CNN's Iraqi fears over depleted uranium story is worthless.
Depleted uranium, fashioned from low-level radioactive wastes, is 21/2 times denser than steel and 1.7 times denser than lead. This theoretically creates a projectile more able to penetrate the heavy armor of tanks than conventional armor-piercing munitions.
U.S. tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, A-10 attack jets and Apache helicopters routinely use depleted uranium rounds.
Aside from the United States and Britain, no other nation uses the munitions. Russian military experts say shells made from alloys of hardened steel, lead and tungsten are equally effective in the anti-tank role.
So 'theoretically' these are useful munitions, but Russian experts disagree. How are we supposed to know who's right? It might be useful to know how they've actually worked out in battle -- I suspect I know the answer (hint: when did Russia last win a war?), but it might be nice to actually know.
The substance is said to be harmless when sealed in artillery shells or bombs. But when a shell strikes its target, some of the metal burns and oxidizes into microscopic particles. This creates dust that some say is toxic if inhaled or ingested.
Who says it? What do they base their sayings on? Is the problem chemical toxicity or radiation? If it's radiation, just how radioactive is this?
Experts at the Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that 1,100-2,200 tons of depleted uranium were used by U.S.-led coalition forces during their attack on Iraq in March and April. This contrasts with about 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War, 11 tons fired during the 1999 war against Serbia over Kosovo, and a much smaller quantity used against rebel Serb positions in Bosnia in 1995.
Okay, so there are at least two other real-world test cases available -- how are people doing in Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia now?
The U.N. Environment Program, while acknowledging its assessments have found no immediate risk, has recommended a scientific investigation of sites targeted by depleted uranium weapons in Iraq.
"The fact remains that depleted uranium is still an issue of great concern for the general public," UNEP director Klaus Toepfer said.
So the news here isn't that it's dangerous, it's that people think it's dangerous?
In the decade that followed the 1991 war, Iraqi health officials said they had recorded a 200 percent rise in cancer and leukemia cases, particularly in young children, in Basra. That southern city was close to the battlefields of the 1991 war.
"There is no other explanation for this outbreak of all forms of cancer, including the rarest forms of leukemia, than the radioactivity coming from depleted uranium," said Abdel Karim, whose hospital is the primary health care institution in the country treating children with malignancies.
Abdel Karim said Iraqi medical practitioners had noticed that cancer cases from areas around Basra were particularly difficult to treat. She blames that on depleted uranium.
"Most have to be referred for bone transplants," she said. "Unlike other cases, they just don't respond to chemotherapy and other treatment."
In the decade that followed the 1991 war, wasn't Iraq still controlled by a dictator with an obvious use for anti-US propaganda? When did Dr. Karim say these things, and if it was more than 6 weeks ago or so, what does she have to say now?
The story is copyrighted by the AP, but this is the only copy of it I've seen; maybe the original answered some of the obvious questions and CNN messed it up in editing.