Just a moment...
www.middleeastmonitor.com

The Syndicate of Chemists in Lebanon (SCL) warned yesterday that the extent of destruction and the depth of damage to buildings and the ground confirms the use of internationally banned bombs containing depleted uranium by Israeli forces, warning of the risk of contracting many diseases as a result of inhaling the dust caused by the bombing.

It said in a “very important warning” that it condemns “the barbaric aggression against civilians in Lebanon and the massacres being committed against the Lebanese people,” noting that the warning aims “to raise awareness about the effects of inhaling the dust from Israeli bombings in several Lebanese areas.”

“The extent of destruction and the penetration of buildings and ground by dozens of metres is evidence of the use of bombs containing depleted uranium, which has tremendous penetrating power,” it added.

The SCL stressed that “the use of such types of internationally banned weapons, especially in densely populated Beirut, leads to massive destruction, and their dust causes many diseases, especially when inhaled.”

The SCL called on “the international community to stop the aggression against Lebanon, and to stop the use of internationally banned bombs.”

It also called on the Lebanese state to file a lawsuit with the UN Security Council “against the violations taking place on Lebanese soil and the attempted mass killings of innocent civilians.”

Citizens, it added, should not “approach the bombed areas within a radius of more than two kilometres,” while those forced to approach these areas must “wear protective clothing”.

The SCL confirmed that it “closely monitors the enemy’s use of internationally banned weapons.”

The most prominent use of these anti-fortification bombs was during the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on 27 September, in addition to attempts to kill his successor, Hashem Safieddine.

Israel has killed 1,204 people in Lebanon since it launched its most vicious attack on the country in nearly 20 years on 23 September. More than 1.2 million have been displaced.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    3 months ago

    I just don't understand the use of DU in bombs against anything other than heavy armor. NATO did this in Yugoslavia too.

      • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        3 months ago

        It's the only reason to use DU anything for any reason. Even if used against "heavy armor" the knock-on effect of poisoning the land and its people are desired. It's the modern version of salting the earth. It's the same reason Agent Orange was used in Vietnam. The key difference here is that Agent Orange had no real technical use case. It was being used as Ecocide, in an attempt to destroy the forest cover being used at the time. It's not like Agent Orange was somehow dealing with a new form of tank armor, besides, it was an aerosol spray that blanketed an area. Now, however, we have this convenient technical application, which is penetrating "heavy armor" mech units. The ammunition is tipped with DU, and the US regularly says it has not seen trustworthy evidence that the resulting impact leaves enough DU to cause health issues. It's clear that zero care is made in ensuring minimal ecological damage is done by these munitions, though, as there are many studies of battle zones that show an uptick in cancer rates and birth defects.

        The DU bombs have even less legs to stand on. What does a DU bomb do that a conventional bomb couldn't do when targeting residential structures? Trying to justify its use is equivalent to trying to justify the use of Agent Orange. These buildings are not hardened targets, they're apartment complexes, hospitals, and schools. That alone should raise red flags for most, but it doesn't. Even if it doesn't make you pause, the use of DU bombs on those targets, I would hope, would make you pause.

          • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            3 months ago

            Did you read your own source? Pretty much every conclusion on Gulf War veterans says that there is insufficient evidence that DU negatively affected their health. This is probably not the best source to use if you want to illustrate the negative effects of DU exposure on human health.

            Fragments of depleted uranium: Uranium concentrations in the urine of Gulf War veterans have been found at higher levels in those with retained DU shrapnel than in those without when measured at 2, 4, and 7 years after first exposure (Hooper et al., 1999; McDiarmid et al., 2000). A recent study found that levels of urinary uranium ranged from 0.01 to 30.74 μg/g creatinine in veterans with retained shrapnel fragments (McDiarmid et al., 2000). The concentration of uranium in the urine of nonexposed veterans ranged from 0.01 to 0.047 μg/g creatinine. Despite much higher levels of urinary uranium in the veterans with retained fragments of DU, renal function parameters (serum creatinine, BMG, and retinol-binding and urine proteins) were the same in the two groups, strongly suggesting that years of exposure to uranium does not damage the kidneys (McDiarmid et al., 2000).

            Conclusions on Nonmalignant Renal Disease: Although uranium is a heavy metal that causes transient renal dysfunction, the preponderance of evidence indicates little or no clinically important renal effects of exposure to uranium. A few studies have shown changes in renal function (Lu and Zhao, 1990; Zamora et al., 1998), but the number of cases has been quite small. Perhaps the strongest evidence is the absence of kidney damage in workers that had been exposed to high levels of soluble uranium compounds (Kathren and Moore, 1986) and in veterans exposed to DU from embedded shrapnel. Kidney function was normal in Gulf War veterans with embedded DU fragments, years after exposure, despite urinary uranium concentrations up to 30.74 μg/g creatinine (McDiarmid et al., 2000). The committee concludes that there is limited/suggestive evidence of no association between exposure to uranium and clinically significant renal dysfunction.

            McDiarmid and colleagues (2000) studied a cohort of Gulf War veterans who had fragments of depleted uranium in their soft tissues. As noted in the preceding section, the veterans excreted substantial amounts of uranium, presumably as a result of gradual dissolution of DU fragments. Results from a battery of computer-based neurocognitive tests suggest a statistical relationship between elevated urinary uranium levels and “problematic performance on automated tests assessing performance efficiency and accuracy” (McDiarmid et al., 2000). Traditional tests of neurocognitive function (pen-and-pencil tests) did not show any statistical differences in performance between the veteran cohort and a control group.

            As acknowledged by the authors, the number of individuals with high uranium levels in urine was small, “and it appeared that a few veterans with complex histories may have contributed appreciably to the observed variance.” Further studies may help explain the lack of correlation between the computer-based tests, which showed abnormalities, and the standard written tests, on which the subjects performed normally. Continued follow-up of this cohort will provide insight into any potential neurocognitive effects of depleted uranium.

            Conclusion on Nonmalignant Neurological Disease: The committee concludes that there is inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association does or does not exist between exposure to uranium and diseases of the nervous system

            In a subgroup of Gulf War veterans with embedded DU fragments in soft tissues and muscles, semen ejaculates contained uranium (McDiarmid et al., 2000). However, the semen characteristics (volume, concentration, morphology, and functional parameters of motility) were the same in Gulf War veterans with high urinary uranium excretion as in veterans with low excretion. The study also evaluated reproductive endocrinological function in Gulf War veterans with DU fragments by measuring blood levels of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone, and prolactin (PL). The high (>0.10 μg/g creatinine) and low (<0.10 μg/g creatinine) uranium excretion groups had the same levels of LH, FSH, PL, and testosterone (McDiarmid et al., 2000).

            Hematologic Parameters: In the study by McDiarmid and colleagues (2000) of Gulf War veterans with retained fragments of DU, hematological parameters were the same when compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. The parameters were also the same in veterans with retained DU fragments with either high or low urinary uranium excretion. Retained DU fragments and the ensuing increased urinary uranium excretion did not affect hematocrit, hemoglobin, or the number of platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, and monocytes.

            Genotoxicity: Background frequencies of chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in peripheral blood lymphocytes collected and cultured from DU-exposed veterans were identical to those of nonexposed Gulf War veterans and similar to those noted in other control populations (McDiarmid et al., 2000)

            Conclusion on Other Health Outcomes: The committee concludes that there is inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association does or does not exist between exposure to uranium and gastrointestinal disease, immune-mediated disease, effects on hematological parameters, reproductive or developmental dysfunction, genotoxic effects, cardiovascular effects, hepatic disease, dermal effects, ocular effects, or musculoskeletal effects.

            The only possible conclusion you can draw from this is that DU exposure makes you worse at using a computer or any automated testing system, while still being proficient at pen and paper tests. Which is a bit absurd.

            I think a much better idea for a study would be to study the long term effects of DU on civilian populations, which would have a much more long term exposure to any Uranium Oxide dust lingering in the air and soil for years afterwards, as well as exposure to intact DU ammunition that missed the target. It is estimated that 90% of DU rounds fired from Gatling guns or chain guns on aircraft and helicopters miss. Looking at cancer rates in warzones after the war is over, for example.

              • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                3 months ago

                I agree that the US is covering up the adverse health effects of DU. It certainly cannot be healthy to be exposed to a mildly radioactive toxic heavy metal. It should be banned internationally in weapons manufacturing. It's just that there are a lot of people who also spread FUD making absurd claims about the amount of DU in weapons or comparing them to nuclear weapons or enriched uranium, which is very unhelpful. There is no need for that, when the facts are already enough to make a strong argument for banning DU.

    • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
      ·
      3 months ago

      Officially, it would be for bunker busting to penetrate deeper into the ground and fortified structures. Unofficially, this is an easy way to make a "mild" dirty bomb. There's nothing this does that tungsten alloys can't, although tungsten dust from KE penetrators will also poison you.

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        3 months ago

        There's nothing this does that tungsten alloys can't

        That's not exactly true, tungsten is not self sharpening on impact, while DU is, which allows for greater penetration. That's not even considering the pyrophoric/incendiary properties of DU, in which the DU material ignites on contact with the air in the interior of a target after penetrating the armour, due to the high temperature, leading to secondary explosions and the ignition of anyone or anything inside. There is a reason Russia and China have also developed penetrator rounds using DU. This stuff needs to be banned in weaponry before every large military on the planet gets their hands on it. Though every time a ban or investigation is proposed, the USA, France and the UK vote against it, while Russia and China are absent or abstain from voting on the issue, because these countries are the primary manufacturers of DU penetrator weapons. They do not want to give up their perceived military advantages.

        • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
          ·
          3 months ago

          That's true, but overrated; for the actual applications of DU and Tungsten, which is penetrating armour, tungsten is not inferior by much.

          DU doesn't self sharpen in the way people think it does, it just kind of mushrooms less, though it might help penetration in very poorly normalized impacts. And the fact that it ignites is inconsequential in Soviet style autoloaded tanks anyways, since if you hit the carousel you explode instantly. Might be a bit more useful vs western tanks with the bustle ammo ig?

          The primary advantage of DU is if you have a nuclear program you get it for much much cheaper than tungsten.

          • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just the fact that tungsten is slightly inferior is enough for militaries in countries with a nuclear programme to pursue DU weapons. Militaries are looking for any possible advantage, no matter how small, which is likely why China, Russia and Pakistan have also made DU weaponry.

            • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
              ·
              3 months ago

              For sure, but usually its more of an economic decision, or in the case of isntreal a decision to cause the most damage to civilians.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most of the confirmed DU in Yugoslavia was not from bombs, but from the 30mm rounds fired by the A10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft's Gatling gun. Approximately 10 000 rounds were estimated to have been fired by A-10s during the conflict, with around 8 192 of these being confirmed by NATO and Yugoslav reports. That accounts for approximately 3 metric tonnes of DU confirmed to have been fired at Yugoslavia, as each individual round contained between 280-300g of DU.

      The rest of the DU accounted in estimates of between 9-11 total metric tonnes, is said to have come from Tomahawk cruise missiles. This estimate assumes that every Tomahawk cruise missile fired contained a total of 20kg of DU each. This is calculated by taking the total weight of the missile minus the booster stage at 1300kg, and subtracting the estimated weight of the airframe (400kg) and the weight of the explosives in the warhead (450kg). This leaves 450kg of weight left, of which 430kg is calculated to be fuel for the engine, based on a flight time of 2 hours at an average speed of 800kph/500mph, and the engines fuel consumption of 215kg of fuel per hour at 3.1KN of thrust. This leaves 20kg of weight that is unaccounted for, which was guessed to be all DU. While this is mathematically possible, I don't find such an estimate to be convincing as the 20kg could easily be attributed to other systems. What this does prove is that estimates of tomahawk missiles containing more than 20kg of DU are not feasible unless the entire explosive warhead is forgone for a DU penetrator, which is unrealistic for a cruise missile with a median error radius of 10m.