PeaceAware.com asked scientist and chemistry professor Dan Bishop to read and respond to claims made in the 1999 Rand Report on DU. Dr. Bishop, says:
1. Preface states: “much more research both on health effects and exposures remains to be completed before
definitive statements are made.” Yet the reports conclusions make some very definitive statements which
have been subsequently echoed by the military.
2. Summary and conclusions state: “Very little literature directly addresses the health effects of
DU. However, a wide body of literature deals with the health effects of natural and enriched uranium, and a
review of that literature is relevant.” Unfortunately, our stocks of DU are severely contaminated with
nuclear waste products that include plutonium and americium, highly radioactive and extremely toxic
substances. Thus studies pertaining to natural and enriched uranium are NOT relevant in the least.
3. In the acknowledgements we find: “we are indebted to the Hon. Bernard Rostker, Special Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, for sponsoring this review, and to the many members of his
staff who have provided data and insights during the drafting process.” Though I doubt any specific results
have been altered, I have no doubt that the interpretations, innuendoes, and conclusions to be
drawn show a definite bias toward the outcome the DOD would have wanted.
4. Note that initially, 70% of a projectile was determined to be aerosolized, but that this was
reduced to 10-35%. Later we find that the percent depends on the hardness of the targeted object - the
harder the object (read tank armor) the higher the percent, up to 70%. But the report consistently uses
the lower percentage values, as though the 70% figure never existed, even though tank armor is EXACTLY what
these penetrators are used against. The purpose, of course, is to downplay battlefield exposure levels.
5. The statement that the military is protected from ambient radiation because the armor is in protective
shells. Well, in Invisible Wars it was apparent to anyone watching that the black uranium warheads were
bare; Also, the aerosol contrail behind a fired projectile deny this premise. Also, to take advantage
of the pyrophoric nature of the projectile, the military certainly does NOT want it covered.
6. Their figures on natural inhalation rates for U-238 are given as 14.7 mBq per year, which corresponds to a
1 microgram burden of uranium in the lungs. This is incredibly small amount compared to what might have
been picked up on the battlefield! I wouldn't be surprised if some soldiers inhaled several milligrams
(1 mg = 1000 microgram). The problem is that no one has even the ghost of an idea as to what kinds of
exposure and doses were received in Desert Storm. The Rand report significantly discounts adverse exposure
with NO SCIENCE to back it up.
7. Rand report states "most of these aerosols will rapidly settle to the ground" - NO SCIENCE to back
this up. In New York, uranium oxide microparticles were detected by the navy 25 miles downwind of a
fabrication facility.
8. Rand report mentions in one place that the particles sized below 10 microns settle deep in the
alveoli in the lungs. In another place, they report that virtually ALL microparticles are less than 10
microns if they were formed during combustion of the uranium. Of course, that is the exact mode of
destruction of a projectile when it hits its target. However, no connection is made between these two facts
and possible adverse health effects resulting.
9.Rand report continually emphasizes that uranium passes through the body quite rapidly (in days). The
studies it quotes refer to exposure to soluble uranium salts. Only in one place is there mention that
insoluble salts of UO2 and U3O8 (which, incidentally, are mentioned as being the primary products resulting
from a projectile striking a target) might remain in place for years. Yet no connection is made between
these two facts and possible adverse health effects resulting.
10. The research recommendations (why should any research be needed if we already know it is safe?) at
the end leave out some important studies that should be run. First of all, all studies should be made with
the same DU that is being used on the battlefield, not some refined uranium that may not be similarly
contaminated. Second, a thorough epidemiological study of ALL ailing veterans should be conducted with NO
underlying assumption that exposure to DU was innocuous. By carefully interviewing these veterans,
one can make some estimate of relative (not actual) levels of exposure allowing individuals to be grouped
in categories so their varying symptoms can be compared and statistically analyzed.
As you can see, I think the report is seriously flawed and unquestionably biased. If we are to take Col.
Daxon seriously when he says "Follow the Science", then our first action should be to toss the Rand
report into the garbage!
Peace,
Dan Bishop