UNMIK/FR/006/01
FEATURE RELEASE - 19 January, 2001

Depleted uranium: More media hype than science

On Monday four specialists from the World Health Organization (WHO) will begin assessing public health aspects of depleted uranium (DU) residues at the 112 sites where NATO used DU-tipped weapons during its 78-day bombing campaign in 1999.

Invited by UNMIK, which is taking the DU issue seriously in the context of international concern over possible risks, they will examine all existing information from a health and environment perspective and make recommendations accordingly. Other Administration measures include:

- Secondment of a WHO staff member to coordinate all non-military health activities related to DU, and to liaise with all national and international bodies with a direct interest in the DU issue.
 
- Forming a committee of Kosovar medical experts on cancer (with emphasis on leukaemia), heavy metal poisoning and radiation.

- A public information campaign to inform Kosovars on what is known about DU and to explore possible links between illnesses, leukaemia especially, and ingestion of DU dust.

- Requesting TMK members to fence off and put up notices at identified sites with the wording: CAUTION - AREA MAY CONTAIN RESIDUAL HEAVY METAL TOXICITY - ENTRY NOT ADVISED.

- Requesting specific advice and assistance from organizations concerned with environmental issues regarding long-term initiatives.

UNMIKand NATO problems are different. While NATO is having to justify to the world its deployment of DU munitions, and to explain more precisely its consequences for troops and civilian populations,UNMIK obligation is to sensitize Kosovo residents to the potential dangers in areas where such munitions were used. Outside Kosovo furor prevails and confusion reigns among European governments (and even more in their media) over the use of DU weapons in principle. Inside, many accept DU as collateral damage sustained in a war about crimes against humanity. Or they ignore the risks, if they exist, altogether.

UNMIK believes that at the very least, sensible precautions for DU are required, as already taken for land mines and unexploded ordnance, and with respect touranium heavy metal cousin, lead. This means greater understanding of the possible threat level to civilian populations, for example in disabled tanks where DU shells may have exploded and its toxic, mildly radioactive dust may still persist as a result.

Dust: the real hazard
Firstly we must differentiate between dust and lumps of metal. DU, as manufactured,  is metallic and is handled industrially like lead. Workers wear protective clothing, especially gloves, and are directed to wash frequently. Thus, keeping a piece of DU metal at home as a war souvenir is a bad idea.

Unlike lead, DU is radioactive, but only mildly so. Its alpha rays are easily stopped, even by human skin or a sheet of paper.  Otherwise DU itself would not be used as a shielding material, to protect people against stronger  radiationClike gamma and X-rays in medical radiotherapy units and during transport of radioisotopes. Because its density (1.7 times that of lead), it is also widely used as counterweights in airplanes and in boat keels.

As with lead,DU hazards are potentially much greater when in dust form, when it can be breathed in, eaten or passed into the body through open wounds. And dust, unfortunately, is what results from DU-tipped shells when the military fires them into solid objects such as armoured tanks. The DU burns at 10,000 C and converts to dust particles that are easily ingested or inhaled.

So far, so uncontroversial. The scientific disagreements are over DUdust impact on human health. Complex and insufficiently studied, the effects are assumed to follow similar, but less deleterious, patterns to natural uranium. The complexity stems from the chemical form of the DU entering the body and the resulting combination of chemical and radiological mechanisms. The health effects depend on the route and magnitude of the exposure, and the physical and chemical characteristics of the DU dust itself.

Adding to the problems of scientifically assessing the incremental risks from DU dust, nearly all of us have some exposure to uranium and have some uranium already inside us. The top 1 metre of earthcrust contains on average between 2 and 8 tons of uranium per square kilometre. Thus, the 9.3 tons dropped by NATO during the bombing campaign (9.3. tons) could have at least have doubled that average exposure but only if the DU residues were evenly distributed all over the territory, which they were not.

As result of normal intakes of food, air and water from the normal environment, our bodies contain, on average about 90 Fg of uranium. Two thirds resides in our bones, one sixth in our livers, one twelfth in our kidneys. If we did take in some uranium dust, over 95 per cent of the chemical uranium would be excreted directly. And of the amount absorbed in the blood, two thirds would be filtered in the kidney and excreted in urine within 24 hours. The remainder would follow a pattern similar to lead: assuming no further exposure, half the amounts taken up by the kidney, bones and liver would be excreted in urine over periods of 6 to 12 months.

How dangerous?
Depleted uranium has already had most of its highly radioactive component (U-235) removed. This leaves it about half as radioactive as the natural product. Its alpha rays are also the least harmful form of atomic radiation. They do not even pass through external skin layers.

Internal body parts are of course more susceptible. Alpha rays do attack lung tissue, blood and other organs and would increase the risk of cancer in those organs. The cancer risk from low exposure levels, however, is thought to be very low. To date, WHO reports no adverse health effects have been established by epidemiological studies of internal exposure to radiation due to ingestion and inhalation of DU particles. Even in war zones, under the worst conditions shortly after impact, the radiation exposure from the maximum amount of dust that could be inhaled would be about half the annual dose limit permitted for radiation workers.

But, as a heavy metal, uranium is also chemically toxic. It causes kidney damage in experimental animals; evidence suggests that long-term exposure may damage kidney functions in humans. Indications would be increased glucose and protein levels in urine.

The danger in Kosovo therefore depends where and who you are. The bombing campaign will have increased the DU dust risks, but only for people living or moving in the 112 areas in the West and South where NATO planes fired at tanks. Unlike the Gulf region, where DU munitions were anyway used in much larger quantities, rains will have carried much of the dust into the soil. Prevented from blowing about, DU dust is a far lower risk for civilians living nearby. Any problem, if one exists, would probably be confined to water wells close to DU sites, experts say.

In the sites themselves, a UNEP investigating team looking at 10 per cent of the sites found only slightly elevated radioactivity at eight of them. The radiation risk was characterized as being less than that from have a tooth X-rayed. 

To summarize: science has been unable to provide specific answers regarding the health consequences from contact with depleted uranium. Any risks within Kosovo are probably slight, confined to known areas which are now being sign-posted to warn the general public.

UNMIK action to form a working group of Kosovar specialists reflects the need to reassure more than nervous concern.

Contact: P. Ellwood
(038) 504 604 Ext. 5471
ellwood@un.org
Public Health