ROME (CP) - NATO's unified defence of depleted uranium weapons developed some cracks recently with Italy's push to shelve the ammunition until more tests can prove the shells don't cause cancer.

Senior members of the Italian government, under pressure from the Green and Communist parties, have revised their thinking on the safety of depleted uranium and now believe more scientific testing needs to be done before the armour-piercing ammunition is used again.

"The issue has taken a serious turn and the alarm caused is more than legitimate," Italian Premier Giuliano Amato recently told the newspaper La Repubblica.

Despite assurances from NATO that the weapons don't cause cancer, Amato wasn't convinced.

"Now we fear things may not be so simple," he said.

Falco Accame, a former member of the Italian parliament, is among those leading the battle in Italy to ban the use of depleted weapons, fearing the toll on civilian populations and soldiers is too great.

He wonders why, if the shells are safe, soldiers have now been told to wear gloves and masks in dealing with sites that may be contaminated with depleted uranium.

"This is the main contradiction in the governments who say there is no risk," he said in an interview.

Accame, once chairman of the Italian parliament's defence committee and a former navy captain, works with soldiers and their families who believe they may have developed cancer because of their contact with depleted uranium.

In Italy, at least six soldiers have died of cancer since serving in the Balkans, five of them from leukemia. Thirty others have complained of health problems they believe are linked to their exposure.

In France, four soldiers are being treated for leukemia and a group of Belgian soldiers have announced they will sue their government because of health problems allegedly stemming from service in the Balkans.

Accame said the Italian government should have followed the U.S. and at least equipped its soldiers with proper masks, clothing and gloves when questions were first raised about the safety of the shells, favoured by military commanders because they can pierce heavy armour.

"Italy didn't give any safety precautions to military people," he said.

"At least the U.S. (in the Balkans) did something. We didn't do anything for our soldiers."

But the only solution, he said, is to ban the use of the ammunition, especially since civilian populations have no way to protect themselves.

Attempts by Italy to get a moratorium on the use of the ammunition failed at a meeting of NATO last month. The British army, meanwhile, began using the ammunition again this week at a firing range in Scotland, despite some local opposition.

The debate over the ammunition is perplexing, with a body of scientific opinion firmly stating that depleted uranium poses no risk to human health.

About 300 tonnes of depleted uranium was fired in the Persian Gulf War. Nine tonnes was used by NATO in Kosovo and three tonnes in Bosnia.

Depleted uranium is used in anti-tank munitions because it is heavy and hard, allowing it to punch through armour. No nuclear fission is involved in use of the shells, dubbed the Silver Bullet by the Pentagon in the 1990s.

But some fear the impact causes pieces of the metal to be vaporized into dust, which could be dangerous if inhaled or ingested. Scientists are split on this theory.

The British government has offered to test soldiers who fear their health has been damaged by exposure to depleted uranium, despite assurances that if the shells are handled properly, they present no danger to soldiers.

Canada's Defence Department announced recently that of the thousands of Canadians who served in the Gulf War and in the former Yugoslavia over the last decade, 104 have asked to be tested as a result of the depleted uranium scare.

A United Nations study of rounds of depleted uranium fired by NATO warplanes in Kosovo two years ago found that the ammunition contained deadly plutonium but at "very low" levels that pose no health risks.

And a King's College study of 4,000 British peacekeepers who served in Bosnia reported no difference in the health problems they experienced compared with troops who were not deployed to the Balkan country or the Gulf.