"Nuclear Genocide? Piercing Depleted Uranium Myths," by Ronald Bailey
One of the more hysterical claims of the Left in recent years is that the United States, because it used anti-tank shells made with depleted uranium (DU) to expel Iraq from Kuwait, has caused numerous and massive birth defects in Iraqi babies. People such as the playwright Harold Pinter claim that many Iraqi babies have been born horribly deformed with blood gushing from every orifice.

Pinter claimed that radiation levels in Iraq are extremely high and I countered that it seems absurd that an anti-tank shell, even hundreds of them, could raise the general radiation level in an area the size of Iraq. Also, if there are deformities among babies how come they're not being reported in Kuwait? After all, we expelled Iraq from Kuwait and many of the shells would have landed in Kuwait.

Well, it turns out we both missed the issue with the anti-tank shells. It's not radiation levels -- I was right about that -- but the DU dust that comes off the shell as it pierces the tank. Unlike standard anti-tank munitions, an anti-tank shell becomes sharper as it pierces the tank. In the process DU dust is spread within about a 50-yard radius of the impact area.

So, does the dust from these shells lead to cancers and birth defects in babies as Pinter suggests? The evidence says no. Iraq started making the claim of birth defects several years ago and when the World Health Organization (WHO) offered to investigate, Iraq refused to allow it. There have been studies done and none have concluded that DU causes birth defects or leads to an increased risk of cancer. The Pentagon thinks, as pointed out below, that Iraq simply wanted the shells outlawed so they wouldn't have to face them in a war again.

It still amazes me that some people such as Pinter, Pilger and Chomsky will believe any nonsense spouted by Iraq -- a closed society where information is under state control -- but won't believe our own government -- which is open to public scrutiny -- even when studies are done to back up their assertions. I can only conclude that they have made up their minds that the United States is evil and will accept, unthinkingly, any suggestion that supports their thesis.

"The United States has conducted two nuclear wars. The first is against Japan in 1945, the second in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991." So declares activist Helen Caldicott in a half-page ad placed by a Japanese anti-nuclear group in the March 24 New York Times. If you didn't hear about the Persian Gulf Hiroshima, it's because she's actually referring to depleted uranium (DU) munitions. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark says that these "are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on human dignity." Using them results in a "deterioration of genetic health" and "genocide," declares anti-nuke activist Tim Judson. The Green Party claims that they are "the likely cause of numerous health problems in thousands of Gulf War veterans and their families, including cancer, leukemia, tumors, and high rates of birth defects because of genetic damage."

DU is 1.7 times denser than lead, and munitions encased in it are self-sharpening, enabling them to drill 25 percent further through armor. (Armor-piercing tungsten alloy munitions, by contrast, blunt and mushroom when they hit.) This self-sharpening process produces DU dust, most of which falls to the ground within 50 yards of its impact. Such weapons are used most frequently against enemy tanks. DU is also used to clad many U.S. armored vehicles, thus making them largely impenetrable to conventional anti-tank munitions. It is also used for counterweights in airplanes to help keep them level, and as radiation shielding to protect health care workers from exposure to medical X-rays.

DU is a by-product—activists would say a waste product—of the process of separating the highly fissionable U-235 isotope out of uranium to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. It is called "depleted" because most of the lighter uranium isotopes, U-234 and U-235, are removed from natural uranium, leaving behind uranium consisting of 99.8 percent of U-238. The result is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium.

[....]

If DU is not notably harmful to human health or the environment, why the fierce opposition to it? A lot of it has to do with conventional anti-nuclear activism: Some people automatically object to anything that hints of nuclear radiation. Second, some of the opposition is the result of a successful Iraqi disinformation campaign claiming that exposure to DU had caused thousands of cancers and birth defects to innocent civilians. When the WHO offered to investigate the claims, Iraqi officials flatly refused the offer. Other than trying to gain international sympathy, Pentagon officials argue that one of the real aims of the Iraqi campaign was to get DU munitions outlawed internationally so they would not have to face them again.