Leading Agencies Intentionally Mislead About the Dangers of Depleted Uranium (Part 2)

A concerted international effort at the highest levels whitewash the effects of depleted uranium, portraying it as safe.

by Heidi Stevenson

22 May 2011

Part 1: Depleted Uranium Is Used in Golf Clubs—and It's Legal!

A concerted international effort at the highest levels whitewashes the effects of depleted uranium, portraying it as safe. All the while, they scramble to find ways to store the millions of tons of waste uranium piling up from nuclear reactors—and to shovel it out the back door into consumer products.

Nuclear apologists offer pathetically poor arguments that radiation is not so dangerous, really. They twist statistics, juxtapose information and ideas to mislead. The explanation for why depleted uranium isn't such a big deal comes down to two specious arguments.

The first argument is the utterly absurd comparison of background radiation with the amounts produced by unnatural sources, like depleted uranium. They hope that you'll be foolish enough to miss the point that it isn't either background radiation or the additional radiation. It's both. They fervently hope that you'll believe that other sources of radiation have nothing to do with background radiation—but that simply isn't so. This argument completely ignores the fact that radiation is cumulative. Certainly it's true that we live in a world with background radiation. That, though, has nothing to do with whether added radiation is harmful. It is, and demonstrably so.

The other explanation of the apologists is the claim that studies show little harm from the extra sources of radiation. They even go so far as to claim that Chernobyl didn't do all that much harm. Of course, they ignore the twisting of statistics from the official studies. They ignore that there are connections between the nuclear industry and the agencies that order the studies. They ignore the recent studies that clearly show even small amounts of radiation are hazards to health, such as mammograms, which have been shown to double the risk of breast cancer in the very women most targeted for the tests.

The truth is that independent studies are showing serious and long term effects from low-level radiation, including radiation from depleted uranium. Researchers at the University of Southern Maine have shown that depleted uranium causes breaks in chromosomes, resulting in cells losing the ability to grow. These researchers wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, "These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer."

Studies have long shown that uranium miners suffer high rates of lung cancer. Without any proof of the precise cause, radon exposure has been blamed instead of uranium. It makes one wonder if the great hullaballoo about radon—which is a natural form of background radiation—several years ago was an attempt to redirect people's attention from depleted uranium. Recent studies are starting to reopen the question of why uranium miners are prone to lung cancer.

Official Agencies' Official Depleted Uranium Lies

The cavalier manner in which governmental and international agencies address the risks inherent in depleted uranium exposure poses great danger to the public.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

In the face of massive numbers of children born with birth defects in depleted uranium infested areas of Iraq, the IAEA's website states:

[N]o cases have been reported where exposure to uranium is known to have caused health effects in children. It is not known whether children differ from adults in their susceptibility to health effects from uranium exposure. In experiments, very young animals have been found to absorb more uranium into their blood than adult animals when they are fed uranium.

lt is not known if exposure to uranium has effects on the development of the human fetus. There have been reports of birth defects and an increase in fetal deaths in animals fed with very high doses of uranium in drinking water. In an experiment with pregnant animals, only a very small amount (0.03%) of the injected uranium reached the fetus. Even less uranium is likely to reach the fetus in mothers exposed to uranium through inhalation and ingestion. There are no available data of measurements of uranium in breast milk. Because of its chemical properties, it is unlikely that uranium would concentrate in breast milk.

The effect of exposure to uranium on the reproductive system is not known. Very high doses of uranium have caused a reduction in sperm counts in some experiments with laboratory animals, but the majority of studies have shown no effects.

Such hornswaggle, claptrap, outright lying, and misleading verbiage would make George Orwell proud. How many children must be born with horrific birth defects in Iraq before the IAEA will acknowledge a connection to depleted uranium?

The idea that it isn't even known whether children are different from adults in susceptibility to radiation and heavy metals is pure garbage. To imply that not having specific studies on the particular radioactive substance or heavy metal is indicative of not knowing whether it carries risk is insulting to the intelligence of the public.

The suggestion that the effects on fetuses are unknown is so absurd as to be laughable—if the effects weren't so devastating. The implication that we should feel comfortable because we don't have information about uranium concentrations in breast milk is utterly nuts. And to suggest that we don't know the effects of uranium on the reproduction system are unknown and that the majority of studies have shown no effects...I simply don't have words that can be used in polite company to explain my disgust.

Keep in mind that the IAEA is generally presented as being a nuclear watchdog. Obviously, it isn't.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA states:

It is unlikely that the average American civilian would come into contact with depleted uranium or technologically-enriched uranium. However, EPA does have standards and special programs that focus on radiation from uranium mines and mills. Specifically, EPA sets Maximum Contamination Levels for uranium in drinking water and dose standards for inhalation around DU production plants.

The average American won't come into contact with depleted uranium? When it's routinely carried on commercial airliners and is used in golf clubs? What's there to say, other than that the EPA apparently doesn't want to deal with it.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The FDA has been attacking people's access to vitamins and supplements with ferocity. These are, of course, generally healthy products that people want. However, when it comes to uranium, the FDA has largely taken a hands-off policy. They set a so-called maximum amount of 30 micrograms of uranium in bottled water. However, they've taken a hands-off policy towards bottled water manufacturers whose products exceed that amount. On the same page where they announce the maximum allowable amount of uranium in bottled water, they also state that they "do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities" with regard to bottled water.

In other words, water bottlers may do as they please with regard to uranium!

When it comes to issues of health, the only health that these agencies care about is that of the masters they serve—and if you were under any illusion that the people are their masters, the official policies of these agencies should put that idea to rest. The FDA, EPA, IAEA, or any of a wide array of alphabet soups are beholden to the industry that they should be regulating...Even when it means mass cancer, birth defects, ill health, and death.

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

What do you think? Click here to comment!

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

Search Gaia Health: