Nota: mentre fanno studi su studi di studi, la gente muore

I have obtained a copy of the new Gulf War and Health, Volume 1, document prepared by the US National Academy of Science.  They present a rather thorough review of the professional literature on exposure to depleted uranium and came to the following conclusions:

"The committee concludes that there is limited/suggestive evidence of NO association between exposure to uranium and the following health outcomes:

    - Lung cancer at cumulative internal doses lower than 200 mSv 0r 25 cGy.
    - Clinically significant renal dysfunction.

The committee concludes that there is inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association DOES OR DOES NOT exist between exposure to uranium and the following health outcomes:

    -Lung cancer at higher levels of cumulative exposure; (greater than 200 mSv or 25 cGy)
    -Lymphatic Cancer
    -Bone Cancer
    -Nervous System Disease;
    -Nonmalignant Respiratory Disease
    -Other Health Outcomes (gastrointestinal disease, immune-mediated disease, effects on hemotoligical parameters, reproductive or development dysfunction, genotoxic effects, cardiovascular effects, hepatic disease, dermal effects, ocular effects or muscular-skeletal effects.)"  Page 4-54.
 

I found this quite strongly indicating that the US government used this weapon widely with no assurance that it would not cause widespread unanticipated illness in military personnel and civilians.

I have a technical problem with the two cut offs for cummulative lung exposure to uranium.  They do not reflect the same exposure.  First, the conversion from an internal alpha dose in Grey to a dose in Sievert requires multification by 20.  Therefore, a dose of 25 cGy (which is the same as 25 rad)  would correspond with a dose of 500 cSv or 5000 mSv (or 500 rem or 5 Sieverts).  If, on the other hand,  we assume the 200 mSv dose to lung to be the "correct" figure, then this would correspons with 10 mGy or 1 cGy (1 rem) dose.

Since 5 rem or 5 cGy is the maximum permissible dose per year for nuclear workers in the US, and 2 rem  or 2 cGy  is used in Europe, there may be a reason for this explicit statement which is more political than scientific. It is none the less wrong.

There is at this time no way to accurately assess the inhalation dose of aerosolized DU either in cGy or mSv, so this information is not helpful for veterans or civilians.

The National Academy of Science has clearly stated that renal damage is expected from exposure to soluble uranium compounds, and not from DU. This may put to rest the US Veteran Administration's criteria which requires renal dysfunction as a sign of uranium inhalation.

The US National Academy document clearly opens the door for strong demands of more research to provide for diagnosis, treatment and dose-response studies for the veterans and civilians who have been exposed. It should also help international efforts to have this outrageous weapon banned.

Dr. Rosalie Bertell