Dan Fahey of the Military Toxics Project, the author of Don't Look, Don't Find: Gulf Veterans, the U.S. Government and Depleted Uranium, 1990-2000, was an early critic of ammunition treated with depleted uranium (DU), a metal many times denser than lead that enables shells to penetrate inches of armor plate. Such munitions were used extensively in the Gulf War and later in the Yugoslavia bombing campaign. Some NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans reportedly are dying of cancers that could have triggered by contact with DU residue in areas that were strafed and bombed.

Stripes: Do you think we've been open and honest about DU with our NATO allies?

Fahey: No, I do not. For example, the Pentagon did not identify the 112 locations of DU expenditure until September 2000, roughly 15 months after the end of hostilities. During this time, soldiers from various NATO countries were deployed in those areas without knowledge of the locations of contamination (to say nothing of the civilians and relief workers).

Therefore, it would have been difficult for our allies to avoid DU if they did not know where to look or how to identify it. In addition, it now appears that some of the DU shot in Kosovo was reprocessed nuclear fuel that may contain plutonium. This has outraged the German government, among others. Clearly, some communication breakdown took place.

Also, the Pentagon, specifically Bernard Rostker, has failed to discuss the findings of the AFRRI studies, which indicated DU could potentially cause a variety of health effects. Further, the Pentagon keeps talking about the study of "33 vets." This represents less than a third of the friendly fire vets exposed to DU, and only a fraction of the "thousands" the Pentagon admits may have been exposed to DU during and after the Gulf War.

Local Contamination

I run through most of this in my "Don't Look, Don't Find" report. The Pentagon only promotes the evidence that supports its position, but there are ample Army reports and research showing that the release of DU in combat can cause local contamination that may cause health effects in human populations.

The Army's July 1990 report even predicted "following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic energy penetrators for military applications."

The current controversy was predicted almost 11 years ago, yet the Pentagon acts surprised that European nations are concerned. They are only fooling themselves, and there current hard-line position will likely come back to haunt them, just as their past deceptions on depleted uranium have substantially eroded their credibility on this subject.

Stripes: Could it be that we've disclosed all we know, but that is very little because we've been burying our head in the sand?

Fahey:The Pentagon has taken a "don't look, don't find" approach to this problem. If they don't investigate DU, conduct a proper epidemiological study, and do health research, then they have nothing to report and can say, as Dr. Rostker has, that no link has been established between DU and leukemia or other problems.

The study of "33" represents only a small fraction of the hundreds of veterans with heavy exposures, and an even smaller fraction of the thousands of veterans who had contact with one or more contaminated vehicles during and after the Gulf War, so it hardly represents a comprehensive look at American veterans exposed to DU.

Plausible Deniability

If you don't investigate the problem, you won't find that there is a problem, and you can plausibly deny any evidence of adverse effects. These guys know what they are doing.

On the issue of plutonium in the DU munitions, the Pentagon has not disclosed all it knows. It has commented on the plutonium contamination of DU in tank armor, but not in munitions shot in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Kuwait, Japan, Puerto Rico, and on testing and training ranges in the United States.

In addition, the Pentagon has refused to even acknowledge many Freedom of Information Act requests I filed over the past three years. There is much more to disclose, but the Pentagon is very selective about what it discloses. I never see them discuss the research conducted by AFRRI, because this research identifies a number of health problems potentially associated with DU exposure, and this contradicts their message that releasing tons of depleted uranium will not result in any adverse health effects.

Stripes: A spokesman for the American Legion pointed out that if we ever engage in a general war, millions of these DU-hardened rounds--not thousands--will be polluting the environment. Do you agree that this is a critical consideration?

Fahey: Yes, I do agree that in a large scale war thousands of DU rounds would be expended. But much of the current interest is about Kosovo, when about 32 times as much DU was shot in Kuwait and Iraq. Nearly one million DU rounds (large and small caliber) were fired during the ground war. No one warned the Iraqi civilians to stay away from contaminated tanks, and children in Kosovo and Iraq alike have played on destroyed tanks that may have been contaminated with DU.

Adults in both countries stripped usable equipment and scrap metal from destroyed equipment. DU did not become international news until some NATO soldiers became ill, but little is said about civilians in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Kuwait who may have been exposed.

Stripes: Are DU-hardened weapons being fired on ranges anywhere in the continental US? If so, where?

Fahey: Yes, DU rounds are fired at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland and Nellis Air Force Range in Nevada. In Nevada, the Air Force posts warning signs on tanks and decontaminates the tanks it shoots up with DU. The Air Force also cleans the range of DU annually.

At Aberdeen, the Army has just started a major clean up of the main DU range. This consists of sending workers wearing protective clothing into the area to remove tons of soil contaminated with DU. This soil is put in containers and shipped to Utah. Another site they used to shoot DU is Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana. At this site, which shut down in 1995, the estimated cost of cleaning up the DU ran from 1.5 to 5 billion dollars.

Instead of clean up, the site was declared a wildlife refuge, and a tall fence was put around it, and public access restricted. So, in the US, the military restricts public access, cleans up DU and/or fences it off, and decontaminates tanks shot with DU. Yet we go to foreign countries, shoot the same DU rounds, and then the Pentagon refuses to identify where DU was shot, refuses to warn civilians, refuses to fence the areas off, and refuses to clean up the contamination.

Stateside Cleanups

On top of that, the Pentagon denies anyone could possibly get sick from releasing tons of DU in and near populated areas. Funny, I never see Bernie Rostker talking about the decontamination and clean up that takes place at US sites where DU is shot.

Stripes: Where are these rounds manufactured?

Fahey:The rounds are manufactured by Primex Technologies and Aerojet Corp. These rounds are manufactured in Florida and Tennessee. Interestingly, the workers in Tennessee went on strike in 1980 because there were unsafe levels of DU dust in the plant. Sixty Minutes did a story about in 1981, I believe.

Stripes: Are the British the only other NATO folks that use DU weapons. If this is so, what similar weapons are being used by the non-DU forces? Tungsten?

Fahey:The French also have DU weapons, but they have never used them in combat. Other forces, such as the Germans, use tungsten alloy, which is equally as dense as DU, but it does not burn as DU does when it hits a target. They believe tungsten is sufficient against modern weaponry. I do not have an accurate list of the NATO countries that have DU munitions in their arsenals.

Stripes: Some have compared DU to a "weapon of mass destruction?" Hyperbole?

Fahey: I do not believe there is adequate evidence to support the assertion that DU is a weapon of mass destruction. While it may cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, placing it in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the link between DU and actual health problems among civilians has not been studied, so there is no evidence to support this assertion. Such claims about mass destruction are quickly dismissed as hyperbole, and the fact that DU causes local areas of contamination that pose a health risk to civilian populations is then overlooked.

Stripes: Do you think that there will ever be an attempt to clean-up Kosovo, etc., or is the expense prohibitive?

Fahey: If the cleanup expense is prohibitive, the US should not use DU ammunition. I think there will be some limited cleanup, as recommended by UNEP. In Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Navy violated its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license by shooting about 250 DU rounds. The Navy has recovered some of the rounds, and the NRC is making them go back and find them all.

If the Navy has to pick up all the DU rounds in Vieques, why not in Kosovo? At a minimum, all the DU impact sites need to be tested, clearly marked, and fenced off. Where the presence of DU poses a risk to humans or food or water supplies, now or in the future (as determined by UNEP or some independent body of scientists), the DU should be cleaned up, and the country that released the 10 tons of DU in Kosovo and 3 tons of DU in Bosnia should be held responsible for the cost.

Please post your comments below or email David Eberhart at
deberhart@stripes.com