophisticated ruse that has held sway over radiation protection for half a century. There exists a large body of research on noncancerous effects of radiation that is ignored by the international radiation protection community and the VA. (A complete explanation can be found in (4) in the bibliography.)

As for uranium's chemical toxicity, typical acute exposure events prior to the first Gulf War, such as with uranium miners, led to the determination that the kidney was the organ most susceptible to damage. However, battlefield exposure has no corollary to any other type of uranium exposure and, as a consequence, may produce unique physiological effects. In no other circumstances do humans inhale aerosolized micro- and nano-sized particles of highly insoluble, ceramic, uranium-bearing material. Innovative research is urgently needed to confirm if other types of injury may be initiated in the contaminated individual that bypasses observable damage to the kidney. (See discussion below).

4. The first Gulf War ignited a renewed interest in the toxicology of uranium. Numerous laboratory studies have documented that uranium is genotoxic (capable of damaging DNA), cytotoxic (poisonous to cells), mutagenic (capable of inducing mutations), teratogenic (capable of interfering with normal embryonic development) and neurotoxic (capable of harming nerve tissue). This research has yet to dislodge the stale mantra that uranium is only capable of causing cancer or kidney damage. (For an extensive review of recent research on the toxicology of uranium, see (4).)

5. Here's an example of blatant medical fraud. A veteran suffering from the undiagnosed illness commonly referred to as Gulf War Syndrome goes to his doctor concerned that uranium exposure may have been a factor in his deteriorating condition. In response, the physician orders a test to measure the total concentration of uranium in a 24-hour urine sample. (This is an entirely different test from the one described earlier.) When the test results return from the lab, the GI is informed that the amount of uranium in his urine is within the normal range. Uranium contamination is not a problem. What he is not told is that this was a foregone conclusion. Why? Because he was given the wrong diagnostic test!

In accidents where people absorb into their bodies an abnormal amount of uranium, the soluble portion relatively rapidly enters the blood, is transported to the kidneys and is then excreted. During this period, measured in days to weeks, the uranium concentration in the urine will be elevated while the body efficiently goes about ridding itself of excess uranium. Measurement of total uranium in urine during this time will demonstrate abnormally high levels, which can be used to determine if kidney damage is a possible concern. Similarly, a veteran injured by shrapnel will show an elevated concentration of uranium in his urine for years as uranium slowly dissolves from the metal fragments in his body. In the case of inhalation exposure, measurement of total uranium would be elevated only if measured on the battlefield soon after exposure while the soluble fraction of uranium is being eliminated from the body. But conducted years after exposure, the test would provide no useful information because uranium levels would have returned to within the normal range. What's not being addressed is the fate of the insoluble portion of the absorbed uranium. This uranium dissolves very slowly, over a period of years. While this is taking place, the total concentration of uranium in the urine may never rise above the normal range. If a veteran wants to know whether he is carrying DU in his body years after exposure, he requires the proper diagnostic test, the one mentioned in number 1 above.

5. The war is Bosnia was fought between March 1992 and November 1995. In its aftermath, soldiers serving in the former Yugoslavian army, staffers of humanitarian missions and Yugoslavian residents began manifesting symptoms of some unidentified illness similar to that suffered by US soldiers who served in the Gulf. Belatedly, NATO announced in 2000 that munitions containing DU had been fired on the Bosnian battlefields. This revelation was groundbreaking. The Bosnian theater contained none of the risk factors for Gulf War Illness that veterans were exposed to who served in Iraq and Kuwait, such as oil well fires, vaccines for anthrax or botulinum toxins, Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents etc. The only factor that linked the two theaters together were DU munitions.

Using an innovative technique of electronic microscopy, Antonietta Gatti and Stephano Montanari analyzed tissue samples taken from those suffering so-called Balkan War Syndrome.(5) Every tissue sample and lymph node that was examined contained spherical, combustion-derived, metal-alloyed microparticles and nanoparticles. To confirm an environmental origin of this debris, the researchers noted that particles found in the tissues of diseased soldiers and civilians were "mutually compatible" with those found on the ground in the territories where battles had been fought and where the pathologies were contracted.

This avenue of investigation reveals a third vector of DU's toxicity which acts synergistically with DU's radiation and chemical effects. Nanoparticles have recently received a great deal of attention due the numerous proposed applications of nanotechnology, the use of materials smaller than 100 nanometers (0.1 microns). Nanoparticles have been shown to exhibit many unusual properties. They possess the ability to pass directly through certain tissue types, travel along neurons, escape filtration from the blood by the spleen and the liver and avoid immune system detection by macrophages. These unusual characteristics give nanoparticles ready access to all tissues of the body. While circulating through the body, their surface chemistry provides a platform for ongoing heavy metal interactions with the body's molecular makeup. Thus, insoluble uranium nanoparticles represent point sources for chronic chemical and radiological poisoning to the body's interior. In addition, nanoparticles of many different compositions have been implicated in initiating inflammation, oxidative stress and gene activation.

With over 100,000 Gulf War veterans ill with an undiagnosed illness, one would think that the work of Gatti and Montanari would have stimulated medical follow-up among researchers sincerely interested in exploring the origins of Gulf War Illness. However, their work has so far remained ignored by the VA.

6. On August 20, 2007, the Discovery Channel aired an episode in its series "Conspiracy Test" entitled "Gulf War Illness." During the program, the results of research undertaken at the Molecular Medicine and Genetics Lab at Wayne State University were presented. In a preliminary study supervised by Dr. Henry Heng, blood samples were collected from five veterans of the 1991 Gulf War who were suffering symptoms of the undiagnosed illness they had contracted while in military service. All had previously tested positive for the presence of DU in their urine and none had served in any area of Iraq where possible exposure to chemical warfare agents might have occurred as a result of the destruction of weapon caches at Khamisiyah. Using spectral karyotyping (SKY), Heng and his graduate students imaged and analyzed the chromosome structure of blood cells in each of the veterans. What Heng and his colleagues found using this technique was startling. The karyotype of each of the veterans clearly displayed significant levels of chromosome damage. According to Heng, the damage widely exceeded that observed in cancer patients. Translocations, broken chromosomes, centromere displacements and aneuploidy (a gain or loss in the number of chromosomes) were observed. According to Heng, the chromosome aberrations observed were typical of the type of damage produced by radiation. This is another avenue of investigation ignored by the VA.

7. In 2003, Heike Schröder and her research associates published a study of 16 British Gulf War and Balkan War veterans who suspected that they had been exposed to DU. When compared to suitable controls, the study group demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the frequency of dicentric chromosomes and centric-ring chromosomes in peripheral lymphocytes.(6) (These aberrantly shaped chromosomes are created when two double-strand breaks in DNA are improperly repaired, either between the DNA from two separate chromosomes or within the DNA of a single chromosome. The elevated occurrence of these in individuals serves as a biological indicator of exposure to ionizing radiation.)

The findings of Schröder and her colleagues are extremely significant. The observed chromosome aberration frequency they observed should not have been occurring at the "dose" delivered by battlefield DU. According to the authors, "However, as dicentric chromosomes are reliable indicators of ionizing radiation, our findings contradict official releases from the IAEA, the WHO, the MOD and the DOE, stating that the radiotoxicity of DU would be negligible."(7) A further bewildering discovery was that the observed chromosome aberrations should not have been so prevalent ten years after exposure, which was when the veterans in this study were tested. Schröder offered the observation that soluble DU would have been flushed from the bodies of test subjects relatively soon after exposure. Further, the biological half-life of dicentric chromosomes is 3.5 years. As a consequence, the observed chromosome aberrations could not have been produced at the time of the exposure event. So, how were they produced? Schröder proposed that the chromosome aberrations were a manifestation of ongoing damage to the body's interior produced by the radiation emitted from insoluble particles that were lodged in the body since the moment they were absorbed on the contaminated battlefield.

The scientific research mentioned above clearly suggests that DU is a factor in the undiagnosed illness suffered by veterans. Yet, numerous publications from the world's guardian institutions continue to proclaim that this is impossible. The VA has aligned itself with this political propaganda and, in the process, makes a mockery of science.

To conclude, the VA is being lackadaisical at best, criminally negligent at worst, in its treatment of veterans suffering from symptoms of so-called Gulf War Illness. Valuable avenues of research are being intentionally ignored because they raise disturbing questions of the impact to health from radioactive material released into the environment. Rather than throw a disparaging light on cherished weapon systems, our cherished veterans are being abused by an uncaring medical system.

Bibliography:

(1) Sartin J.S. "Gulf War Syndrome: The Final Chapter?" Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2006, 81(11):1425-1426.
(2) Institute of Medicine. Committee on Gulf War and Health. "A Review of the Medical Literature Relative to the Gulf War Veterans' Health." "Gulf War and Health. Volume 4: Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War." Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2006.
(3) Durakovic A., Horan P., Dietz L. "The Quantitative Analysis of Depleted Uranium Isotopes in British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans," Military Medicine, 2002, 167(8):620-627.
(4) Zimmerman P. "A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science," August, 2009.
(5) Gatti A.M., Montanari S. "So-called Balkan Syndrome: A Bioengineering Approach," Emilia, Italy, Laboratory of Biomaterials of the University of Modena and Reggio, February 2004.
(6) Schröder H., presentation at the World Uranium Weapons Conference, October 16-19, 2003. University of Hamburg, Germany.
(7) Schröder H., Heimers A., Frentzel-Beyme R., Schott A., Hoffmann W. "Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War Veterans. Radiation Protection Dosimetry," 2003, 103(3):211-219.


Paul Zimmerman is the author of "A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science." Excerpts, free to download, are available at www.du-deceptions.com.

Wisconsin Environment, il nucleare è antieconomico e pericoloso

Wisconsin Environment, il nucleare è antieconomico e pericoloso
di Andrea Boretti - 26/11/2009

Fonte: Terranauta [scheda fonte]

Il nucleare è pericoloso e antieconomico. Lo dimostrano alcune recenti notizie, oltre ad un rapporto del Wisconsin Environment. Nonostante tutto, c’è chi ancora opta verso questa forma di energia anche dopo che un caposaldo come la Francia, per la prima volta in 27 anni, ha comprato energia a seguito dei frequenti danni ai reattori nucleari.

nucleare perdita radioattività
La centrale atomica di Three Mile Island (Stati Uniti) ha avuto una nuova perdita di radioattività ad appena un mese dalla concessione della licenza
Mentre Copenaghen si avvicina inesorabilmente e il dibattito sulla quantità di emissioni da abbattere, sulla energie sulle quali puntare e sui metodi per raggiungere tali obiettivi si infiamma, alcune notizie, purtroppo poco discusse nei media tradizionali, segnano un nuovo brutto colpo per l'energia nucleare.

La prima viene dagli Stati Uniti, dove la centrale atomica di Three Mile Island ha avuto una nuova perdita di radioattività ad appena un mese dalla concessione della licenza. La centrale era già tristemente nota per l'incidente del 1979 in seguito al quale molte persone persero la vita e gli Stati Uniti, di fatto, fermarono la costruzione di nuovi impianti. Oggi l'episodio si ripete, fortunatamente in forma molto più lieve, con solo pochi operai contaminati in maniera non grave, ma con conseguenze simboliche decisamente di peso all'interno del dibattito sul nucleare.

Un'altra notizia che viene dall'America, ma che ci riguarda da vicino, è di qualche settimana fa e concerne la bocciatura da parte della Nuclear Regulatory Commission, l'agenzia nucleare americana, dei reattori Westinghouse di ultima generazione. Questi reattori non reggerebbero ad un incidente aereo e non avrebbero i requisiti minimi di sicurezza nucleare. Perché la notizia ci riguarda da vicino? E' semplice, questi sono i reattori attesi anche in Italia per il programma atomico del governo.

Proprio in Italia, però, ci sono problemi decisamente più stringenti. Solo due giorni fa Legambiente ha denunciato una perdita radioattiva nel centro di stoccaggio delle scorie di Saluggia in Piemonte. L'Agenzia regionale per l'ambiente dice che una perdita di migliaia di bequerel avrebbe contaminato il sottosuolo dell'impianto attraverso un condotto di scarico dell'impianto stesso. Lo scarico sarebbe situato molto vicino alla Dora Baltea con tutte le conseguenze che questo può comportare.

Insomma, non è per niente un bel periodo per il nucleare che tra grandi e piccoli incidenti che ne minano continuamente l'affidabilità - quest'anno la Francia per la prima volta in 27 anni torna a comprare energia proprio a causa dei frequenti guasti ai suoi reattori - e il costante e insoluto problema dello stoccaggio delle scorie, da sempre vero e proprio tallone d'Achille del sistema nucleare, sembra decisamente in ribasso.

scorie radioaative spazio
A risolvere - si fa per dire - la questione delle scorie ci stanno pensando però i russi, la cui proposta è quella di smaltire le scorie nello spazio
A risolvere - si fa per dire - la questione delle scorie ci stanno pensando però i russi, la cui proposta è quella di smaltire le scorie nello spazio. Sì, avete capito bene, nello spazio. Senza voler entrare nel merito della sicurezza e dell'opportunità di una scelta del genere, viene immediatamente spontaneo chiedersi di quanto aumenterebbero i costi di smaltimento e di conseguenza di quanto aumenterebbe il costo dell'energia nucleare, già oggi poco conveniente se si tiene conto dei costi di costruzione e, appunto, di smaltimento di centrali e scorie.

Tutte queste notizie formano un quadro abbastanza chiaro: il nucleare è potenzialmente pericoloso sia a causa delle centrali stesse che a causa dei rifiuti radioattivi che producono. Ma non è tutto, il nucleare è anche antieconomico e poco efficace nella lotta ai cambiamenti climatici, almeno se paragonato alle energie rinnovabili. Ad affermarlo è il Wisconsin Environment, un centro studi statunitense non governativo, secondo il quale se davvero per affrontare adeguatamente l'emergenza climatica bisogna ridurre consistentemente entro il 2020 le emissioni di anidride carbonica, allora il nucleare non è la scelta da fare. Per ridurre di 6 miliardi di tonnellate le emissioni di anidride, racconta il rapporto, bisognerebbe costruire 100 impianti nucleari e tenerli in esercizio per almeno 20 anni. Con lo stesso investimento in efficienza energetica ed energia rinnovabili si potrebbe invece ottenere un risultato doppio nello stesso periodo di tempo. Tutto ciò, ovviamente, senza contare i ritardi che caratterizzano da sempre la costruzione delle centrali atomiche (il prossimo reattore nucleare negli Stati Uniti è atteso non prima nel 2016).

impianto nucleare
Per ridurre di 6 miliardi di tonnellate le emissioni di anidride bisognerebbe costruire 100 impianti nucleari e tenerli in esercizio per almeno 20 anni
Nel rapporto dell'istituto viene anche fatta una classifica delle azioni più convenienti in termini di rapporto costi/diminuzione di CO2. Per ogni dollaro speso si ottiene una riduzione di 8-12 chili di anidride se destinato ad efficienza energetica e alle biomasse, di 5-8 chili se destinato all'eolico, di 2-3 se speso nel solare e di massimo 1-2 chili se speso in energia nucleare. Game, Set, Match si direbbe nel tennis.

A volte l'evidenza della situazione ci porta a chiedere perché sia ancora necessario rilanciare certe notizie, perché continuare a spiegare come il sogno nucleare sia morto oltre 20 anni fa - anche la Francia comincia ad accorgersene - e come non ci sia ragione al mondo per calcare nuovamente questa strada. Poi arrivano le scelte anacronistiche del governo italiano, arrivano i vertici internazionali in cui i leader tentennano e il nucleare torna alla ribalta e tutto è chiaro. Ci sono interessi economici, ci sono lobby la cui esistenza è legata a doppio filo al nucleare, ma la realtà, come insegna la recente questione climatica, è che l'uomo per prendere una decisione radicale deve prima di tutto sbatterci la faccia e pagare le conseguenze di scelte sbagliate... e anche questo non sempre è sufficiente.

Personal Journey of Toxic Illness and Corruption

Nov-24-2009 22:01

Vina Colley Discusses Personal Journey of Toxic Illness and Corruption

Workplace Contamination Activist give the straight facts on American Dawn Internet Radio.

Salem-News.com
Courtesy: ananuclear.org

(LOS ANGELES) - Exploring all topics related to health care, the Managed Care Reform Council’s new radio show American Dawn will examine the effects of workplace contamination and the impact on the health and well being of the workers who unknowingly are exposed to toxins.

In such trying economic times, our country’s workforce will silently accept unsafe conditions in exchange for steady employment. Yet, in time, some employees will find that their health has deteriorated to a point where they are unable to fulfill the requirements of the job.

A nuclear plant worker who found herself in a similar position will share her experience and her journey to educate others on American Dawn.

Vina Colley felt fortunate to work at the nuclear plant where she was able to make a comfortable living while working on projects that served our country. Feeling a false sense of security with the hard hat and safety glasses rules, she soon realized such plant accessories were no match for the radiation and hazardous chemicals that she was exposed to from her first day of employment until the day she lost her job.

Concerned for her personal safety and the safety of her co-workers, Ms. Colley filed safety complaints for years hoping that her concerns would be heard and that she would be assured a safe work place. Due to her advocacy, she lost her job. Due to the condition of her workplace, she lost her health.

American Dawn can be heard on HTH radio at hthradio.net on Wednesdays at 4:00 p.m. eastern/1:00 p.m. pacific. American Dawn host Vickie Travis was the previous host of the long running “The Vickie Travis Hour” at Highway to Health.

She is a well known patient advocate who has taken her tragic experience with an HMO system and utilized the internet, radio, and social media to become a leading advocate for HMO reform.

American Dawn is one of several outreach advocacy projects of The Managed Care Reform Council.

mercoledì 25 novembre 2009

The Responsibility of the US in Contaminating Iraq

The Responsibility of the US in Contaminating Iraq with Depleted Uranium



Global Research, November 8, 2009

The following text was presented to the Kuala Lumpur International Conference to Criminalise War, Putra World Trade Centre, 28-31 October 2009.


For two decades, the administrations of the United States of America and the United Kingdom have been waging continuous wars on Iraq to occupy this oil rich country.


The armed forces of those two countries attacked civilians with different kinds of conventional, non-conventional, and banned weapons such as cluster bombs ammunitions, napalm bombs, white phosphorous weapons and depleted Uranium weapons.


Depleted Uranium (DU) is a radioactive and chemically toxic heavy metal. If ingested, inhaled, or it enters the human body through wounds or skin, it remains there for decades.


Within the human body the (DU) particles would be a continuous source for emitting alpha particles. With its toxic effects, published research & epidemiological studies have proved that it causes serious health damages to the human body. Some of the damage to the human body is to lymph tissue, kidneys, developing fetuses, neurological system, the bones, lung fibrosis, and an increase in the risk of many types of cancer and malignancies.


Hundreds of tons of (DU) expenditure have been fired & exploded on Iraqi highly populated areas like Basrah, Baghdad, Nasriya, Dewania, Samawa, and other cities.


Exploration programs and site measurements by Iraqi and non-Iraqi researchers all proved the existence of (DU) related contamination over most Iraqi territories.


Iraq's Minister of Environment admitted in July 23, 2007 in Cairo that "at least 350 sites in Iraq are contaminated with (DU)". She added that the nation is facing a tremendous number of cancer cases and called for the international community to help Iraq cope with this problem.


A few years after exposure to (DU) contamination, multifold increase of malignancies, congenital malformations, miscarriages, children leukemia, and sterility cases have been registered in suburb areas of Basrah and other surrounding areas. Similar problems appeared in Falluja, where illegal weapons were also used intensively in the 2004 attack of occupation forces on the city. More than two million of the Iraqi population died since 1991 because of the synergic multiple impact of using (DU) weapons, economical sanctions, and the destruction of the health care systems.


The economical sanction that were also imposed by USA and UK administrations deprived the children and people of Iraq their rights in food, potable water, health care, sanitation and other life supporting necessities.


The USA and UK administrations have subjected the whole nation of Iraq for two decades to torture and slow death through the intentional use of radioactive weapons and the sanctions. The continuous and intentional use of radioactive weapons is a crime against humanity due to its undifferentiating harmful health effects on civilians in contaminated areas tens of years to come after the military engagements. The existence of (DU) radioactive contamination in the surrounding environment is a continuous source of exposure to low level radiation. This exposure can be considered as a systematic attack on Iraqi civilians in an armed conflict, according to Article 4 of the official regulations and Article 7 of the ICC.


This paper is submitted to present the facts and scientific evidences regarding the intentional use of the USA and UK administrations of depleted uranium weapons against the people and environment of Iraq, in addition to the health consequences that have been result from them.

1.0 Introduction:


The administrations of the United States of America and the United Kingdom have been continuously waging wars against Iraq since 1991.


The armed forces of these two administrations have been using different kinds and new generations of conventional, nonconventional, and illegal weapons like Napalm, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, microwave, and Depleted Uranium weapons [1][2][3][4] against the human population and the environment of Iraq. Invasion and occupation of Iraq proved to the world that oil flow is the main reason behind these criminal attacks.


As a result of using these weapons, with the economical sanctions that were also imposed on Iraq by the same administration more than two million Iraqi people died and the count continues.


In this paper, we present the consequences and damage resulting from the use of Depleted Uranium weaponry against Iraq, backed by scientific fact and research.

2.0 What is Depleted Uranium?


Depleted Uranium (DU) is a man-made, radioactive, heavy metal extracted from Uranium ore. Since (DU) is a byproduct of the Uranium enrichment process to produce spent fuel for nuclear reactors. Natural Uranium has an isotopic content of 99.274% of U-238 by weight, 0.072% of U-235, & 0.0057% of U-234 [5].


Due to its highly pyrophoric and spontaneously ignitable properties, the DU penetrator ignites on impact generating extremely high temperatures. As the projectile pierces, it leaves its jacket behind dispersing DU dust into the environment during the impact. The quantity of the aerosol production is proportional to DU mass within the projectile and the hardness of the impact.


It is estimated that up to 70%of DU in the projectiles to be aerosolized when on the impact DU catches fire [6]. The explosion generates high temperatures of (3000-6000) °C. The aerosols particles are smaller than 5µm in size [6]. These nano-particles act more like a gas than a particle. The DU aerosols remain windborne for an extended time and this is the most dangerous pathway on civilian population around the battlefield areas.


3.0 Depleted Uranium within the human body


There is empirical documentation that suggests that DU aerosols can travel up to 26 miles [5], others suggest even further distances. The full radiation effect of DU occurs six months after production [6]. One milligram of U-238 can give of 1, 07, 000 alpha particles in one day. Each alpha particle releases over 4 MeV (million-electron-volts) of energy. If swallowed or inhaled, this much energy will hit up to 6 nearby cells away in the organ [6]. Just 6-10ev (electron volt) is needed to cleave the nuclear DNA strand in the cell.


Dr. Rosalie Bertell, an epidemiologist with 30-years experience in the field of low level radiation explains DU potential harm to the human body [6]:


After inhalation (DU) nano-particle aerosols cross the lung-blood barrier and gain entrance to the cells. They create free radicals. As a heavy metal, DU toxicity attacks the proteins in the cell which normally fight the free radicals, and creates extra free radicals. This amount of free radicals creates total oxidative stress in the human body. This stress causes failure to protective enzymes, leaving cells vulnerable to viruses and mycoplasmas, damage to cellular communication system and the mitochondria.


As a heavy metal, DU replaces the magnesium in the organ’s molecules that normally function as antioxidants, and causes the destruction of the body’s repair mechanisms. Consequences of this destruction are chronic diseases and tumors. Free radicals can also totally disrupt the folding process and manufacturing of the molecule proteins which is sequenced by DNA and manufactured by the RNA. Some of the diseases resulted from misrouted proteins include cystic fibrosis, diabetes insipidus and cancer. [6]


Amassing and accumulation of misfolded proteins leads to neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson’s Diseases and early onset Alzheimer’s disease. In these diseases, amyloids are formed from protein fragments and dysfunctional proteins and that “Misfolded proteins” are the central pathogenic mechanism.


Gulf War veterans have manifested many of the symptoms of these neurodegenerative diseases.[6]


Other health effects of DU within the human body are:

- Lou Gehrig’s disease is twice as commonly diagnosed in Gulf War veterans as expected.

- Immune and Hormonal system damage

- Disturbance of thyroid function

- Mycoplasmas invasion into human cells.

- Initiation or promotion of cancer

- Tetratogenic toxicity which causes mental retardation, congenital malformations.

- GW veterans were twice-three times as likely to report children with birth defects as their counter partner who did not serve in the first Gulf War.

- Miscarriages

Dr. Hari Sharma, formerly of the University of Waterloo, tested the urine of some US, UK and Canadian veterans as well as Iraqi civilians from Basra and Baghdad.

Using 24hr urine samples, his isotopic analysis revealed a range of DU in the sample of (81-1,340) nanogram. Results showed that two of the three Iraqis from Al Basra had 147 – 426 nanograms respectively in their urine. Also it showed that 2 out of 5 Iraqis from Baghdad have DU in their urine

4.0 Other Important Scientific Evidence:


Dr Alexandra C. Miller and her team at the Armed Forces Radiological Research Institute, Bethesda, MD and the University of Paris, France used human cell models (the human Osteoblast cell HOS) to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of DU in vitro through assessing morphological transformation, genotoxicity [7] (chromosomal aberration), mutagenic (HRRT Ioci) and genomic instability.


Published data of the results have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized HOS cells is neoplatically transforming, mutagenic, genotoxic, and induces genomic instability. Other results showed:


- Exposure to embedded DU pellets could induce leukemia in mice.

- Internalized DU resulted in significant increases in the mutagenic frequency in the Lac gene in the tests of the exposed mice.

- Internalized DU resulted in the development of bladder carcinoma in 75% of all animal exposed within 90 days of initial DU exposure.


As we can see all these results suggest that long-term exposure to internalized DU could be critical to the development of neoplastic disease in humans.


Pub. Radiation Protection Dosimetry Schroder, Heike 2003. A molecular biologist conducted research about the chromosomal aberration on white blood cells of 16 British Gulf War veterans of 1991. The veterans have suffered from symptoms ranging from headache, to chronic fatigue, depression, muscle and joint pains, impaired short-term memory and other cognitive defects. [8]


The results showed that the mean frequency of their blood cells chromosomal aberrations is 5-fold elevation higher than the control blood samples. This strongly indicated previous exposure to ionizing radiations.

The intercellular distribution of the Dicentric and Centric ring chromosomes indicates significant over dispersion on the group level for the veterans who served in the Gulf War. Dic and CR are a known consequence of non uniform irradiation on the human body. [8]


Dr. Huda Ammash, Professor of Molecular Biology in Baghdad University and her team [9] conducted and published the results of genetic hematological analysis for a group of individuals living in DU contaminated areas in southern Iraq. Blood tests for the (47) individuals who lived in Basrah contaminated areas and another 30 as a control group. The control group individuals lived in Baghdad.

- Blood tests showed that 21% of the studied individuals in Basrah group suffered a reduction in hemoglobin concentration of (9-13) g/d.

- The blood packed cell volume (PCV) test results showed that 25.5% of Basrah studied group showed abnormal (PCV) rates of (30-39)% less than the normal rate.

- Total white Blood Cells count (WBC) results showed that 8% of the individuals in the Basrah study group with (WBC) less than normal which is (4000)c/ml or higher than normal rate (1100)c/ml.

- Compound chromosomal changes in the lymphocytes of periphal blood of the individuals of Basrah studied group had been found at a ratio of (0.1118)% which is significantly higher than that of the control group.

- The ratio of dicentric and ring centric chromosomal abnormality fraction was found to be (0.04479) which is higher than ordinary ratio chromosomal damages where mostly in male veteran individuals. One case was for a 13 year old young boy at the time of the exposure in Al-Zubair contaminated area.

Rita Hindin, et al [5] published a paper “Teratogenicity of Depleted Uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective” in which they stated that animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. They also concluded that the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with the increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.

For further scientific evidences by Iraqi researchers, check: ”Depleted Uranium Contamination: Iraq: An overview” http:///www.globalresearch.org.

5.0 Contaminating Iraq with Depleted Uranium


The USA and UK armed forces used Depleted Uranium ammunition for the first time in the history of their wars during the Gulf War of 1991. About one million bullets, projectiles, and missiles were fired along the highway from Kuwait to Basrah then up to Nasriya and other Iraqi cities. About 60-65% of this ammunition and expenditure were fired within Iraqi territories, Figure 1 shows areas where DU expenditure have been used in the Gulf War of 1991 [11].


Figure 1 areas where DU expenditure have been used in Gulf War 1991.



Figure 2 represents a photo of the Iraqi army artilleries and vehicles destroyed on that highway by (DU) weaponry [12].


Figure 2: Iraqi army artilleries that have destroyed using DU on Highway
As stated previously, as soon as DU projectiles hit the target, it will ignite with a huge explosion that generates Depleted Uranium oxide aerosols. Mixing height of the aerosols in the atmosphere gets to 250m [13]. Area of Basrah War Zone and highway warzone [10] [14] were calculated to be around 2400km2. This area was the major continuous source of DU aerosols and contaminants to surrounding areas years to come.
Types of Depleted Uranium contaminants in the studied areas were:
1. Destroyed tanks and artilleries.
2. DU projectiles shells (exploded and unexploded)
3. DU shrapnel’s (different sizes)
4. Deposited DU particles
5. Deposited DU oxide aerosols
Modeling mechanisms of spreading of DU pollutants from the source to surrounding populated areas were done by the Environmental Engineering department of Baghdad University [10] [14] [15]. The results of modeling spreading of pollutants through different environmental pathways to human population suggested that total calculated annual body dose received from DU aerosols inhalation pathway for the period from 1991-1996 in Basrah warzone was between 0.1768 Sv and 0.2309 Sv [10] (for a person both in normal or active duty respectively). Compared to normal background annual effective dose people should receive of 2.4 mSv only. In the highway warzone, these values came up to 0.4425 Sv and 0.577 Sv [14] respectively.

6.0 DU Contaminated Dust Storms In Iraq
Spreading and dispersion of DU contamination to surrounding areas also occurs through wind storms, dust storms, sandstorms, and rainstorms. Mechanisms of surface migration of DU radionuclide’s in soil include [16]:
- Siltation, creeping, and suspension from contaminated soil to atmosphere.
- Suspension and re-suspension of deposited DU aerosols are the most dangerous and critical pathway of transfer and spreading from source to the human population.
DU nano-particles through this mechanism stay suspended in the atmosphere for tens of days. With each dust storm a new DU attack on the civilians within populated cities occurs. Published data indicate a significant increase in the frequency of annual dust storms in both Iraq and Kuwait areas [17]. The first 8 months of 2009 witnessed 20 dust storms, as declared by the Iraqi Minister of Health [18]. Figures (3) and (4) show sites of these dust storms.
DU contaminated dust storms can be considered as new systematic attacks by USA armed forces, on civilians, since it adds an extra harmful radioactive dose received by the people internally and externally.
The USA and UK administrations should be held responsible for exposing a whole nation to the risk of continually receiving high radioactive and toxic persistent contaminants such as DU.
Cumulative effects of these additional doses add additional risk to residents of these areas. Intentional denial and cover up of the types, locations and amounts of DU ammunitions by the US and UK armed forces prevent Iraq from taking any precautionary measures to reduce exposure to additional radioactive doses.
To understand how persistent these pollutants are; Soil and dust samples from areas near NL Industries site in Colonie, NY, USA proved containing DU after more than 20 years of the closure of these DU manufacturing industries [19].
A total of 5 to 10 metric tons of DU dust and aerosols settled from air on soil, rooftops, and other surfaces near the plant during its operation. The plant was closed in 1984 and contaminated soil was removed. In 2006, twenty-two years later, dust samples that had been collected from residents in the area proved the existence of DU significantly above the clean up standard. People working near NL Industries also tested positive for DU in their bodies. Results of these tests are being published in the international journal “Science of the Total Environment” [20].
If we compare this case study with Basra DU contamination where (320 tons of DU * 0.65 in Iraqi territories * 0.6 aerosolized) we end up with about 114.80 metric tons of DU aerosols spreading through winds to huge inside Iraq and the Gulf countries’ areas, then pre-suspension of these contaminants to larger areas with each dust and sand storm that hits the area.
In 2003, it is estimated the US & UK armed forces used about (700-800) tons of DU [21]. The aerosolized portion of this amount is about 420 metric tons, a quantity large enough to cover the soil of the whole country after the dispersion of plumes with the previously mentioned mechanisms.

7.0 DU Contamination Casualties in Iraq:
Epidemiological studies in contaminated areas indicated a drastic rise in the incidences rate of malignancies amongst children to be far more noticeable from 1995 onward, namely a four times increase than prior to 1991, the distribution of this increase specifically in contaminated areas west of Basra City [22].
Moreover, the shift in Leukemia to younger children supports the criteria of biological plausibility specificity and is consistent with findings of correlating such incidents to exposure to ionized radiations [23].
Also a six fold increase in congenital malformations among births in Basra City since 1995 onward, have been registered [24]. Congenital heart diseases and chromosomal aberrations have been also reported.
Another crime of the occupation forces is the destruction of the evidence targeting the Iraqi research centers related to this issue.
Two decades of suffering, pain, and human life losses, the Minister of Environment in Iraq finally announced in 2007 the disaster of DU contamination in Iraq. She pointed out that more than 300 sites have been contaminated with these radioactive weapons [25]. She also called for the Japanese authorities and the international community to help Iraq with coping with the drastic increase of cancer incident rates [26].
To prove our case: Kuwait DU waste & wreckage from Gulf wars are shipped back to be dumped in USA.
After 18 years, Kuwait required US dept. of defense to remove the DU contaminated wreckage from their land [21]. Over 6,700 tons of contaminated soil, sand and other residues were collected and shipped back to the USA for burial by American Ecology at Bios, Idaho.
The US administration and pentagon officials still insist that DU has no significant health hazards, if so, why would they have to ship back their dirty radioactive wreckage back home from Kuwait?
8.0 Stand of the International Community on DU Weaponry
The Hague and Geneva conventions and its protocols and subsequent treaties clearly declare that weapons which cannot discriminate between civilians and military or combatants are prohibited from not only use but also from manufacture and sale [27].
The Nuremberg principles were incorporated into the Charter of the UN, a treaty which is supposed to be “Supreme Law” in the USA. When the American Administration ratified it, the 7th principle declares that “Complicity with a crime against Humanity is a war crime”.
UN resolutions since 1996 called DU weaponry “incompatible” (i.e. illegal) under existing humanitarian law and human rights [UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27 and additions; E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/35] [28].

Uranium radiation hazards are covered up and misrepresented through the obsolete models of risk and derived standards of allowable exposure set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
This model was derived from invalid assumptions due to secrecy and cover up about the health effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs then, around the cold war developments of nuclear power and weapons [28].
The ICRP risk model was built from studies of the atomic bomb survivors, which overlooked the effects from the internal radiation source and ignored cancer that in some cases takes decades to appear.
It was certainly developed before the DNA and the human genome knowledge existed the way it does to date.
Cover-ups and deception are expected from American and UK administrations the perpetrators of all radiological wars and illegal weapons, which should face liability for war crimes, military and civilian casualties, as well as contamination of the environment.
The US has refused to disclose information about DU during the invasion military operations of Iraq in 2003, and did not let UNEP team study DU contamination Iraq [29].
With the great efforts of anti-nuclear weapons groups, NGO, peace organizations and international figures, the call of these organizations to ban the all Uranium weapons, including DU, have earned very good momentum especially among the NATO countries.
- On March 23rd, 2007, the Belgian Chamber Commission on National Defense voted unanimously in favor of banning the use of DU ammunitions and armor plates [30].
- On November 1, 2008, a UN committee passed a resolution with an overwhelming majority, highlighting concerns over the military use of Uranium. The resolution entitled “Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing Depleted Uranium 1” urges the UN member states to re-examine the health hazards posted by the use of Uranium weapons [31].
- Another historic sentence was pronounced on January 13, 2009 by a court in Florence, Italy asking the Italian Ministry of Defense to compensate Gianbattista Marica with Euro 545,061, a parachutist who was deployed in Somalia for eight months in 1993. The sentence is very important because it states “the casual link between the presence of depleted uranium and the illness (cancer) of the Soldier” [32]. The courts statement includes the report of technical consultant who maintains that there is a causal link between the Hodgkin Lymphoma developed by the soldier and the exposure to DU.
- In September 2009, a British jury at Smethwick Council House ruled that DU was likely cause of death of Gulf War veteran Stuart Dysan in June 2008. Dyson had been a Lance Corporal with the Royal Pioneer Corps and had cleaned tanks after the 1991 Gulf War. He developed colon cancer that killed him last year [33].
The European Parliament on 22nd of May 2008 passed its fourth resolution against the use Uranium weapons. MEP’s have called for EU and NATO-wide moratorium and global ban [29].

9.0 Concluding Remarks:
1. The US and UK administrations have been using Depleted Uranium weapons against the civilian population and the environment of Iraq since 1991.
2. Laboratory studies and scientific evidence prove the link and causal relationship between exposure to Depleted Uranium and the increased risk of inducing neurodegenerative diseases, immune and hormonal system damage, initiation or promotion of cancer, Tetratogenic Toxicity which causes mental retardation and congenital malformations, miscarriages, and sterility.

3. Intentional denial and refusal of the US and UK administrations to release any information about the types, locations, and amounts of DU weapons that have been used against Iraq have caused additional radioactive doses, and health damages to the people in contaminated areas. Both administrations should be held responsible for this crime.
4. The drastic increase of cancer incidences in Iraq since 1995 to date and the DU related diseases like congenital malformation, miscarriages, etc, are all attributed to the use of prohibited weapons including Depleted Uranium.
5. DU contaminated areas all over the country are continuous source of radioactive pollution. Without cleaning and other measures, resuspension of these contaminants with each dust and sand storm can be considered as systematic attacks by the US and UK armies on civilians in an armed conflict.
This is a crime against humanity to its undifferentiated harmful health impacts on civilians long times to come after the military operations (Article 4 of the official regulations and Article 7 of ICC).
Notes


1. Simon Helweg-Larsen, "Irregular Weapons Used against Iraq". ZNET http://www.znet.org/welser.htm ,April 2003

2. Sarah Meyer. “What Kind of Incendiary Bomb Was Used Against People in Iraq” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1226 November 14, 2005.

3. Steven D. "US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon". Daily KOS.

4. Scott Peterson Remains of Toxic Bullets Litter Iraq, May 18, 2003, Christian Science Monitor.

5. Rita Hindin, Doug Brugge, and Bindu Panikkar, "Teratogenicity of Depleted Uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective " Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2005. http://www.ehjournal.net/info/instructions/

6. Rosali Bertell "Depleted Uranium: All the questions about DU and Gulf War Syndrome are not yet answered". International Journal of Health Service 36(3), 503-520, 2006

7. Alexandra C. Miller, Mike Stewart, Rafael Rivas, Robert Marlot, and Paul Lison, "Depleted Uranium" internal contamination: Carcinogenisis and Leukeinogenisis in Vivo. Proc. Am Assoc Cancer Res. Volume 46, 2005.

8. Chroder, H. et al. "Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War veterans". Radiation Prot. Dosimetry. Vol. 103(3) 2003 (PP. 211-219).

9. Ammash, H., Alwan, L., and Maarouf, B.,”Genetic hematological study for a selected population from DU contaminated areas in Basra.” Proceeding of the conference on the effects of the use of DU weapons on human and environment in Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq 2002.

10. Al-Azzawi, S. N. and Al-Naemi, A. "Assessment of radiological doses and risks resulted from DU contamination in Basrah war zone." Proceeding of the conference on the effects of the use of DU

11. Gulf War Resource Center "Primary Areas of DU Expenditure", USA, 1999.

12. Turnley, P.; News Week Magazine; (January-20), 1992.

13. Neboysha, L. "Environmental Impact on Humans During the Gulf War", Communications between Professor Neboysha and Professor Sharma, 1999.

14. Al-Azzawi, S., and Al Naemi, A., 2002, “Assessment of radiological doses and risks resulted from DU contamination in the highway war zone in Al-Basra governorate”, proceedings of the conference on the effects of the use of DU weaponry on human and environment in Iraq, March 26-27 2002, Baghdad, Iraq.

15. Al-Azzawi, S. et al, “ Environmental Pollution Resulting from the Use of Depleted Uranium Weaponry Against Iraq During 1991, World International Conference on DU, Hamburg, Germany, 2003 http://www.grassrootspeace.org/wuwc_reader2_science.pdf - p.41

16. Al-Heli, W.M. “Effects of DU Weapons on Air and Soil Pollution in Southern Iraq”, M.Sc. Thesis in Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Iraq. 1998.

17. Draxler R. R., et al, “Estimating PM10 Air concentrations from Dust storms in Iraq, Kuwait and Kingdom Saudi Arabia. Atmospheric Environment” vol35:4115-4330.

18. Middle East Online, "Draught steals Iraqi's nutrition", September 1st 2009

19. ICBUW, "Robert shows New Yorkers Contaminated with DU over 20 years after exposure" http://www.banddepleteduranium.org/

20. William, D. “Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq” full report.. The Eos life resources center. Oct, 2002.

21. ICBUW, "Statement by the DU positive testees" http://www.banddepleteduranium.org/

22. Yaqoub, A., et.al., 1999, “Depleted Uranium and health of people in Basrah: an epidemiological evidence; 1-The incidence and pattern of malignant diseases among children in Basrah with specific reference to leukemia during the period of 1990-1998”, the medical journal of Basrah University (MJBU), vol.17, no.1&2, 1999, Basrah, Iraq.

23. Yaqoub, A., Ajeel, N., and Al-Wiswasy, M., 1998, “Incidence and pattern of malignant diseases (excluding leukemia) during 1990-1997”, Proceeding of the conference on health and environmental consequences of DU used by U.S. and British forces in the 1991 Gulf War, Dec. 2-3, 1998, Baghdad, Iraq. http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm

24. Al-Sadoon, I., Hassan, J., and Yaqoub, A., 1998, “Incidence and pattern of congenital anomalies among birth in Basrah during the period 1990-1998”, Proceeding of the conference on health and environmental consequences of DU used by U.S. and British forces in the 1991 Gulf War, Dec. 2-3, 1998. http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm

25. RIA Novoski "Iraqis blame US depleted Uranium for surge in cancer"

26. Tokyo Newspapers "Iraqi Minister of Environment Appeals to Japanese Government for Assistance in Dealing with DU contmination". September 10th 2008 http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp

27. Proceeding of World Uranium weapons conference 2003, Hamburg, Germany. Page 192

28. Protr Bein "Uranium Weapons cover-ups in our midst". Proceedings of world Uranium Weapons conference, 2003, Hamburg, Germany.

29. David Goliath "The Adversary's Tactics and Effectiveness". Proceedings of world conference, 2003 Hamburg, Germany, Page 204.

30. William Van Den Panhuysen. "Belgium Bans Uranium Weapons and Armor". ISBUW, March 24, 2007.

31. ICBUW, "UN First Committee Passes DU Resolution in Landslide Vote" Nov. , 2007 http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/

32. Stefania Divertito "Historic sentence in Florence, Italian court recognizes the link between cancer and Depleted Uranium". 13th Jan. 2009 http://www.peaclink.it

33. ICBUW, DU was a likely cause of dead Gulf Veteran's cancer". Sept. 11, 2009 http://www.bandepleteduranium.org

34. ICBUW "European Parliament passes far reaching DU resolution in landslide vote", May 22, 2008. http://www.bandepleteduranium.org

Soglie per la mutazione indotta dalle radiazioni?

  Articolo di revisione Soglie per la mutazione indotta dalle radiazioni? Il dibattito Muller-Evans: un punto di svolta per la valutazione d...