Uranium Weapons Cover-ups in Our
Midst
Piotr Bein,
PhD
Independent
A brief invited to
World Uranium Weapons Conference
Post-conference
version,
…We deal
With invisible
enemies
We trade
In dangers unseen… -- Afon Claerwen,
November 2002
Introduction
From
The concept of toxic-radioactive warfare dates back to World War
II when air attacks with uranium oxide aerosols were considered a realistic
threat. The military recognized the potential of uranium smoke (aerosol) as a
terrain contaminant and an instrument of gas warfare that kills and
incapacitates troops and civilians and denies territory to enemy.
The War Department was later re-named Department of Defense
(Pentagon). Pentagon knew the hazards of fine uranium particles, but has
developed depleted uranium (DU) ammunition that became a contentious issue
after wars in the
Cover-ups of uranium effects must have gone on since WW II, but
pro-DU propaganda surfaced only after the first massive use of DU ammunition in
1991 Gulf War. That war broke a 46-year-long taboo against the intentional use
or induction of radioactivity in combat, creating a military and legal
precedent, and trivializing the combat use of radioactive materials.
The “Kosovo” DU scandal in 2000/2001 saw information warfare
employed to defend uranium non-atomic weapons, including intimidation of vocal
victims of DU, independent researchers, and activists in the West and former
Soviet block countries. A growing number of concerned groups
tracked misinformation, deceptions and the politics of uranium weapons. This
material precipitated propaganda analyses presented to international
conferences in
The latter paper married the propaganda and the legalistic themes,
as the illegality of uranium weapons continues to be the weakest point
(actually, a no-point) of their proponents. UN resolutions since 1996 call 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]. The cover-ups are bound to tighten
around the illegality issues.
UK researcher Dai Williams substantially expanded the
understanding of uranium weapons other than DU. Shaped charge munitions,
explosive charges, a fill in thermobaric bombs, and a
new generation of hard target guided weapons that use "dense metal"
to double their penetration effect are all suspect of containing uranium [http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm;
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm; http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm]. Misinformation and cover-ups of these weapons exhibit patterns
similar to those employed for DU armour-piercers.
Uranium shaped charge warheads are rapidly proliferating in smaller
ground-to-ground and air-to-ground missile systems. A
variation of shaped charges are used in anti-tank cluster bombs.
Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) found high contamination of
residents near sites bombed in
Media reports, and political and legal campaigns, including the
work of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,
have focused specifically on DU weapons. The isotopic composition of
military uranium residue in
How does it affect us
If the new weapon systems contain undepleted
uranium, then the governments responsible can deny that they use DU. Williams writes: “Scores of written replies from the UK
Government to MPs, and personal correspondence to me, have contained specific
denials about the use of DU in guided weapons of all kinds. They have declined
to respond to recent questions about undepleted
uranium.” The ability to uncover uranium weapons other than DU depends much on
public opinions. The complex will continue to mislead. Our movement, using
outside scientific and legalistic expertise, must change existing perceptions.
Each new war disposes of very hazardous nuclear waste on new
territory, away from the producer’s country, in uranium weapons that the
proponents call “conventional”. We are unfortunately richer in experience
through a series of wars that the
The material and evidence I reviewed for this invited brief
indicates that anti-uranium weapon movement is infiltrated and corrupted. The
subterfuge usually occurs on the more specialized frontlines, into where the
general membership does not look and therefore remains unaware of the threats.
Consequently, the establishment has marginalized, if not intimidated, many of
our warriors, making them less effective and delaying the achievement of our
goals. The manipulations create or increase our polarization, and plant
intrigues among our groups, which lead to distrust within the movement and
frustrate the efforts of sincere membership. Davey
Garland wrote: “these issues are vital to the survival of the movement, but
also for it to evolve.” [du-watch,
I submit some of the cases that have sufficient background
material for verification. I present them without prejudice and in good faith,
trusting they will help our leaders and members use them wisely for the common
good. Hopefully, this brief will be useful for dealing with the perpetrators:
remedying the damage done within our ranks and in public opinions, and
mitigating adversary’s future attempts. We can make a change even though we
cannot control production and use of the weapons.
Responsible authorities are liable under a wide range of
international law beyond humanitarian law. They contaminate battlefields with
military uranium and endanger health of civilians and combatants. The findings
of research into the health effects of DU and other weaponry containing
radiation but not causing nuclear fission or fusion explosions (which as a
whole are referred to as radiological weaponry in this brief) are
indisputable. Even a cursory review of humanitarian law supports the conclusion
that uranium weaponry of any type is so patently illegal that the discussion
should really focus on bringing to justice those who have used it and
redirecting action towards the victims of these weapons. But the
international community and the anti-uranium movement still confronts the
“denial and deflect” policies of the weapon makers, proliferators and users.
Understanding of humanitarian law relating to weaponry and the
consequences of violations reveals why those responsible think they have to
cover-up that they knowingly developed and used "illegal" weapons.
Rather than face those consequences, they misstate, mislead, and misinform.
This brief analyses the cover-ups with a view on exposing the
methods and tactics for the movement to educate themselves in preparation for
effective countermeasures. Part 1 outlines the anatomy of cover-ups:
group-think, information warfare and media manipulation. Part 2 presents our
adversary’s tactics and effectiveness. Part 3 analyses cases that illustrate
Parts 1 and 2 in the context of prime concern to this conference: our
adversary’s cover-up and deception operations imposed on the movement.
Conclusions and recommendations are mine, as well as supplied in confidence and
extracted from postings to du-watch. They are by no
means complete, but are meant to precipitate discussions and thinking. Readers
familiar with my previous work can proceed to Parts 3 and 4.
Part 1: Anatomy of cover-ups
Reasons for cover-ups
Bein and
Parker [2003] summarized the health hazards of uranium in non-nuclear weapons
and civilian applications: radioactivity and toxicity. The hazards are similar,
regardless of the type of uranium metal used: depleted, non-depleted or in
alloys with other metals. That paper gave an ample sampling of government,
military and industry documents that prove the authorities responsible for
uranium contamination knew about the risks involved – the principal reason they
suppressed the evidence.
Uranium radiation hazards are covered-up and misrepresented.
Central technical basis in the deception are obsolete models of risk and
derived standards of allowable exposure. The total radiological dose inside an
exposed person over years severely exceeds safe limits. Standards set by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) derive from
empirically invalid assumptions due to secrecy and distortions around the
effects of
Physicists instead of biologists developed the ICRP model before
DNA was known, yet it purports to represent cell damage processes. ICRP model
spreads a dose over a large mass of tissue instead of considering biophysical
and biochemical damage mechanisms at the cellular level. A critique by the
European Committee on Radiation Risk reveals that ICRP
models of risk from internal particles underestimate empirical mortality and
morbidity by a factor of 100 to 1000 [ECRR 2003].
A team from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) reported
after a visit to hard-target bomb sites in
The perpetrators of all radiological wars and illegal weapons face
potential liability for war crimes, military and civilian casualties,
contamination of environment, and battlefield clean-up costs as well as social
costs of other parts of the uranium weapon cycle, including disposal of
astronomic quantities of expired uranium weapons on own territory. Cover-ups and
deceptions are expected under such circumstances.
The second reason for cover-ups is long-term. DU weapons belong to
the diffuse category of low-radiological-impact nuclear weapons to which
emerging types of low-yield (i.e., 4th generation) nuclear explosives
also belong. The cover-ups might serve to ease public acceptability of present
uranium weapons against hard targets, present small nuclear warheads, and
future pure fusion nuclear weapons [Gsponer 2003].
All of these weapons contaminate with low level radiation. A future combat
scenario with micro-nukes translates into a low-level radioactive input
comparable to that on DU battlefields [http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0210071].
Elimination of uranium radiological weapons would not terminate the health and
environmental problems of low-level radiation battles.
Group-think
Uranium weapons likely persist due to institutional pressures
that, once started to defend an effective DU bullet, escalated to a point of no
return. Substitution of uranium weapons would indirectly admit the hazards,
while ample evidence incriminates those responsible because they knew the
potential dangers from the beginning. In an extreme case scenario, war-mongers
and ethnic-haters in high positions may have discovered in uranium weapons an
effective toxic-radioactive terrorist tool. With it, they can damage present
and future generations of the “enemy” without public stigma of WMD, though with
some “collateral damage” to own civilians and troops over the lifecycle of the
weapons.
The US and UK governments claim they deploy DU ammunition because
it costs less than tungsten, has an advantage over enemy armour,
reduces own casualties and utilizes industrial waste.
The claims are not justified. The additional expense on tungsten
is negligible both relative to the military value of a destroyed target, and in
the total military spending. This is a socially irresponsible reasoning, as it
ignores the health costs and clean-up costs over the life-cycle of uranium
weapons. Recent announcements about development of tungsten substitutes of DU
tank ammunition undermine the claim. The DU weapon systems are not better or
cheaper than alternatives. Military applications of DU do not utilize significant
quantities of nuclear waste, either.
Own soldiers, the victims of “friendly fire” suffer from acute
poisoning and radiation sickness, instead of ordinary wounds, while longer-term
casualties are substantial. A September 2002 Gulf War report on US veterans
shows 0.1% casualty rate in combat, but a 36% post-combat rate for almost 700
thousand troops engaged in the war and shortly after. However, according to a
1998 admission of the military, only some 436 thousand troops entered into areas
that were contaminated by DU dust. That boosts the casualty rate to 58%
post-combat! Uranium is one of several major causes of the syndrome, so a
casualty rate of about ten percent could be attributed to DU.
Official reports in the West ignore civilian casualties of uranium
weapons in
Pro-uranium propaganda has seriously compromised scientific
reports subject to military-government funding and control, even those by
international organizations. Deceitful propaganda also appears in statements
from government, military and arms and nuclear industry. It is of great concern
that political representatives are unable to obtain information from
alternative sources and uncritically trust doctored intelligence and distorted
data. This points to a fundamental flaw in how these
countries address military issues and weapons. Countless journalists,
researchers, professors, and persons in responsible public positions help in
misinformation campaigns, thus breaking professional ethics of primary
allegiance to public good. Willingly or not, knowingly or not, they collude in
the crimes by spreading lies and distortions about fatal effects of uranium.
The propaganda has led to an absurd situation where US and
Williams considered that civilian and military decision makers
responsible for uranium weapons may be caught up in a self-justifying logic
that generates illusory morality, demands conformity, accepts high risk
strategies and demonizes enemies and dissenters. Some Western governments seem
to be following the group-think in the wars with “Saddam”, “Milosevic” and
recently the "Wars on Terrorism". Group-think in authoritarian
organizations would explain why the military downplayed or outright ignored the
health risks of uranium weapons, and why those responsible chose to cover up
their criminal position, rather than relinquish uranium weapons.
Indirect evidence exists that cover-up was desired to deceive the
public and escape liabilities. In 1947 a secret memo from the US Atomic Energy
Commission had this self-incriminating statement about medical experiments on
human subjects: "It is desired that no document be released which refers
to experiments with humans and might
have adverse effects on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents
covering such work field should be classified 'secret.' "
Following the full scale low-radiation experiment with DU bullets
in Gulf War I, a memo dated
The
As hard-target uranium weapons came on the development and use
stream, the philosophy must have been extended to the new applications.
Logically, similar cover-up approach would govern next weapons that leave
low-level radiation behind, for many generations to deal with.
Information warfare
Information warfare is one of the instruments of power, beside
combat, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. PsyOps
(Psychological Operations) are among its most conspicuous tools. Information
warfare is effective and inexpensive compared to combat, and would fit the
needs of “Service/DoD proponency”
named in Ziehmn’s memo. The military specifies the
structure and methods of Information Operations that engage behavioural
science, mass media and high technology [Joint Chiefs of Staff1987;
Headquarters Department of the Army 1996].
According to NATO [Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff 1996], their PsyOps target "enemy,
friendly and neutral audiences in order to influence attitudes and behavior
affecting the achievement of political and military objectives." NATO and
candidate countries’ military and media act like clones of Pentagon. Critique
comes mainly from pressure groups and governments outside the Pact.
Information Warfare integrates several types of special services
when needed. A joint command of US Special Operations is then engaged to
assemble teams of various “specialists” to suit a mission. Assaults on anti-DU
activist, Dr. Doug Rokke, former Pentagon expert on
DU, were likely steered by US Special Operations in a broader campaign of
"fighting" the truth. Former Chief of Nuclear Medicine at the
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, was forced to leave the
With the emergence of uranium weapon issues, the propaganda
applies simple, often ridiculous ideas and phrases based on two rules: (i) a repeated lie becomes accepted truth;
(ii) the public accepts
outrageous lies more readily. Propaganda plays with words bred in PsyOps bureaus. The words, phrases and contexts are then
uttered by authoritative persons, proving the speakers and their controllers
are either criminally negligent, or consciously
contravening humanitarian law. Former NATO political chief Javier Solana, while
heading an ad hoc “investigation” to prove Kosovo DU was no danger, affirmed in
January 2001: “The evidence points in the other direction.” A letter to Washington Times wondered
then: “Is DU a health benefit?"
Lord Robertson, supposedly an educated man, defended the
"proven [DU] technology that has been independently tested […] We cannot possibly act on the perceptions of people or on
the view of a word such as 'uranium'.” Bein and Zorić [2001] assembled other deceptive statements,
nomenclature and phrases coined by PsyOps of DU
weapons.
Behind the scenes
Public Affairs (PA) of Information Warfare "provides
objective reporting without intent to propagandize" and disseminates
information internationally. PA involves press releases, media briefings
and statements by the military that "are based on projection of truths
and credible message [that serve to discredit] adversary propaganda or
misinformation against the operations of US/coalition forces [which] is
critical to maintaining favorable public opinion."
In psychology, “projection” means the act of ascribing one’s own
attitudes, thoughts, etc. to someone else. PA use propaganda - white (telling
the truth), gray (ambiguous) or black (lying) - often through Public Relations
(PR). NATO spokesman Jamie Shea "
won the war" in Kosovo by carrying out daily briefings in a PR
style. A deep control of the global media by Information Operations to demonize
the Serbs was perhaps the most “successful” aspect of that war.
Public Affairs units prepare information for news brokers, who
send it to media outlets. Independent journalists do not have a chance to
publish in mainstream media, since NATO information operations subtly control
chief editors. The structures of media seem corrupted top to bottom. In the
words of the former
president of CBS News, Richard Salent, "Our job
is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to
have." John Swinton, the former New York
Times Chief of Staff, whom colleagues named "The Dean of His
Profession", confessed before the New York Press Club: "I am paid
weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with.
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who
would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets
looking for another job."
Many authors point out that North American media,
reduced to a handful of conglomerates by deregulation, mold
public’s minds. The largest conglomerates are growing by consuming
competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. As the media empires
consolidate, TV stations, newspapers and radio broadcasting are no longer
independent. Only a handful are large enough to maintain own reporters. The
rest must depend on the chains for all of national and international news. It is also unsettling that one ethnic group dominates North
American media ownership and staff, contrary to the ethnic profiles of
respective groups in the general population.
TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, movies speak
with a single voice, reinforcing each other. Despite apparent diversity, there
are no alternative sources of information. The most prestigious and influential
newspapers in the USA, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington
Post illustrate the ability of the media masters to use the press as an
unopposed policy instrument. The papers set the trends and the guidelines for
nearly all the others, and originate the news for the others to copy. In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post
publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed
English-language daily in the world [.
The Washington Post has an inside track on news involving
the federal government. Reference to “military sources”,
“senior administration officials”, or “Pentagon analysts” reveal
relations between media outlets and the military. Another clue of a single
source of information for international press agencies are standard phrases,
beginnings and endings in all press reports, in accord with Pentagon position.
A November 10, 2002, Washington Post article provided an insight into
media–Pentagon relations: “This article was discussed extensively in recent
days with several senior civilian and military Defense Department officials.”
Military censors at PA vetted the article, then the
supposedly independent newspaper published it. Major news corporations
manufacture opinion polls to meet government specifications, which usually
combine plans of the administration, the Pentagon and the business. The media
lend themselves to what White House aides themselves have described as a
campaign to “sell” the war to the American people, as was seen during 2002-2003
preparations for invasion of
Military control of the media extends to the battlefields, using
lessons from the Vietnam War, when coverage of atrocities against civilians and
of US soldiers in body bags contributed to anti-war protests. Nowadays, a “pool
system” selects daily a few out of hundreds of journalists, and escorts them to
scenes deemed fit for the public. The coverage is then shared with their
colleagues, so that the same controlled story comes from every major news
outlet. This “embedding”
of reporters in Gulf War II operations demonstrated how the military compromise
journalistic ethics. CBC series With Passionate Eye of
Embedding would not allow objective reporting from the scene about
victims of acute exposure to uranium weapons. Pentagon press briefings would
black out or distort any incriminating leaks from independent reporters. Should
independent sources fail to observe this censorship (as was the case with the
Serb TV in 1999) their facilities are targeted with US precision-guided
munitions, consistent with Special Operations integration of services to suit
Information Warfare needs. A few reporters died this way in the most recent
wars.
Part 2: The Adversary’s Tactics and
Effectiveness
David and Goliath
Cover-up operations had the opposite effect on public opinion. It
eroded public trust, particularly of the ill veterans. Recruits and staff
soldiers being prepared for next wars now think twice. Upon seeing NATO
disrespect for their health in Kosovo, many KFOR troops mutinied, while
volunteers withdrew. Several countries withdrew from their NATO obligation in
the Balkans because of contamination. Some post-war aid organizations were
reluctant to go to
The
The statement of purpose of Bring Them Home Now, an
organization of military families demanding the immediate withdrawal of US
forces from the
In August 2003, Dutch parliamentarians were concerned that
Propagandizing uranium weapons as effective means against “terrorism”
or “evil states” also seems counterproductive in the cover-ups of adverse
health effects of uranium. The fallout and residue from the weapons terrorize
innocents. Terrorists are best taken out covertly. Neutralization of secret WMD
with like weapons does not justify the end, either.
Unexploded DU bullets are themselves a potential terrorist weapon.
Shortly after ABC News reporters smuggled 7 kg of DU into the country in
September 2003 to show how ineffective home security was, a retired Californian
research chemist Dr. Vince Calder noted that intact DU bullets pose a terrorist
threat. They are readily available from the battlefields, easy to import, and
simple to turn into dirty bombs, making them a potential WMD inside the
With statutory disclosures of secrets from the atomic era, and as
the number of casualties of “safe” radiation weapons grows, the public mistrust
and soldier mutiny would rise, creating an additional stressor in Western
societies. Abroad, radioactive contamination of one’s soil fortifies the
resentment, general animosity and terrorism against the
From now on, either the perpetrators step up neutralization
attempts on the opponents of uranium weapons, or start backing away. Because
the US and
Anything goes
Despite large resources expended on PsyOps,
amateurs recognize and debunk spin and deception easily. In 1999, Bein predicted in a Polish article [http://www.eco.pl/zb/147/] the following
techniques for cover-up of Balkan DU, based on post-Gulf War I experience:
·
Deny information and delay
its release; understate the quantity of DU weapons used.
·
Belittle harmful effects of
DU, change emphasis and dilute scientific information.
·
Manipulate reports and
scientific evidence, including those from previous DU wars.
·
Censor DU information in mass media.
·
Blame other causes, such as
pre-war or general pollution.
·
Coerce the government to
withhold the truth.
·
Blame "Milosevic’s” secret weapons, and
DU deployed by Yugoslav forces.
All of the above tricks were noted during and after NATO campaigns
in the Balkans. Then they re-appeared, with “Milosevic” changed to “Taliban and
Al Qaeda” after the recent war in
NATO coerced old and new Yugoslav governments to suppress DU
casualty information. Yugoslav de-contamination units operated during NATO
bombing, while the government likely concealed DU casualties in military
hospitals. After a new Yugoslav foreign minister visited Lord Robertson in the
beginning of 2001, the Western media reported that
Coercion of occupier-installed governments is easy. In
In both wars after the Balkans, Pentagon supported dissemination
of stories that, true or not, could serve to cover-up own radiological weapons
in case serious uranium contamination would be discovered. On January 16, 2002,
US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld,
reported an elevated level of radioactivity in one area of Afghanistan due to
“depleted uranium on some warheads”, allegedly missiles captured from Al Qaeda. The risk of Al Qaeda using
“dirty bombs” was a major theme in Pentagon statements up to May 2002, but Rumsfeld never reported which type of missiles was found or
which country made them.
Al Qaeda’s DU was of course “dangerous”,
unlike the benign DU in American and Briitish armour-piercers. The Taliban and Al Qaeda
would not have the means to make or deliver large munitions made of uranium.
They may have acquired small surface-to-surface anti-tank missiles made of
uranium, or supplies of DU to make “dirty bombs”.
Greenpeace became Pentagon’s spin conduit in
Being a
concentrate of uranium ore, yellowcake has a "natural uranium"
signature. How would the Greenpeace story help cover-up uranium weapons?
Independent tests to identify the uranium isotopes (and therefore the origin of
the contamination) would be suppressed, as has been the rule in official
"investigations" so far. All irradiation symptoms could then be
blamed on the looted material that somehow managed to spread to all regions of
the country where U-weapons have been used. The non-depleted uranium that UMCR
discovered in
Implemented by a military-bureaucratic machine, information
warfare inadvertently produces mistakes and blunders. PsyOps
then attempt to cover the blunders up with more blunders. An imperative to hide
the truth drives the perpetrators and their operatives – Special Operations, PsyOps, spokesmen, official media, pseudo-scientists
– into thought contraptions and staged events designed to convince the
audience. The Kosovo DU case had several obvious blunders. Those responsible
failed to warn and protect NATO and UN forces, foreign workers, and local
civilians (for whom they supposedly bombed “Milosevic”), including no warning
about dirty DU. The public objected to Stalinist-like
special operations that attempted to silence evidence in several Western
countries. The cover-ups further clouded the risks of civilian applications of
uranium (for example, in aircraft counterweights), increasing the risks to NATO
country populations.
Deny, delay, deceive
Propaganda tactics of the nuclear-military-government complex
follow 3 d’s: deny, delay, deceive, in which
concealment of chronic exposure and effects of uranium on human health are key.
Bein and Zoric [2001] (with supplements in [Bein
and Parker 2003]) assembled ample examples of delays and omissions with bombed
site information and with carrying out “studies” by the authorities. The “deny”
phase of deception and cover-up of uranium weapons has been most intense after
the war in
It seems that a campaign of denials regarding uranium weapons is
underway within a broader campaign for acceptability of weapons that
contaminate with low-level radiation. Statements by US government about plans
to develop nuclear penetrating bombs, threats of terrorist radiological bombs,
and recent warning of potential first strike nuclear attacks by the US and UK
play down potential hazards of "conventional" uranium weapons. The
rhetoric may aim at lowering the threshold of acceptability for radiological
weapons systems. A nuclear strike makes little sense when existing systems can
destroy deeply buried WMD, unless the goal is to shake underground
installations with a nuclear blast.
As long as there is no proof of any connection of illness and
death to uranium on radiological battlefields, all the other claims of the
opponents, including illegality of the weapons, can be discounted. A dedicated
set of information operations manages the proof aspect. Besides “damage
control” of information coming out of the military’s own medical institutions,
the activities have revealed themselves as follows:
-
Manipulation and corruption
of laboratories chosen to do medical research for the complex.
-
Pressures on the executives
of national and international organizations conducting studies of contaminated
sites and victims.
-
Intimidation and discreditation of independent medical scientists and
researchers.
The above actions create in the medical science an artificial
controversy with a dual purpose: to cloud the truth for an average consumer of
information and – most important – to draw decision makers and public
attention away from a “controversy” that concerns the complex the most: the
illegality of uranium weapons of any kind. The effectiveness of this
approach is seen in most mainstream press reports on the health effects of DU
and other uranium weapons. Seldom, if ever, the press quotes a humanitarian law
jurist or a researcher of the new uranium weapon systems. This happens even in
media outlets that declare journalistic standards of objectivity and quote the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Obstruction of international law is thus a strategic goal of our
adversary. We must be aware of it and support only those law initiatives
against uranium and the weapons that we are sure will not be used to stall the
process of abolishing the weapons, bringing liability cases of uranium victims
before courts, and
prosecuting the perpetrators..
Manipulation
and corruption of laboratories
An article explains why testing by the US Department of Defense
(DOD) and Canadian Department of National Defense (DND) is unable to detect any
hazards [Weyman 2003]. It states: "The
constructing of follow-up and screening programs that persist at refusing to
conduct isotopic analyses on veterans whose medical symptoms and deployment
histories suggest a high likelihood of inhalational
exposure to DU is a distinct contradiction with other government policies and a
slap in the face to veterans.”
The article exposes the cover-ups methods employed in studies
under control of the military: "By their own admissions, DND’s and DOD’s DU screening and follow-up programs have
not been conducted by laboratories and researchers reliably able to measure DU
in veterans. Instead, multi-millions of research dollars are diverted to
gratuitous studies on laboratory animals to examine irrelevant anatomical
mechanisms and questionable biological pathways -- body hair, shrapnel,
‘nose-only inhalation’, and ‘nose-brain barriers’. The outcomes of these
studies will be meaningless for the majority of Gulf and Balkan veterans.”
Inadequate and inconclusive radiological, bio-assay programs mean
inability to examine DU contamination for veterans or the possible links to
mutagenic effects on their children: “This means the largest population of
battlefield DU exposed veterans will not be recognised
– even if they have, in fact, been contaminated."
Pressures on
national and international organizations
The complex controls international legislation and management of
low-level-radiation issues. Without doubt, the organizations responsible for
radiological safety of humankind employ dedicated, highly ethical and
knowledgeable staff. But by yielding to external pressures from the complex,
the executives compromise the sincere efforts of the staff and the integrity of
competent investigations. There is evidence to this effect regarding the
international organizations, such as ICRP [ECRR 2003], and UNEP [http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/2001/02/03uranium],
down to national bodies, such as the Polish Atomic Agency, the Institute of Chemistry and Nuclear Technology, and the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw
[http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/neo-nato.htm].
Selected organizations play a key role in covering up the
radiological risk. ICRP is responsible for prevalence of invalid models of risk
to human health from internal, low-level radiation sources like uranium fine
particles. By an agreement with WHO dating back to 1959, the only UN agency
serving a private sector (nuclear industry), IAEA, has a monopoly on radiation
aspects of uranium health effects, leaving to WHO the toxic aspect. This is a
deliberate tool of control and cover-up of irradiation issues around the world.
A 1990 revision by the ICRP cut the permitted low-level radiation dose by a
factor of five. The
No NATO country or the World Health Organization (WHO) have carried out any epidemiological studies of either
soldiers or civilians exposed in uranium wars. This guarantees no confirmation
or discovery of the health effects of uranium weapons. Several governments in
the UN must have joined to prevent a post-Gulf War I study of DU in
The NATO website [http://www.nato.int/kosovo/010110du.htm]
is a record of corruption at international organizations, research and
strategic studies institutes, and universities that were enlisted to misinform
about DU. Pentagon’s more objective reports are found on many independent
websites, but looking for them at the NATO website is futile.
Obstruction of
international law
Ignoring military and civilian casualties, placing serious
obstacles on humanitarian aid, and failing to disclose the truth about uranium
effects is a serious violation of humanitarian law. Yet the
Legal initiatives on uranium weapons are subject to operations
similar to those applied to seekers of scientific, physical proofs. The work of
the UN Sub-Commission for the Protection and the Promotion of Human Rights
provides a case. Dr. Karen Parker describes it first-hand in her presentation
to this conference. The case indicates that “certain forces" were doing
what they could to delay any legal finding on DU. The
US,
DU = dirty uranium
A barrage of lies, half-truths and nonsense still attempts to
defend the toxic-radioactive “pure” DU. It is symptomatic of the group-think.
“3d’s” could be similarly traced on the issue of U236, plutonium, and other
extremely hazardous, recycled nuclear waste that is illegally mixed into DU.
During the “Kosovo DU” scandal of early 2001, uranium 236,
plutonium, neptunium, americum and other transuranic elements turned out to be in DU, contrary to
industry specifications. Although these extremely toxic and radioactive
substances were present only in trace quantities, their high power
significantly increases the toxicity and radioactivity of DU bullets shot in
Operation Allied Force. The substances are spent
nuclear fuels and nuclear waste recycled into DU stock. Uranium alloys in
weapons have a composition and toxic-radioactive properties depending on what
nuclear waste materials in what quantities have been blended in.
Weyman [2003]
is one of the few authors drawing attention to the extreme hazard of nuclear
waste recycled into uranium alloys. The most hazardous additives are transuranics, which are tens of thousands of times more
radioactive than pure DU, or pure, undepleted uranium
(virgin uranium). Independent and government analyses of DU penetrators
collected from battlefields have detected trace amounts of transuranics,
including plutonium 239l.
Independent studies have detected traces of uranium 236 in
veterans’ urine, “adding a new dimension to the inhalational
exposure risks to veterans from recycled uranium elements," writes Weyman. Uranium 236 isotope is not
found in nature, only in nuclear fission products, such as spent nuclear fuel
rods and nuclear fission bomb fallout Recently, UMRC published peer-reviewed
results of tests on samples from
Yet, nobody has examined the increase in internal dose from transuranics beyond theoretical calculations. According to Weyman, Pentagon and NATO country military have been
sponsoring studies to draw conclusions that it is not present, and if it is,
it’s not relevant: “DOD’s failure to even consider the possibility of transuranics contamination in the Follow-Up program
protocols suggests that there is more than DU to worry about."
Not only wars and weapons threaten humanity. Being the source for
major commercial and industrial processing cycle of uranium metals and other
products outside the nuclear field, contaminated stockpiles of uranium threaten
everybody. The admixture of transuranics is not just
a uranium weapon problem. It is much bigger and will surface when legislation
in several countries, including the EU, will legalize nuclear waste recycling
into non-military industrial and consumer products.
Starmet
Corporation boasts that they operate “the only production facility in
David Nibby’s case in the
Starmet
also makes DU oxide powder from UF4. The powder is processed into heavy stones
that can replace gravel in concrete: “Starting with the oxide powder, a ceramic
aggregate is made [...] then used in a Portland cement based concrete mixture
replacing the typical large aggregate or gravel." The concrete is DucreteTM [http://www.starmet.com/spcducrt.htm].
It is almost three times denser than ordinary concrete. Large mass of the
concrete, or heavy aggregate alone, could be useful in ballast and similar
applications. Ducrete also shields radiation. Starmet makes containers for nuclear waste from it and
suggests other applications: “low-level radioactive waste storage or disposal
boxes, temporary shielding in reactor facilities, and for commercial food and
medical irradiator applications.”
As in its DU-metal line of products, Starmet
highlights the environmental responsibility for “over 700,000 metric tons” of
DU waste and the economics of waste utilization: “fabrication of components
using DUCRETE™ Concrete should not be significantly higher than using
traditional concrete. […] Most products will be fabricated in a factory
environment where cost efficiencies will be derived from higher volumes and
where engineering measures can be
implemented to control contamination […] Use of DU aggregate in DUCRETE™
Concrete provides the [US Department of Energy] an alternative to direct
disposal of DU as waste [that] cost several billion dollars. This application
provides an environmentally sound use of depleted uranium while deriving useful
benefits.”
The corporation seeks new applications: “Starmet
Corporation is interested in developing applications for DUCRETE™ Concrete and
will be happy to consider new applications and sublicensing of the technology.”
Proliferated into consumer and industrial products, the likes of
GEC Heavy Metal Alloy and Ducrete will spread uranium
and transuranics in the environment [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/message/1075,
*/1076 and */1077], The industry favours a “solution
to pollution through dilution”: sea dumping of waste, emissions to the
atmosphere, and pollution of lakes, rivers and underground water. The military
likes it, too. Reportedly, tens of thousands of tons of uranium ammunition are
destroyed by burning on US military disposal sites. The Sierra Army Depot in
Service to humankind
Official “investigations” suppress evidence of uranium-induced
illness and death. “Studies” by military authorities co-opt research
institutes, universities, and international health and safety organizations:
UNEP, ICRP, World Health Organization (WHO), International Atomic Energy
Authority (IAEA), and other. From the precautionary principle of environmental
and health sciences, uncertain but potentially harmful effects should be
prevented. Even if there were “no proofs” of a link from DU to illness and
death, it behooved the decision makers to discontinue the use of any uranium
weapons out of the precautionary principle, given Gulf veteran complaints and
scientific uncertainty.
Scientific assessment of the effects of uranium metals follows a
standard risk analysis chain. Military and contracted “scientists” manipulate
every step of the analysis. To criticisms, pseudo-science replies, "No
evidence exists". Sufficient evidence does exist, and if not, the
precautionary principle should govern. Bein and
Parker [2003] present numerous serious flaws in official reports, and further
examples of manipulation of science.
Prudent scientists do not make mistakes and omissions on known
facts. “Epidemiological study” deceptions are plentiful, more so that
epidemiology can be manipulated like statistics to prove what one wants.
Apologists of uranium effects compare erroneously estimated incidence of
cancers among veterans to statistics for general population. The latter is an
incomparable group. Besides, official epidemiological statistics are biased
downwards, since “background” radiation includes gradual accumulation of global
radioactive pollution. WHO expeditiously compared DU-like illness incidence in
Kosovo before and after NATO bombing. Statistics are incomparable, because of
different population base: 300 or 400 thousand opponents of Albanian extremism
left Kosovo, but many more migrants came from
Military “science” emphasizes the “other factor” of Gulf and
Balkan syndromes instead of uranium. After the Gulf War, which saw a cocktail
of poisons used and released – from Iraqi chemical-biological weapons, to DU
ammunition – the "other factor" was adopted in cover-ups. It would
likely be pursued for the other contaminated areas, once cancers from the use
of uranium weapon take a higher toll. Vaccines given to the soldiers could not
be a cause of the syndrome among residents; neither there was smoke from
burning oil wells in the Balkans, nor chemical weapons used by “Milosevic”
against his own people. Apologists of Gulf War syndrome in Iraqi population
cited the two latter factors, though no independent epidemiological study was
done. Early, numerous cases of “mystery pneumonia” after the newest invasion of
In October 2002, vice chairman of US Gulf War veterans Denise
Nichols criticized the
Part 3: Cases
Many members of the movement know little about the espionage and
manipulation that is designed to destroy our bastions and to confuse the anti-U
warriors. The "intrigues" should be exposed.
The “Canadian” case
Anonymous “Amarie” wrote to du-watch list on
Other lists unsubscribed Amarie for
seemingly outrageous claims that might seem injurious to the movement, but were
heard because du-watch list does not purge list
members. It is highly unlikely that Amarie could be
one of the independent scientists intimidated by the complex. Professional
ethics and also funding policies of independent scientific groups prevent them
from participation in political discussions such as allegations of manipulation
by the complex. If they do react, they do it in forums an average person does
not visit. Many intrigues thus remain unknown to the general public.
The success of the movement depends on our ability to understand
the adversary’s information warfare strategy and tactics. Some of us may be
manipulated without being aware of it. The adversaries attack the attitude of
very vigilant watchdogs, while leaving the merit of the allegations unanswered.
They simply can't afford to open the facts up to public scrutiny. It is in the
interest of every anti-DU group and individual to expose known deceptions and
manipulations and to publicize the information. Also, for the benefit of the
whole movement, groups should consider the complex’s deception-coverup-manipulation factor when charting strategies and
actions. Omissions and hush-ups in the name of peace in the anti-DU camp
produce delays and accumulate distrust, both injurious to our goals.
July 10 and
Dr. Edward Ough, the Head of the Gulf
War I veterans radioisotopic analysis program in
Ough did not
state the truth. As previously in the case of Horan’s work, he did it to
destroy the credibility and existence of UMP. UMRC proved contamination of
veterans in a different lab and published the results in peer-reviewed journal
[Estimate of the Time Zero Lung Burden of Depleted Uranium in Persian Gulf
War Veterans by the 24-Hour Urinary Excretion and Exponential Decay Analysis,
by Asaf Durakovic, Patricia
Horan, Leonard A. Dietz, Isaac Zimmerman, Military Medicine, Vol. 168, August
2003, pages 600-605].
Pat Horan's is just one episode in one country, but is typical of
the neutralization tactics. Intimidation, discreditation,
even bribery continue. As a result, delays arise in study schedules and the
reputation of independent groups suffers among veterans and activists. Some key
independent scientists have recently been offered jobs with the military,
grants and honors, and another person – one million dollars. Offices and houses
have been searched. Others are made to believe they are "dangerous to the
establishment" in order to accelerate self-destruction. One trusted lab
contractor betrayed the cause by denying the credibility of own tests, only to
land a contract from the military.
Actions against independent scientific groups result from
deliberate campaign by those who fear the scientific truth. Honest personal and
scientific differences between scientists and other personalities in the
movement might have unknowingly contributed to the deliberate destruction
schemes. Some observers think that the adversary seeks out and manipulates
the honest differences to neutralize the capacity to incriminate the uranium
weapon proponents and the nuclear lobby. The adversary used this tactics
repeatedly via agent provocateurs. Black-on-white proofs are in Dan Fahey
case.
An Australian medical professional Max Whisson
commented on obstructionism of truth about DU: “Obstruction to elucidating the
facts even by the perpetrators of this crime is dishonourable
and to be condemned. Obstruction can take many forms ranging from high level lying
through to control of the media down to harassment and abuse of individuals who
seek the truth and attempt to speak the truth. Obstruction to discovering and
speaking the truth is an entirely negative activity. It provides a transient
gain in power for a few but long term damage to the whole of society. At this
very moment it threatens to extinguish what remains of democracy in the
[...] As I see it at present, the most pressing gaps in relevant
information include reliable records of illnesses and mortality among
individuals exposed to DU compared with similar groups not exposed.
Accumulating this information takes time and a lot of work. In the presence of
very active obstruction it also takes mutual encouragement. A related
deficiency in the information available, also mainly due to active concealment
and destruction of evidence, is detailed data on the extent of contamination by
the characteristic nanoparticles of DU.
The second gap I believe relates to medical practice. That is the
failure of physicians, pathologists and the scientific teams which support them
to do relevant investigations of individuals who have been exposed to the
military use of DU. This failure is especially shocking to me as it would seem
at
first to
indicate a profound lack of honesty and ethical standards amongst my
colleagues. The truth is however that there is widespread discouragement and
harassment of any medical or scientific person who seeks the truth honestly and
without fear or favour.” [du-watch,
Felicity Arbuthnot refers to a case of
corruption of a family doctor by the
Colonel Scott case
One of the highest ranking medical officers in the Canadian Forces
is Colonel Ken Scott. He dismissed as a "fantasy" numerous media
reports linking the use of radioactive weapons with illnesses among Gulf
veterans [Canadian Press,
Stephen Kimber, a journalism professor
at the University of Kings College in
One of Col. Scott’s memos obtained under the Canadian Access to
Information Act discusses the “mountain” of evidence being built against DU by
“special interest groups”: “If we can build a mountain high enough, even our
own media may have to acknowledge that there is no unique, previously undescribed physical illness attributable to service in the
Gulf War.” If, instead of studying who is a threat to the complex’s spin, Scott
educated himself from independent literature, the ill Canadian veterans and
families would be better off. Col. Scott embarked on a campaign of disinformation and
smearing of independent researchers. In a letter of
Under
his auspices, a Gulf War
Veterans’ Newsletter was funded by the
government – DND and Veterans
Affairs. By a legal agreement with veteran
associations, every article in the newsletter was to be approved
by all parties. I examined the December 2000 issue of the
newsletter. Scott brakes this agreement. He “puts in
context” media articles that “rekindled the flames of controversy surrounding
health problems experienced by Gulf War veterans”, particularly their “alleged
exposure to DU”. Scott starts education of veterans by presenting who is who at
UMP: “The Uranium Medical Project is an advocacy
group that has recently been roundly criticized by American Gulf War
veterans because – among other complaints – they released the names of veterans
and their urine uranium results to the media without the participating
individuals’ consent”.
Scott’s allegation reverses complaints against Dr. Sharma who
worked with UMP – see Professor Sharma case. Scott “informs” that an
oft-quoted media source is “actually the mother-in-law of Dr. Asaf Durakovic.” The reader gets
an impression that a suspicious, vicious family is after the veterans’ urine. A
mother-in-law is the chief vampire, while her son-in-law “has yet to publish
results for evaluation and comment by the scientific and medical community”
that Gulf War veterans are ill because of DU.
In what Susan Riordon calls “kicking a
dead man”, Scott pictures her late husband, Captain Terry Riordon,
as a port security officer of Canadian forces deployed in Dubai in 1991, who
left the military in 1995: “When he died in 1995, he had been a civilian for
several years.” Documents show Captain Riordon was a
forward intelligence officer. His classification was so secret that upon his
death UMP had to rush to stealthily remove his organs for autopsy before the
military took custody of the body.
Scott’s newsletter also contains misleading general information.
On the US study of veterans with embedded DU shrapnel – that even Dan Fahey
admits is fraudulent – the newsletter writes: “Nine years after the Gulf War
these Americans have no symptoms or illness attributable to the DU.” On the
effects of a DU munitions and armour fire at Doha in
1991, where hundreds of soldiers were exposed to uranium aerosol, Scott’s
publication writes: “It would not be anticipated that such exposures would have
produced any symptoms in the individuals involved.”
In response to a question “What has the testing of Canadian Gulf
War veterans for DU shown?”, Scott’s newsletter answers: “Total uranium levels
were well within the range expected for a non-exposed population and were 1000
times less than levels found in Americans with embedded DU shrapnel […] The
levels of total uranium in the urine of Canadian Gulf War veterans were too low
to permit [isotopic analysis].” Scott’s newsletter further misleads that bone
and hair samples could be DU indicators. The deception must have been planned,
for it is repeated in an April 2002 scientific paper.
In the paper, An Examination of Uranium Levels in Canadian
Forces Personnel Who
Served in the Gulf War and Kosovo, co-authored with E. A. Ough and others [Health Physics, Volume 82, Issue 4], Ken
Scott admits that the methods used (ICP-MS and INAA) were unable to
detect ratios of uranium isotopes, because the overall content of uranium was
“sufficiently low” in the samples. This does not necessarily mean no DU in a urine sample – see
Trying to influence a wider public opinion, Scott misrepresented facts and
painted Dr. Durakovic
and UMP negatively in press interviews
and letters
to editors. As in the newsletter, he denied
post-Gulf War illness in the
Scott
emphasized “studies” of veterans with
embedded DU shrapnel, and those by Institute of Medicine, RAND, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, all of which are known to be
either irrelevant, fraudulent, controlled by the military, or all of the
above. His statements in the press contain so many
misrepresentations and outright lies that ignorance cannot explain his bias. Scott charges
that publicizing test results from independents misleads the
veterans and unnecessarily scares them. Dan Fahey plays
the same tune in
Pat Horan’s case returned to Scott, an architect of the setback in
the UMP programme, in form of peer-reviewed results
from a Canadian independent medical science and research group, confirming
internal contamination with DU. In October 2003 came
another blow. Dr. Durakovic, whose team measured
uranium concentrations up to 200 times higher in persons at Afghanistan’s
bombed sites than in the control population, wrote in a peer-reviewed paper:
“The adverse effects of internally deposited radionuclides,
in particular the isotopes of uranium as a consequence of the military
conflicts in the past decade have been well documented in the current
literature.” [Undiagnosed Illnesses and Radioactive
Warfare, Croatian Medical Journal CMJ, October 2003; Vol
44, No 5, http://www.cmj.hr/index.php?D=/44/5/520].
The ill veterans and the movement were delayed a few years. Scott,
his superiors and operatives in the complex lost any remaining traces of
credibility and respect.
Dan Fahey case
Allegiance to the military and a group-think focus on phrases that
justify new wars may explain Dan Fahey’s recent actions. Fahey’s 2001 paper [http://www.du.publica.cz/papers/Fahey.htm]
is a law policy analysis providing arguments to defend the use of DU
munitions in the international courts. It marks author’s departure from
advocacy for US veterans suffering of Gulf War syndrome – see his renowned Don’t
Look Don’t Find paper.
Fahey’s March 2003 Science or Science Fiction posted on the
WISE website [http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf]
accuses some scientists, researchers and anti-DU activists of collaboration
with “the governments of
Many people in the movement objected to critiques of Fahey’s
recent publications. Substantiation is so much more justified here. While
Fahey’s dilettante handling of the legal aspects in his
-
Critique of Science or
Science Fiction? [Bein to du-watch,
May 30 and
-
De-bunking of Fahey’s
posting on du-watch, by several people on
Science or Science Fiction?
The article is a deceptive propaganda, disguised in objectivity
and concern for the integrity of anti-DU activism. Fahey (if at all he wrote
the article) mixes white, grey and black propaganda to achieve the goal of his
handlers. The article reveals the PsyOps elements as
follows:
-
Label concerned parties
"speculative" and "alarmist" while they necessarily work in
a data vacuum. As is normal in planning with data gaps, Dai Williams, whom
Fahey criticizes, honestly lists several possible scenarios: from minimal use
of DU munitions to plausible uranium tonnage based on reasonable estimates from
public sources.
-
Emphasize facts no longer
deniable, in order to appear sincere: US Army "cleaned up" a few
"mistaken" bombings on overseas ranges; DU is radioactive; those with
shrapnel in follow-up programmes do get cancer;
health research needs a revamp.
-
Under the pretense of
objectivity, insist on "corroboration" of independent findings, while
being involved in destroying and gagging the remaining independent groups.
Fahey worries about scaring Pentagon off with our
"speculations" and "apocalypse". Why would the military of
a global power pay any attention to what amateurs without money and resources
say or do? Because we can influence public opinion.
Pentagon wants to discredit us on the issues they are trying to hide. Fahey
lists them in his table of contents, intermixed with a few undeniable truths
against uranium weapons. Out of Fahey’s ten “myth cases”, only three concern
the obvious deception by the complex (white propaganda), as if the anti-uranium
movement creates most of the myths. Even in the cases against the complex, the
arguments do not cover vital aspects. For example, discussion on
ineffectiveness of DU munitions in saving US soldier lives does not quote a
tragic post-combat casualty rate. Using half-truths and inaccuracies, the
remaining seven cases point against the anti-DU entities, coinciding with
Pentagon's worst fears of being exposed on the following:
-
massive use of new uranium
weapons (hence Fahey’s attacks of Dai Williams);
-
sharing military technology
with a rogue power,
-
civilian casualties and
genocide (governments of
-
new alloys of uranium to make post-combat detection difficult (UMRC).
In case of disputed facts, an objective review presents the
different interpretations impartially, covers the full spectrum of possible
“truths”, and draws fairly from reliable sources. But Fahey’s article is
partial and unbalanced. Pentagon occupies one end on the spectrum of “truths”.
Fahey places “some anti-DU activists, the governments of
For lack of evidence that, for example, UMRC are Taliban
sympathizers, I conclude that Fahey groups UMRC with “anti-DU activists”. Being
scientists, UMRC researchers are neither pro- nor anti-uranium when they engage
in science. They are as much activists as Pentagon are
pacifists. Similar goes for Dr. Doug Rokke, former US
Army health specialist in NBC-E exposures, and also a military planning,
instruction and DU assessment expert during Gulf War I. Fahey’s implied label
reflects bias and indicates a conscious attempt to hurt these people’s
reputation (political involvement of scientists) and intimidate (infringement
of war laws in war times).
Fahey also pre-judges media attention to the “anti-DU” camp.
Calling the media exposure “undue” is subjective. How did Fahey determine that
“promoted” claims are “apocalyptic”, “absurd”, propaganda or what case they
might be? “Undue” is also imbalanced, because he assesses neither media
attention to the opposite views, nor lack of attention to key, covered up aspects.
Unspecified “scores of scientific studies and reports on DU”
reside between the two “extremes” on the spectrum of opinions. Fahey sums them
up in three points, of which two reflect the military view: (1) “health
problems in laboratory rats”; (2) “evidence of human health effects caused by
DU is inconclusive”. A third point re-iterates what was known before Gulf War
I. One wonders about the article’s informational base.
The need for “constructive dialogue and sensible scientific
studies” motivated the article. It intends to “inform the public debate about
DU” in order to “promote serious investigation of the health and environmental
effects of DU munitions”. Since the author cares about the well being of the
victims, he should assemble a serious set of myths to discuss, for example:
- “Official examinations of veterans and returning soldiers are
able to detect contamination of humans with DU and other military uranium
formulations”;
- “Results of tests by UNEP, WHO and Royal Society are reliable
and impartial”;
- “Governments and military authorities delegate verification of
health effects of uranium weapons to independent bodies”;
- “Independent bodies operate in an environment of sufficient
resources, professional integrity, and freedom of expressing views differing
from the official ones”.
Fahey has missed the mark. A conspicuous myth is that there has
been little research on DU. There has been ample research on biological and
medical effects of U238, DU’s main component.
Instead, Fahey considers trivial issues. The most puzzling is “when was DU used
for the first time”. Or how useful is a re-estimate of DU tonnage expended in
The article picks sources selectively. The author goes along with Jane's
when counting DU weapons. Yet, when Williams refers to Jane's, it is not
“evidence”. More important, Fahey ignores independent scientific work on the
health effects of internalized radioactive particles. These omissions could
negatively influence the perceptions of some readers regarding milestone
references such as the ECRR 2003 report. The crucial references are not listed
in the article’s addendum, either. Fahey contrasts conclusions of “respectable”
UNEP, WHO and Royal Society against opinions of anti-DU groups. Then by default
ECRR work and results are not respectable and should be ignored? Also troubling
is Fahey’s regard for press articles and military sources. Respectable courts
of law do not admit press reports to support allegations.
I conclude that Fahey exhibits bias in favour
of Pentagon at each end as well as in the middle of the range of opinions he
seeks to evaluate. Exactly because the movement admires his Don't
Look, Don't Find, there is reason to worry that he changed orientation.
Email exchanges on du-watch testify that this routine
deception trick might be unthinkable to sincere people in the movement. This
threatens our cohesiveness and effectiveness.
Since UMRC is the prime target of the adversary, several
commentaries on the du-watch list concerned Canadian
personalities who schemed from both sides of the issue. One of the strongest
criticisms of the complex’s scheming on all fronts came from Amarie. Fahey concluded that she must be an UMRC insider
and wrote so to du-watch on
While it is tempting to blame UMRC for "Amarie",
that group would hurt itself by not restraining her, if Amarie
was indeed their insider. UMRC policy, monitored closely by donors, is no
involvement in political actions. UMRC have to carefully consider which
conference they go to, or private funding would be withdrawn. While a lot of
work is donated, airfares and lab work have to be paid for. Letting
"their" Amarie loose would be foolish. UMRC deal with political opponents more professionally [http://www.umrc.net/AfghanistanOEF.asp].
Amarie
responded: “DF has revealed once again his true purpose: damaging independent
research – in this case UMRC.” Fahey used “Amarie” as
a leverage to continue his attacks on UMRC, and the timing was well chosen:
“Dan Fahey's posting is designed to achieve one end: discredit UMRC so no one
will make donations in response to UMRC's recent
appeal for financial support in its Iraq studies.”
In Amarie’s opinion, Fahey exaggerates
and uses rhetoric while seeking readers’ sympathy for his view: “According to
him, you all must have been viciously attacked and received the brunt of Amarie's wrath [...] The uncloaking of Amarie
is portrayed as an investigative breakthrough to reveal the real culprit and
mastermind: UMRC; which must embody the evil archetype that you experience in Amarie.” In brackets
inserted into Fahey’s concluding statement, Amarie
interpreted the purpose of his posting:
"As people on this list prepare to go to Brussels or Hamburg
to discuss how to advance the DU issue, they should ask tough questions not
only of the governments using DU, but also of the people making alarmist claims
[ie, Rokke, UMRC, Dai
Williams] and using the cover of anonymity [i.e.Amarie
is UMRC] to viciously attack scientists [i.e. Sharma] and activists [i.e. Bertell, MTP, NPRI, NGWRC] who do not follow the party line
[i.e.UMRC's]. Let's call a spade a spade - "amarie" is someone affiliated with the
Fahey’s suggestion is obviously propagandist, while Amarie’s undocumented allegations are insulting to sincere
persons under attack. Both seem unfair to the members of the movement who know
the accused individuals and organizations from a positive side. To those
subjected to manipulation, Fahey’s personal off-list communications are
“distraction and emotional drain”.
Dr. Rokke considers Dennis Kyne, a combat medic who trains troops, “a very competent”
sergeant with distinguished military accomplishments. A Desert Storm veteran, Kyne wrote: “Dan Fahey is not representative of the
soldiers, sailors and airmen who served in that war [...] He should be removed
from all speaker panels and asked to never mention DU. He has ZERO NONE
absolutely NO Credibility.” [du-watch, June 5 and 6, 2003].
To the less informed, critiques of Fahey’s propaganda are
“becoming really aggravating [...] making otherwise intelligent people look
pretty petty and silly” and “do nothing to promote education about DU and
instead seem far more about ego” [du-watch, June 6
and 7, 2003].
To our leadership, the allegations from both Fahey and Amarie should signal corruption and diversion within our
ranks. One person of strategic specialty remarked: ”We
can anticipate a range of spoiling or quite subtle diversionary tactics. Fahey
is a side show. But getting the DU network buzzing with anti-Dan
indignation is one side-track from new data.”
Professor Sharma case
Professor Emeritus Dr. Hari Sharma has a
good reputation in most camps of our movement and among some scientists. Dr.
Rosalie Bertell mentioned his tests in an August 1999
appeal to the UN Human Rights Tribunal: “The Military Toxics Project (MTP)
asked me, in the Fall of 1997, to take initiative in
investigating the effect of DU on the Gulf War veterans. I tried several
clinical approaches in order to determine, if possible, the extent of this
problem. Among the most successful approaches was that of the 24 hour urine
analysis. Dr. Hari Sharma, a nuclear chemist at the He took a sample from the veteran's total 24-hour
urine output, 50 to 200 ml, and calculated the amount of U238 and U235.”
[http://www.iicph.org/docs/DU_Human_Rights_Tribunal.htm].
Felicity Arbuthnot refers to himSharma
and his work in accolades [http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/iraq.htm].
According
to Arbuthnot, Sharma tested samples from
veterans Ray Bristow and Terry Riordon. According to
Arbuthnot, Riordon received his results
on
Susan RiordonCaptain Terry Riordon
gives died on Aprill 29 as the date of death of her husband. UMP (now UMRC) conveyed the first results to his
spouse, Susan Riordon, the holder of a power of
attorney for Terry (by
then severely incapacitated) over the telephone on
Susan
gives a “road map” of Terry’s death: “Monday evening [April 26], notified
positive for DU in urine via UMP. Tuesday a period of cognition and the
resulting promise I would follow through on his wish with Asaf.
Wednesday a Husband-Sitter stayed with Terry while I completed the purchase of
a wheelchair adaptable home and direction of Construction Company who started
immediately. Thursday [April 29] - Dead.” Susan promised Terry to realize his wish “to assist
Veterans Internationally with the facts his own body would produce”. In retrospect
Susan reflects that Terry’s Gift led to “badgering, veiled
accusations and complete disdain from some. The gift of a body to advance
research was a great gift, a difficult gift that those it was to assist
degraded.”
UMP’s
identification of DU in the urine samples
called for follow-up research on body parts. UMP sought assistance from
Susan Riordon, the Atlantic Director of Canadian
Peacekeeping Veterans Association (CPVA), with wide contacts with veterans in
SheSusan Riordon has a Defence.”
Defense.”
Based on internal documents obtained under freedom of information, specifically
memos from Ken Scott, Susan maintains that Sharma collaborated with the
military against the interests of veterans: “The communication of Ken Scott
with Sharma is clear [leading] to a meeting with Sharma that lasted several
days [...] I have personally concluded
Sharma's hand in hand with the very people that allowed Terry's death and
disregarded our Veterans care.”
OIn to UMP, Dr. Sharma stated
that he will turn over a portion of some veterans’ urine samples,
and will be disposing of several other samples. Sharma and the university
accepted veterans’ payment to conduct an analysis on many samples.
Consequently, the veterans requested that Dr. Sharma be restrained from
destroying any portion of the samples, and all samples and results should be
handed over to UMP. In a May 5 e-mail Sharma informed UMP he would not provide
the results to UMP, but to Dr. Boctor in
Other parties also provide evidence against Dr. Sharma. He was
withdrawn from UMP’s DU work because allegedly he was
defrauding the veterans, refusing to fulfill his agreements with fellow
researchers, and intimidating vocal ill veterans and families. Sharma had to
sign a letter prepared by the University legal council agreeing to cease all
activity. He did, but he left to go on his own and continued anyway.
Dr. Sharma states in plural in his recent report
that his work at the university “had a setback during the month of July 1999,
when, reasons unknown to us to date, the
In
reality, complaints from veterans and fellow
researchers spelled his dismissal. A callous episode hastened his way
out of
Sharma
knew about Captain Terry Riordon’s death, so the parcel
episode does not look like an innocent mistake.
In
a media frenzy on the day following the death, Dr.
Sharma repeatedly sought limelight, stating to the press the results of
tests for Terry. Acting against the wishes of the deceased
and family, without authorization from UMP with
whom Riordan had a contract, Dr. Sharma violated good taste, confidentiality and the code of professional ethics. Having known UMP
was in receipt of Terry's harvested organs and that none would be seen by
Sharma himself, he proceeded to obtain samples from
Susan, using a "carrot and stick"
method – supply Terry’s dead body
tissue and all UK veterans’ results will be released.
Critics further allege that Dr. Sharma did not produce results
from a privately financed assignment in (now UMRC) international veterans project and Pat Horan’s work. When UMP and Horan
didn't capitulate, DND used Ed Ough, a long-time
friend with Wright, the Head of the Memorial University Program that runs the
lab where Horan worked, to try and turn her to their side by intimidation. They
failed, forced her out and changed the name of the lab.
“Sharma never had a single result from the lab about Terry Riordon nor did he have access to most of the
Being in possession of the original data from both labs andlabs,
UMRC re-ran the samples from scratch, and published the results in the Military
Medicine paper. But the game set them back two years – an obvious objective
of DND. According to UMRC, this
peer-reviewed paper is the real report for the
DND
tried to force UMRC to turn over all the lab data, which Pat Horan
was able to sneak out of the university lab before she left.
The military has been incessant in their attempt to destroy the Military
Medicine paper credibility. It is the only single study in NATO that
confirms DU contamination from
This effort by DOD has been very successful in curtailing any
Oddly, a recent report by Dr. Sharma declares: "We are
apolitical and therefore we request scientists and people at large to refrain
from raising political questions" [http://www.du-watch.org/sharma/du-report.doc].
But he same report cites Fahey’s propagandist articles as an example of concern
for the consequences of contamination with DU. It is strange that of all
authors on this theme Sharma chose obviously political and by then discredited Fahey.
Both Fahey and Sharma publications use references selectively.
Lacking own relevant peer-reviewed publications, both of them ignore scientific
leaders, thereby lending more weight to oneself and to obscure citations. Both
authors went on public record with efforts to harm some and help others, and
played a prominent role at a symposium on the health effects of DU that took
place at Dr. Helen Caldicott’s Nuclear Policy
Research Institute. See The NPRI case.
UMRC with Len Dietz developed the methodology that Dr. Randy
Parish’s geological lab is using in the UK MOD test programme
for Gulf War I veterans. It does not derive from Dr. Sharma, who in his recent
report indicates he used instrumental neutron activation analysis, INAA.
Specialists wonder how Sharma was able to report findings in
UMRC, with Pat Horan at
When the Canadian DND destroyed Horan's career at
UMRC studies of veterans 7 to 9 years after exposure indicated
that some obviously DU exposed persons had the clinical symptoms of internal DU
contamination, but no detectable DU in urine. Other vets were clinically symptomatic,
but the levels of DU were very low. This means kidney damage attributable to
damage by uranium toxicity. The kidneys become inefficient at extracting
uranium from the blood once damaged by chronic exposure to the uranium.
The UK DU Oversight Board (with Drs. Busby and Hooper) and UMRC
attempted to support and promote Dr. Parish to win the competition for the MOD
contract to test Gulf War I veterans. Their choice was based on the jointly
developed methods and credibility of UMRC's published
results and studies at Parish's lab. Without a credible team of clinical
specialists in radio- and chemo-toxicity, the veteran studies in Parish's or
any of the NERC, British Geological Survey labs will be harmless to MOD
liability. Combined with kidney damage from uranium toxicity, the delay by over
12 years means very low levels in urine. Such levels are toxic according to
ICRP and NRPB half-life models. Although NRPB has challenged ICRP's model parameters for ceramic oxide clearance from
the body, NRPB or the European Commission do not officially recognize these
revisions. MOD will therefore be able to dismiss the findings. This is the
issue in the reports and studies that UMRC’s Tedd Weyman address in 12
Years Too Late? paper.
Without particle analysis at the molecular level to see what is in
lungs and other organs, MOD will deny any risk associated with the low levels
of DU if found by Parish's lab. The Oversight Committee offered UMRC the rights
to analyze the results of these bioassay tests but MOD has prohibited this. Why
did not independent physicians run the MOD testing programme?
What will be done with the lab results? Unlike clinical labs of UMRC type,
geological labs are not bound by confidentiality and patient management
obligations. Under legal agreements, UMRC reports all results to study
participants. Will the veterans again see their samples and test results locked
away?
Reporting total concentrations of uranium and reporting DU
abundances in urine and associated radioactivity is meaningless without the
dose reconstruction and lung burden analysis followed by clinical studies.
Where any DU is identified, a nano-particle analysis
should be conducted on biopsied organ tissues and
accompanied by chromosome studies. The blind arrogance of some well-meaning
anti-DU activists is naive to the issues and problems of the science,
interference and subterfuge facing independent researchers. Every time they
get something going, the government steps in or uses others to compromise the
work and the lab, through promises of contracts or withdrawal of funding,
promises of fame and reputation through scientific recognition of work for the
government, and revenues for labs.
Several of these individuals are damaging legitimate research. If
they are not consciously undermining, they are susceptible to influences from
various sources for various personal and professional reasons. It was rather naive of these persons to celebrate the MOD
decision. Instead they should have pointed out the manipulation and misrepresentation
of the MOD, that the clinical and nano-particle
analysis is needed, and how the government plans to manipulate the results. MOD
is giving the vets a bone to win over popular support in
The adversary successfully destroyed the independent science work
in
In view of the above facts, the promotion of chemist Hari Sharma and geologist Randy Parish by NPRI, NGWRC and
MTP kept the independent clinical research in the shadows. Ill veterans have
something to consider.
The “CEE” case
Many eager persons in responsible positions in former Soviet bloc
countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) also help Pentagon and NATO
institutionalize “3 d’s” [http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/othereurope.htm].
Corruption is rampant and average standard of living lower than before perestroikas, so Western information war centres easily buy local bureucrats
and “professors” with bribes as laughable as a trip to
For example, professor Zbigniew Jaworowski of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection co-authors junk science
publications, not in his specialty, either. One on DU weapons, with a Cambridge
University Dr. Roger Bate, defamed both of them. Another was a rubbish book on
global warming co-authored with
The information war goes on in CEE amidst the ranks of sincere
anti-DU groups, too. The goal of the 2001 conference Facts
on Depleted Uranium in
But the conference website displayed a glaringly biased paper by
Dan Fahey – see Dan Fahey case. The organization of the
Because the CEE and the Balkans are targeted by the
The NPRI case
From an institute such as Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(NPRI), one would expect analysis of previous policy, current and expected
obstacles to change, ways to circumvent, and recommendations on policy
directions and implementation. The analysis would consider political, social
and institutional factors, and would marry them to scientific findings. But
NPRI June 2003 symposium on DU weapons followed the establishment’s party line.
A July 2003 report from the symposium is no more consequential than
counterparts from the complex. The conference isolated NPRI from the
independent research community, contrary to prior assurances from the Executive
Director, Charles Sheehan-Miles [du-watch,
The report ignores or barely touches legalistic, political,
institutional, ethical, cover-up, and other socio-political factors, yet they
are the key to a solution, which medical, biological and nuclear sciences can’t
provide alone. The report presumes decision makers and public need for “clear
scientific data”. There will always be scientific uncertainty and cover-ups --
a case to invoke the precautionary principle. Instead of precautionary
withdrawal of uranium weapons from arsenals, this report recommends precaution
“in areas where DU is detected”.
The science is best left to scientific forums. Why did NPRI, a
non-scientific institution, amateurishly set out to summarize the science, when
the European Committee on Radiation Risk will shortly issue a report on
low-level radiation effects of uranium weapons on health? NPRI symposium report
has no up-to-date medicine or science. NPRI invited physicians, chemists and
physicists to speak at the conference who have done no
studies or published anything on uranium contamination.
The ballistic, uranium fate and effect, and medical science are
incomplete. The report avoids discussion of the ICRP risk assessment models and
is silent on ICRP role in cover-ups, that is shared
with the WHO. It ignores LLRC and Dr. Busby’s work, UMRC and its research,
uranium weapons other than DU. By being silent on these topics, NPRI report
maintains, if not fortifies, some of the myths, and, to the detriment of NPRI
President Dr. Helen Caldicott, is perceived as
supporting the conspiracy.
Seriously flawed science-policy concept of the symposium, the
content, and the absence of fundamental references to classic papers and
authors put a question mark over the purpose of NPRI effort. The report gives
inaccurate information and legitimizes individuals and organizations known to
have been apologetic or deceptive about military uranium. It also cites
tertiary sources, which cite secondary references, which are based on original
sources, or are not referenced at all. Examples from page 4 alone:
- An overview
contains encyclopedic knowledge about natural uranium, so there is no need to
cite Pentagon. Yet the NPRI report starts with citations from widely criticized
Environmental Exposure Report: Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) edited
by Bernard Rostker, whose DU Medical Follow-Up
Program “has not detected adverse clinical outcomes...”, “adverse radiological
health effects are not expected...” and further research should focus on
“soldiers with embedded DU fragments...”
- Encyclopedic DU
properties are taken from Rapacholi and from Fahey.
Neither is a scientist in this subject area. Radioactivity of DU is taken from
Fahey’s Science or Science Fiction which does not give a source of this
information.
- Comparison of
uranium alloys to natural uranium is misleading and parrots unscientific
official statements. “Properties” section of the report should refer to page 6
(aerosols, but DU risks from fires are not mentioned there) and to page 11
(contaminated DU, but risks from nuclear waste recycled into alloys are not analysed, though many scientists suspect a very significant
impact).
Such presentation is an obstacle to a researcher, an undeserved favour for tertiary and discredited authors, and annoyance
to the activist. Putting undeserved persons on a pedestal of scientific
authority creates further “experts” for the propaganda and misinformation
machine.
Observers wonder, how NPRI president was fooled. Did other member
of the board of directors, staff, board of advisors, or perhaps “an outside
advisor” do it? The interns engaged on the report had a practical lesson in
deception on uranium weapons. If Dr. Caldicott's
institute could be manipulated, just think what could be done to UNEP, WHO,
IAEA and other institutions.
NPRI symposium did not bring science together, did not make a
connection to policy, and failed to credibly deliver the information to the
intended audience. Its recommendations are timid, impotent, and seem haphazard.
More research is an academic, not a pro-active policy recommendation when
victims need help and environment -- remediation. It sounds like Pentagon’s
tune. More research -- by whom, and how will it help residents of contaminated
areas, or exposed veterans? How will more research on health effects of uranium
help remedy areas contaminated with a practically permanent uranium 238 that is
next to impossible to clean up and dispose of safely? More
urine sampling and testing? Perfect tool for departments
of defense to manipulate the results. Professor Hooper said what he
thinks about urine testing, and NPRI report quotes him on page 14.
Reminding the invading forces to warn local population, mark off
contaminated sites (why “in Arabic” – in the Balkans and
Emphasis on needed epidemiological research in southern
Recommendation to Pentagon to find a substitute for DU sounds like
a mouse’s squeek, which the military-government
complex has been ignoring since WW II. Suggesting tungsten (i.e. heavy metal
wolfram) as a substitute for DU is at odds with report’s concern about heavy
metal toxicity.
NPRI website features an incomplete set of links and Science or
Science Fiction? but no ground-breaking material.
The NPRI website and symposium insult independent research. Ironically, the
NPRI failure precipitated organizing this conference.
The case of legalized
crimes
Many people, notably veterans who feel deceived and let down by
the authorities, grew to distrust their governments, and are also skeptical
about the effectiveness of government-controlled legislation against weapons. A
Japanese radiologist Dr. Eisuke Matsui quotes in his
presentation to this conference from Professor Sheldon H. Harris’s book Factories of Death – Japanese Biological
Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover-up [Routledge,
Cynicism is noted in other weapons. The ban on land mines does not
prevent states to make, use and proliferate cluster
bombs. Due to sheer numbers of unexploded bomblets,
this weapon is worse than land mines in its indiscriminate effect long after
hostilities are over. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) against nuclear
weapons does not include low-yield nuclear devices and munitions made of
materials such as hafnium that do not fall under the definition of nuclear
materials but produce radioactivity. The CTBT Preparatory Commission
acknowledges that there is no legal
definition of a nuclear weapon. Treaties refer only to "fissile
material" such as uranium or plutonium that are
used in all existing nuclear weapons.
But the explosive release of energy from an isotope of hafnium
does not involve fission or fusion. Hafnium is classified as radioactive
because it emits gamma rays. A spokesman at the US DOD confirmed that
nuclear-isomer explosive made of hafnium would be more closely related to
conventional weapons than nuclear ones [New
Scientist,
Mini-nukes are already in use. The mysterious, allegedly terrorist
explosion on the Indonesian
According to American Free Press report a year after the
catastrophe,
After excavation of the rubble reached the bottom, cold puddles of
molten steel came into view at both WTC 1 and 2, and at a smaller WTC 7 that
collapsed for no apparent reason. Peter Tully, the president of a demolition
company employed to clear the rubble, and Mark Loizeaux,
president of a firm who planned the clearing operation, confirmed that molten
steel puddles were found at the bottom of the underground, in the center of the
building, where 47 centre columns once stood. Even if aircraft fuel and
combustibles in the buildings reached the bottom through elevator shafts, the
temperature of their combustion could not melt hefty columns built of steel 10
cm (4 inches) thick. Indeed NASA measured the hotspot in the smoking rubble
to be only half of the steel melting temperature five days after the collapse.
Professor Andre Gsponer of the
Independent Scientific Research Institute in
The “
The initiative for a ban on uranium weapons that came into being
in
The “Brussels Coalition” raised further doubts about their motives
at the
The statement of the "Brussels Coalition" is
strategically weak from the start and contains language that invites trouble. A
German professor, Manfred Mohr, presented in
A part of the movement, including experienced
jurists, perceive that a ban is the wrong
strategy. Dr. Parker wrote in a technical paper: “even
beginning the process to draft a treaty would be used by the US to argue that
any ban on uranium weaponry in light of existing customary law is terminated […] unsuspecting
activists can actually play into the US position and seriously undermine all
anti-uranium initiatives […] a treaty banning
uranium weapons is not necessary, but preparations for one could be exploited
to duck responsibility […] any treaty
could be broken anyway” [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/files/Beograd6.rtf].
The Brussels Coalition did not manage to convince the movement
otherwise. The structure and process of the
This would be an acceptable process after an exchange of arguments
took place and both sides of an issue had a chance to consider
counter-arguments. But the group were mostly
non-experts in law, and the process was influenced by emotion. As a result, the
workshop had great difficulties in reaching an agreement, despite efforts by
the organizers. This backfired at the time of taking plenary resolutions, again
by show of hands. Those skeptical about the effectiveness of governments in
resolving problems objected to the term "ban".
The language of the coalition statement is flawed, too. It starts
with "experts" but experts don't issue statements without indicating
their names. It is equally naďve to demand uranium weapon investigations from
UNEP because of past performance of that organization. Despite all the above
criticisms, the coalition again issued the release, unchanged from the
controversial text, after the
The UN Sub-Commission case
Refer to Dr. Karen Parker’s presentation to this conference.
Part 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
The military, governments, and nuclear and weapon industries fail
to or inadequately disclose the effects of uranium weapons, and manipulate
inquiries of international health organizations. The media act as a propaganda
outlet for these groups. Information Operations behind the propaganda aim at
influencing perceptions and actions of foreign and domestic public,
governments, and intelligence.
A spiraling group self-deception perpetuates the propaganda for
fear of liability and criminal responsibility. Another reason for cover-ups is
to make public more acceptable of low-level radiation left on battlefields,
possibly in preparation for new types of uranium weapons and future low-yield
nuclear weapons. Covering up information on war crimes and crimes against
humanity, and military and foreign policy based on such information, are crimes
themselves. The extent of the sabotage, deception and obfuscation strongly
indicates that those who inflicted uranium micro-particles on the world are
aware of the enormous dimensions of their crime and will go to extraordinary
lengths to cover it up. The need to press on until they are brought to justice
is overwhelming.
Pro-uranium weapons propaganda operates within the cover-up system
of the nuclear complex. At its “scientific” core is a seriously flawed model of
the International Commission on Radiological Protection, according to which
low-level internal radiation from fine uranium particles is not a hazard.
Proponents of uranium power and weapons use the model instead of empirical
evidence, which they suppress with a sophisticated misinformation and
fact-distortion web reaching as far as national organizations responsible for
public health.
Unless the legal thresholds of acceptability of so-called
low-level radiation are removed, the perpetrators of radiological weapons would
continue to contravene humanitarian law and keep contaminating the planet with
radioactivity. Ultimately, massive long-term human catastrophe might result,
far beyond the borders of radioactive wars. Thus, the only solution might be a
complete and universal termination of the development, testing, production and
use of these weapons of indiscriminate effect and delayed mass destruction.
However, pressing for a ban or a treaty is counterproductive, as leading
humanitarian jurists have explained.
Our emphasis on the legal side and international law may be giving
more power to the perpetrators of the weapons. They have been persistently
refusing and avoiding litigation on the occupational and civilian exposure
rules. It indicates that this is to them as strategic as proofs by science.
Agent provacateurs will most likely appear on our
legal prong, if they are not there already.
A better tactics that does not set camps within our movement
apart, and could be very effective towards our goal, may be to pursue
enforcement of established standards for allowable radioactive doses. The
way that the establishment has been able to disregard the international and national permitted dose levels, both occupational and civilian
standards, is symptomatic of the complex’s grip on radiological safety.
It indictates to our and related movements the need
to press this issue legally. Perhaps the jurists and experienced activists
should focus more on this avenue. The Nuclear Workers Compensation program in
the
The leaders of our movement have advanced their appreciation of
information warfare in uranium weapon disinformation: from a reluctant
acceptance of my paper to Manchester 2000, to an invitation to speak at this
conference. The movement comprises diverse interest and pressure groups:
medical and physical scientists; veterans and families; jurists; anti-war, environmental
and anti-nuclear groups; journalists; and, independent individuals. The latter
do not associate with any group, but profess the common cause. Unlike the
rigid, disciplined, and money-and-power motivated military, government and
industry structures that are prone to group-think and reward loyalty with a
paycheck, our movement is unstructured, diversified and largely idealistic –
strengths when it comes to survival and creativity, but weaknesses relative to
potential manipulation and deception.
If we leave the allegations, presumptions and speculations
unanswered, the less informed audience will become a victim of deception.
Propaganda preys on intellectual laziness. Provocations and diversionary
tactics ride it. The average consumer of information uses simplistic clues to
judge information. Therefore de-bunking of propaganda and exposing of
manipulations should receive higher attention in the movement than before.
The movement is guilty of propaganda, too. Some journalists,
activists, and even those with scientific and nuclear background misrepresent
some facts, giving the adversary good reasons to attack the intentions and
methods of the whole movement. While researchers cannot possibly guard against
abuses of their work, the rest of us should react whenever
misrepresentations are made by well-meaning people in the movement and outside.
Texts and statements originating from units in our movement should ideally be
vetted through our specialists in relevant disciplines. We have no control over
publications from other sincere sources, but usually a follow-up email helps
the person understand the details and, hopefully, not repeat the same fallacy.
Incriminating information against individuals in the complex was
often held close to the chest of some individuals and groups of the movement.
When wider dissemination finally took place, it was sometimes cryptic and
disorderly. Publication of legally acquired information is not a crime, there is no need to fear. When you possess
incriminating information and the adversary knows it, you are a potential
target, whether you disseminate it or not. It is better to share the material publically. Then the public will also know why you were
assaulted, and will defend you better. Complex’s assaults have so far strengthened
our cause and the security of persons concerned. Therefore, individuals and
groups should:
-
Gather intelligence, verify, and channel it to appropriate
segments of the movement without delays.
-
Disclose incriminating information about the adversary’s diversionary
activities.
-
Identify persons responsible for manipulations and demand accountability
with help of appropriate groups of the movement.
We will continue to respond to hostile, aggressive acts of
infiltration and manipulation with peaceful means, using our numbers in
intractable networking, and intellectual power in cracking open and publicizing
manipulations. The complex will get a war, but not on psycho-terms they
invented to the detriment of humanity. They hide behind faceless “institutions”,
bureaucratic offices and mountains of “documents”, but their hierarchy and
rigidity make them predictable. We are genuine and sincere, responding
spontaneously to adversary’s actions, like the life itself to unfriendly
stimuli. Our weapon is truth, law and supporting scientific fact. Theirs is
deceptive fiction that spells “downfall”. We are bound to win the Information
War with our determination, because we stand for the good of humankind. The
complex calls us “special interest groups”. Our interest is special indeed; we
defend the right of every life creation (including the perpetrators of uranium
weapons and nuclear power) to contribute to the gene pool of its species,
unaltered and healthy. They – defend their power and status.
Shield and build
The scale, tools and pervasiveness of information warfare
regarding radiation weaponry indicate substantial resources invested from our
taxes. Debunking the propaganda feels like a struggle with a Goliath, but we
achieved great strides with modest means. Nevertheless, the establishment
managed to marginalize some frontline warriors in our movement. We need to
intervene for our own good, but without infringing on constraints that govern
activities of our “special squads” and guarantee their survival, such as non-involvement
of scientists in political issues, and related policies to protect the supply
of funding for independent research.
The membership should get familiar with the instruments of
misinformation warfare, suppression of intelligence, the histories of intrigue,
and the tactics of recruitment and handling of agent provacateurs. It is human nature to pursue material wealth, excel and become
recognized by peer groups and the public. A sincere anti-uranium member could
succumb to manipulation because the adversary knows how to exploit human
weakness. Information War centres employ
psychologists. PsyOps are based on psychology for a
reason, too. Ambition, arrogance and the desire for fame are weak points used
to manipulate our thrusts in sensitive areas. Pursuing fame and promotion, some
journalists rush to radioactive battlefields to measure radioactivity levels
without technical expertise and knowledge to measure radioisotopes. They look
for DU bullets while a bigger danger looms undetectable to them: the residue
from other munitions containing uranium and transuranics.
Our groups are also vulnerable. They need funding, so they may be
lured into initiatives that look like anti-uranium, but in reality may be
manipulations by the complex on the promise of money. Same goes for academics
and researchers in juristic and scientific fields.
Science can provide proofs required by courts, so independent
science groups and individuals are the prime target of cover-up operations.
The movement will be ineffective without scientific evidence. No legal effort
will be able to make a change if the published scientific work and peer
reviewed science is not completed and accepted widely. Epidemiological studies
are disputable, while there is too much armchair research and not enough hard
science and clinical studies. Photos of malformed children are speculative as
to cause. They give the complex an ammunition against
the movement, unless we have scientific substantiations at nano-level,
and clinical proofs in the radiological cause-effect chain leading from
contamination of the mother to the effects on the fetus. In this context, Dr. Gatti's method of nano-analysis,
when used on the samples and cases in custody of independent groups like UMRC,
would provide the needed link.
Equally strategic are legal initiatives. The UN
Sub-Commission case in Dr. Parker’s presentation to this conference shows that appropriate
disciplines from our movement should participate in specialized actions to
assure objectivity is preserved. In a vacuum, our adversary will take
advantage and distort the processes to own advantage. Generally, the more sophisticated and high-level an
action is, the more room exists for manipulation of
institutions, processes and documents. It follows that grassroots initiatives
such as citizens tribunals and
individual liability cases before courts have the best chance of raising
public awareness to the uranium problems. These actions build on public dissent
with the wars and, by fortifying negative publicity for the complex, have a
best chance to change present policies.
The legal prong of anti-uranium weapons movement is gaining
importance as a target of the adversary, since the complex starts to lose on
the science front.
A few conclusions follow for the movement:
-
Give a high priority to shielding
of science and legal groups and persons, against injurious propaganda and
manipulations.
-
By demanding
accountability, take to task those in the complex who are responsible for
manipulations and lying.
-
Prevent extremist polarization that may keep us neutralized and isolated.
-
Build liability cases under the health and safety/occupational/employment laws.
The liability cases would be a chance to avoid polarization and
hit the defence departments and industry squarely in the
pocket book and regulatory legislation.
He who pays the piper...
One set of proofs of uranium weapon use that the movement can
control – and requires for further actions – is on the battlefields.
Independent scientific groups are taking care of that. The other set of proofs
is in the bodies of veterans of radiological wars and civilian victims of the
contamination left behind. Being a potential and actual prey of the cover-ups,
they should ask the sponsors of testing programmes
technical questions, and examine the details provided.
They should ask the following questions:
-
Does the testing programme employ physicians with radiation medicine
expertise and credibility, to make evaluation of the lab results or get it published. Which lab methods, procedures and equipment will
be used. Do the assessment professionals have a track
record of peer-reviewed publications, reports to the benefit of veterans and
adherence to professional ethics.
-
Who has access to the data
and who controls the use of their results. Is there a
legal agreement to report all results to study participants.
-
Who will own results funded
by the authorities. Non-clinical labs have no obligation for confidentiality
and do not need to adhere to the code of ethics of patient management.
-
Who is in charge of the
clinical analysis and dose calculations.
-
How will the kidney disfunction due to uranium chemotoxicity
be accounted for in case of results showing apparently
acceptable levels of radiotoxic contamination, and which ICRP and national standards
will be used to determine a benchmark.
-
Which models will be
applied to reconstruct the dose received by a veteran.
The contaminated civilians and veterans will need help from
independent scientists who would provide an opinion on the above information
once received. To select an independent scientist or group, ask similar
questions as above, and also:
-
Which scientific and
medical studies they support, the original research they have contributed to scientifically or otherwise.
-
How many veterans and
civilians they organized for urine analysis, or diagnostic, or lung and bone
biopsies or nano-pathology studies.
-
How they contributed to the
development of the occupational litigation process, organized veterans for dose
reconstruction, filed claims and class actions against departments of veterans
and defence, prepared case research for the UN or
international court.
-
How many public health
field surveys, specimen collection and bomb site inspection trips they have
conducted on radiological battlefields.
-
Which journals, film
documentaries, or newspapers published their work. Ask
for copies of the publications, examine who the
co-authors and sponsors are.
Think and act globally and locally
Shift of the globalistic interests and
military presence – to Central and
We should embrace existing and new groups in the areas of military
expansion and new radiological conflicts, to further fortify our ranks.
Geographic diversification, however, creates security threats to our movement.
New conflict areas and re-structuring economies under
-
Educate the groups in those regions about cover-ups and manipulations, so
that sincere members of the groups are aware of potential threats in their
geographical and organizational domains.
-
Stay vigilant against infiltration and manipulation or mistaken people from
these groups when they attempt to corrupt the rest of the movement. A potential
for this is realistic with groups apparently domiciled in areas hardest hit by
radiological wars, because being a victim arouses human feelings of empathy and
trust of others.
-
Maintain close
relations, so that local actions of these groups are
publicized globally, serving the movement’s global goals.
Military expansion and increasing likelihood of armed conflicts
between the global power seekers and their adversaries may lead to the use of
uranium weapons by states other than the
Fourth generation nuclear weapons that satisfy the provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
will be the next concern for our movement. Nuclear powers, but especially
present non-nuclear states, will likely produce and deploy these low-level
radiation polluters in the near future.
.
Acknowledgement
I am thankful to many who provided ideas and source material in
confidence. All information was checked and cross-checked by Inspector Angus
Hopper-Chopper, who received specialty training in “doing his business” only in
designated places.
Please post documentation of cover-ups, deceptions and
manipulations to your networks. Publish success stories of de-bunking and
exposure of manipulations. If you prefer anonymity, send them to piotr.bein@imag.net, or to the du-watch list by first
subscribing to
du-watch-subscribe@egroups.com.
The list is self-moderated and one of a few remaining uncensored on the
subject. You can unsubscribe and subscribe any time.
Inspector Angus will chop up fakes with his incisors and use in
his litter box. The same tools applied to the telephone cable will sever
nuisance calls. My assistant Angus is a French lop
rabbit.
References
P.
Bein and K. Parker, Uranium Weapons Cover-ups - a
Crime against Humankind, paper prepared in
January 2003, for a monograph Politics and Environmental Policy in the 21st
Century, Faculty of Political Sciences,
P.
Bein and P. Zorić, Propaganda
for Depleted Uranium - a Crime against Humankind, International Conference
Facts on Depleted Uranium, Praha, November 24-25,
2001, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/files/DUPraha.doc
P.
Bein, NATO (Mis)Information
to the Public: Why We Must Not Trust NATO on DU, CADU International
Conference Against Uranium Weapons,
A.
Durakovic, Undiagnosed
Illnesses and Radioactive Warfare, Croatian Medical Journal CMJ, October
2003; Vol 44, No 5, pp. 520-532, abstract http://www.cmj.hr/index.php?P=3013,
full text http://www.cmj.hr/index.php?D=/44/5/520
European
Committee on Radiation Risk, Recommendations of the ECRR: Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation
Protection Purposes, Green Audit,
A.
Gsponer, Depleted-Uranium Weapons: the Whys and
Wherefores, Postface to a book to be published by
the Bertrand Russell Foundation, Independent Scientific Research Institute
report number ISRI-03-03,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-6:
Information Operations, USGPO,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense, JCS Publication
1, Glossary Department of Defense Military and Associated Terms, 1987
Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint
Publication 3-53, Joint Doctrine for Psychological Operations, USGPO,
Washington DC, 10 July 1996
Uranium Medical Research Centre, UMRC’s
preliminary findings from Afghanistan & Operation Enduring Freedom,
undated, http://www.umrc.net/AfghanistanOEF.asp
T.
Weyman, 12 Years Too Late? How Canadian and U.S.
Defense Departments reveal veterans’ post-conflict follow-up programs are not
capable of detecting Depleted Uranium, Uranium Medical Research Centre,
March 2003, http://www.umrc.net/12yearsNotTooLate.asp
-------------------------------------------
© Copyright Piotr Bein
2003. All rights reserved.
Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial
community Internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the
paper remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. Any edited excerpts
should be submitted to the author for approval.
To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including
commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact Piotr
Bein at piotr.bein@imag.net