UN on Depleted Uranium...

[debbie mannas]

prop1.org/2000/du/resource/000310un.htm



Excerpt:



1. Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;



****************



I do believe they are saying that DU falls under WMDs???

[Seismic Anamoly]

You DO? I don't.



Go figure.

[Galmin]

Interresting. I believe they do consider DU the same way as they do Cluster Bombs (Illegal according to the Geneva Convention. Ron, come and try to destroy my credibility now. Take a jibe at international law ), that it has an Indiscriminate effect.



Why? What indiscriminate effect are we talking about?

The DU's possibility to break tanks and bunkers because of it's sheer weight? Other side effects?

[debbie mannas]

Oh didnt you know? They used cluster bombs too...



www.abc.net.au/news/newsi...837052.htm



US promises to investigate danger of cluster bombs



The Pentagon has promised to investigate the risks of unexploded US cluster bombs after an incident over the weekend in Baghdad in which a child and four US soldiers were injured by an explosive device.



"I have not heard of injuries due to cluster bombs, but we'll look into it," said General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Some international organisations have criticised the US use of cluster bombs, which spray smaller bomblets across a wide area.



The groups say bomblets which do not explode on impact remain dangerous, particularly to children attracted to them.



Myers rejected the criticism, saying cluster bombs are less dangerous than land mines.



"Cluster bombs are not like mines," he said.



"Cluster bombs are set to go off when they strike their target or whatever they do, so they're not like a mine that lies there until it's activated."



He said the four soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division and the Iraqi child were injured by an improvised explosive device likely designed to harm the soldiers.



The US Central Command said the soldiers were conducting a dismounted patrol when the child approached with the unexploded ordnance, which detonated when one of the soldiers attempted to remove it from the child's hand.



*******************



and some more:



www.kmsb.com/special2/042...58944.html



U.S. Central Command in Qatar acknowledged last week that cluster bombs were dropped over urban Baghdad during the three-week bombardment that helped lead to the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.



Human rights groups charge that the use of cluster bombs in urban areas could constitute a violation of international law.



"The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come," Human Rights Watch said in a statement last month. "Cluster bombs also threaten U.S. and friendly soldiers during combat."



The group said cluster bomblets from the 1991 Persian Gulf War are still being found at the rate of 200 per week in Kuwait.

[debbie mannas]

www.rense.com/general33/du.htm



UN Rejects US Argument

That DU Is A 'Legal' Weapon

US-UK Defeated On DU Vote At The UN Sub-Commission

Contact Philippa Winkler

|928 774-1765 (USA)

1-2-3





Efforts by the US/UK to keep depleted uranium off the agenda of the UN Sub-Commission on Protection and Promotion of Human Rights failed this August (2002) as the Sub-Commission clearly decided that depleted uranuim weaponry qualify as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and authorized a prominent member, Justice Y. Sik Yuen (Mauritius) to prepare a study on the topic.



The UK member of the Sub-Commisson tried to have depleted uranium weaponry deleted from the study, which had been authorized earlier by the Sub-Commission, arguing that DU weaponry are not WMD,but her proposed amendments and a substitute resolution were defeated, drawing only two votes -- hers and the vote of the member from Norway.



The debate as well as the outcome reinforces the claim made by Karen Parker and supported by a clear majority of international experts --including 23 of the 26 members of the Sub-Commission -- that DU is already banned because it is incompatible with existing humanitarian law and qualifies as WMD. (The American member was chair and did not vote, but according to eyewitnesses allowed the Norwegian member to speak beyond the limits usually allocated for such debates.)



The vote to study weapons of mass destruction including DU is the latest success of UN non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who, beginning in 1996, started a campaign for a strong condemnation of both DU and sanctions. In 1996 attorney Karen Parker, Margarita Papendreou, Dr. Beatrice Boctor, Philippa Winkler and Dr. Gorst Gunther (all representing International Educational Development/ Humanitarian Law Project (IED/HLP)) made a two prong charge against both DU and sanctions at that year's session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.



Then, at the 1996 session of the Sub-Commission, following a speech made by attorney Karen Parker on behalf of IED/HLP and extensive lobbying by her and Fabio Marcelli (Italy) on the effects of DU on Iraq, a resolution was adopted by the Sub-Commission that included depleted uranium weaponry on a list of other "bad" weapons and asked the Secretary-General to present a report on these weapons to the 1997 session of the Sub-Commission. The report was to reflect submissions from governments, NGOs and others.



The Secretary-General's report was submitted on schedule in 1997, thanks to the efforts of Karen Parker, Damacio Lopez, Felicity Arbuthnot, Philippa Winkler and others and was issued as U.N. Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27 and Add.



1. That year the Sub-Commission decided to appoint one of its members, Mme Forero Ucros (Columbia), to prepare a working paper preparatory to a full study. Unfortunately Mme Forero never returned to the Sub-Commission, with many saying this was because of US pressure.



The same year, however, the Sub-Commission moved on the sanctions issue, and adopted a resolution on economic sanctions -- responding again to a speech by Karen Parker. Unfortunately, that resolution's author, Marc Bossuyt (Belgium) was ill the following year, and was unable to attend the Sub-Commisison's session. When he returned in 1999, the Sub-Commission authorized him to prepare a working paper on sanctions, issued as UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33.



Following the departure of Mme Forero, there were changes in the membership of the Sub-Commission, and the "team" was uncertain whether it was necessary or useful to go forward with a study on DU and the other listed weapons, in part because (1) the Sub-Commission had already labeled DU as a WMD, and (2) the Secretary-General's report contained substantial portions of both the Parker Memorandum on Weapons, the submission of the International Indian Treaty Council and a number of countries, all essentially implying the same thing -- DU weaponry is incompatible with existing international humanitarian law and human rights norms.



However, during these three years, the NGOs at the UN continued to present seminars, films and keep up the pressure. In 1999, the video documentary "From Radioactive Mines to Radioactive Weapons" was shown at the Commission. The documentary linked the health impacts of uranium mining on Navajo miners to the impacts of DU weapons, and described tests done by Dr Hari Sharma showing the presence of DU in Gulf War veterans including Ray Bristow. The number of UN NGOs presenting statements on DU continued to grow. At the 2001 session of the Sub-Commission, one of the most respected members of the Sub-Commission, Justice Y. Sik Yuen (Mauritius) agreed to go forward with the study. (Karen Parker had tried toconvince him to take on this study for several years, but he had already been assigned another study). By Thursday of the first week of the 2001 session, the draft resolution was tabled (submitted) with 16 co-sponsors.



The final debate on the draft became, as Karen Parker says, a "dream come true." The US and UK tried to urge that DU is a 'conventional' weapon and therefore 'legal.' So the debate really shows that these two countries are backed into a corner, and the rest of the world accepts that DU is and always was illegal." (Please note: There have been many NGOs who have contributed to this effort at the Sub-Commission and we apologize if some have not been mentioned by name.)



The documents from the Sub-Commission are not yet all posted on the UN web-site, and as soon as they are available, we will let you know.



In the meantime, Karen Parker will be assisting Justice Sik Yuen on this study, and requests that people begin to collect the latest relevant information to transmit to her at ied@igc.org if they are small enough. Larger documents may be transmitted to her office by mail. Funds to assist this effort may be made out to Karen Parker directly, of for those wishing to make a tax-exempt contribution, to the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, and sent to The Law Offices of Karen Parker, 154-5th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA.



Below is the relevent press release from the UN website www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hu...enFrameSet



UNITED NATIONS Press Release



SUBCOMMISSION ASKS EXPERTS TO CONDUCT STUDIES ON WEAPONS, RIGHT OF RETURN OF REFUGEES' PROPERTY, AND NON-DISCRIMINATION



Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 53rd session 16 August 2001. Afternoon



The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon adopted a number of resolutions and measures which, among other things, requested its members to carry out studies on human rights and weapons of mass destruction; the transfer and use of small arms in the context of human rights; the return of refugees' or displaced persons' property; and non-discrimination.



Concerning weapons, the Subcommission, by a show of hands vote of 21 in favour and 2 against, approved a decision that asked Subcommission Expert Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare a paper on human rights and weapons of mass destruction.



In the report, he would assess the utility, scope and structure of a study on the real and potential dangers to the effective enjoyment of human rights posed by the testing, production, storage, transfer, trafficking, or use of weapons of mass destruction with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, including the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium.

[debbie mannas]

Leonard A Dietz, Nuclear Scientist



www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/dgvd.html



Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium



Abstract



We develop background information about depleted uranium (DU) and use it to describe a physical model of how on the battlefields in Kuwait and Iraq a large number of unprotected Gulf War veterans could easily have acquired dangerous quantities of DU in their bodies.



We examine how U-238, which comprises more than 99% of DU, decays radioactively, producing two decay progeny that are always present with it and add significantly to its radioactivity. The pyrophoric nature of uranium metal causes it to burn (oxidize rapidly) when heated by impact or in fires to form invisible aerosol particles that become airborne.



We refer to scientific measurements that have been made of the atmospheric wind-borne transport of uranium aerosols over distances up to 26 miles (42 km) from their sources. Stokes' well-known physical law helps to explain how airborne transport of DU particles can occur over large distances.



We describe how gamma rays and energetic beta particles become absorbed in body tissue and can traverse large numbers of body cells, potentially causing damage to genetic material in the nuclei of living cells.



We describe a biokinetic model developed by the International Commission on Radiation Protection that explains how uranium microparticles can enter the body and spread to vital organs. The model predicts that an acute intake of uranium particles can result in urinary excretions of uranium for years afterward.



We review estimates of the tonnage of DU munitions fired during the Gulf War. Even if only one or two percent of a low estimate of 300 metric tons of DU fired burned up, this would have produced 3000-6000 kg of DU aerosols.



This background information allows us to propose a plausible contamination model at a battle site. It consists of three steps: (1) a source of hundreds of kilograms of DU aerosols generated suddenly against concentrated Iraqi armor; (2) widespread rapid dispersal of DU aerosol particles by wind action; (3) inhalation and ingestion of DU particles by unprotected U.S. service personnel on the battlefield.



The U.S. military and its representatives claim that DU munitions are safe, but they have not publicly addressed health and safety issues that apply after DU munitions have been fired. Apparently the official view is that in a combat situation it is acceptable for unprotected personnel to be exposed to the combustion products of fired DU munitions and assume any health risks involved.



We mention that 22 U.S. service personnel have been reported to have suffered imbedded fragments of DU in their bodies from "friendly fire". More than 5 years after the Gulf War, few of these fragments have been removed and the long-term health situation for these veterans has not yet been determined. We note the astonishingly high incidence of serious birth defects in families of Gulf War veterans in the State of Mississippi.



Finally, we mention how commonly used DU flight control counterweights in aircraft and DU munitions can burn in intense fires and produce dangerous concentrations of airborne DU aerosol particles that can be inhaled and ingested.

[debbie mannas]

www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom...00502.html



"These are the remains of the closed factory. The clean-up operation is still underway." Nuclear scientist Leonard A. Dietz (77) points through a fence to a huge pile of earth silhouetted by the evening sun. Six or seven workers inside the fence are raking soil from a deep hole dug with a back hoe. To the southeast, we can still see the towering office buildings of Albany, capital of New York State.



These factory ruins lie in a town called Colonie, on the outskirts of Albany. A company called National Lead Industries (NL) ran the factory for over 20 years, until early 1980. It produced 30mm cannon penetrators under an Air Force contract and dynamic flight control ballast weights for aircraft. The raw material for these products was depleted uranium (DU).



Source discovered immediately



"In 1979, DU particles were found in an air filter monitor ten miles from this factory." After we return to his home in Schenectady, about 20 kilometers (about 13 miles) northwest of the NL factory site, Dietz continues his explanation, referring to a report he compiled himself. At the time, Dietz was a senior researcher at General Electric (GE), where he was a recognized expert in the field of isotopic analysis of uranium by mass spectrometry. His office was at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) in Schenectady, which GE ran for the US Navy. He and his colleagues were using mass spectrometers to measure the uranium content in air filter monitors around Navy facilities in the area when they accidentally detected the DU. KAPL did not process DU, so they knew immediately that the particles came from NL. "We monitored a number of checkpoints for five months. We even found them at the most distant checkpoint, which was 26 miles northwest. We found spherical and non-spherical DU particles 4 to 6 micrometers long. You can breathe particles of this size into your lungs."



Submitting the report to the Navy



According to Dietz, the only reason particles were not found at greater distances was the lack of monitoring stations. He believes that the right wind conditions would surely spread the particles much further. Dietz compiled his data in a report and submitted it to the Navy in January 1980.



In early February, less than two weeks after Dietz sent his report to the Navy, the New York state government ordered NL to terminate operations. Unrelated to Dietz' study, the state Department of Environmental Conservation had also been measuring radiation levels outside the plant. They found that the amount of DU discharged in January 1980 was ten times the allowable state standard (150 microcuries a month).



"One hundred fifty microcuries is produced by 387 grams of DU. NL was routinely discharging far more than that in the form of minute uranium particles," Dietz explains.



Over $100 million for clean-up



NL shut its doors permanently in 1983. The next year, it sold the factory and site to the Department of Energy (DOE) for a nominal fee in lieu of the cost of cleaning up. The full-scale clean-up, including dismantling the buildings and removing contaminated soil, began in 1996. "So far the clean-up alone has cost over $100 million. This is our tax money, you know."



Until he retired in 1983, Dietz was unable to submit his report to anyone but the Navy. He believes that his 1980 report had nothing to do with the closing of the factory, but his investigation increased Dietz' own concern about depleted uranium munitions. In 1991, when he heard that DU munitions would be used in the Gulf War, he immediately protested in the pages of a scientific journal. His article appeared in early February, before the start of the ground war (February 24).



"A 30mm shell contains about 300 grams of DU. The largest 120 mm shells contain about 4.7 kilograms. To protect the health of Americans, we shut down a factory for discharging the equivalent of about two 30mm shells into the atmosphere per month. How can we justify using a million such shells in Iraq and Kuwait, most of it in only four days of war?"



Calm by nature, Dietz is thoroughly convincing as an expert with the figures to back him up.

[debbie mannas]

"As George Monbiot put it in the Guardian,



'There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Mr Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has done in twenty years.' "



www.carmenlawrence.com/sa..._01.03.htm

[DreamTone7]

War never does have anything to do with international law. It can't. It's simply a result of somebody not playing by the rules. When the first person (or country) refuses to play by the rules, the rules go out the window. At that point, all bets are off.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

War never does have anything to do with international law. It can't.

---

There are few things that are clearer than International Law in regard of agression and war. Had the UN members that claimed to be in possession of evidence succeeded in convincing the security cabinet (for instance by presenting irrefutable evidence instead of bad forgery), Iraq could have been disarmed, even by force, within the ramifications of International Law! That is a fact.

Quote:

---

It's simply a result of somebody not playing by the rules. When the first person (or country) refuses to play by the rules, the rules go out the window. At that point, all bets are off.

---

Congratulations. You have conceived the nuttiest statment of the week.

So, using your logic, since International Law was breached at the invasion of Iraq [Armed force is permitted only in self-defense to an armed attack (UN Charter, art. 51) or with Security Council authorization (UN Charter, art. 42)], it would somehow be ok for Iraq to break said law f.i. by nervgassing the invasionforce?

[DreamTone7]

Galmin, you quite obviously don't understand the spirit in which I was speaking. International law applies only to those that are lawful.....that is, those who choose to abide by it. If somebody decides they don't want to play by the rules anymore, the law no longer governs their actions.....realistically speaking. (Though it certainly continues to govern those that intend to abide by it, of course.)



And since starting a war is against international law, those that "go to war" are no longer abiding by it, are they. Note that there is a fine line between a UN "police action" and going to war in terms of intent to use force.....but the methods (and goals) of war (since they have chosen not to abide by the rules) are whatever they decide (not what the UN decides).....including use of nerve gas, or anything else they want to throw at their enemy.



If I choose not to be bound by a law, the law holds no sway over me. Get it now?



Until the UN has the ability (and the backbone) to enforce its laws, there will always be those that will be prone to breaking them....for good or for ill. Note that just because you break the law, it doesn't mean I have to. It's my decision...(or my countries decision).

[debbie mannas]

"If I choose not to be bound by a law, the law holds no sway over me."



How you have just described the US EXACTLY.



And yet they quote those same law to other countries. Geneva convention, disarmament, yadayadayada.



UGH.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Galmin, you quite obviously don't understand the spirit in which I was speaking. International law applies only to those that are lawful.....that is, those who choose to abide by it.

---

Oh I understood the spirit, I merely applied your logic and showed your reasoning from a different angle.

Quote:

---

And since starting a war is against international law, those that "go to war" are no longer abiding by it, are they.

---

You nailed it, DT. The coalition justified the invasion with the argument that Iraq had not met up to Resolution 1441 [a UN Resolution]. Though the very invasion was a breach of the UN Charter.



"Beatrice: -Do not swear by it, and eat it."

~William Shakespeare

Quote:

---

If I choose not to be bound by a law, the law holds no sway over me. Get it now?

---

Slobodan Milosevic, currently residing at The United Nations International War Crimes Tribunal, thought the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Until the UN has the ability (and the backbone) to enforce its laws, there will always be those that will be prone to breaking them....for good or for ill.

---

The ability and backbone to enforce it's laws?

Sure, before a UN member that happens to hold the most military power dictated a deadline for Iraq (not included in Resolution 1441) until military force was to be applied (not included in Resolution 1441), things were working within the ramifications of UN law.

The UN is not a puppet organisation that is supposed to jump because some president of some country tells it to.



Iraq has been rid of its despot. A very good thing.



It doesn't make the invasion less illegal.

[DreamTone7]

I never said the invasion of Iraq was "legal"......but Iraqs refusal to cooperate was not legal either. Hence, my comment about "all bets being off". The UN refused to enforce its own laws, and the US stepped in and did it for them. Was it legal? No. Was it prudent? Yes.

[debbie mannas]

What happens to vigilantes in the US?