The Syndicate of Chemists in Lebanon (SCL) warned yesterday that the extent of destruction and the depth of damage to buildings and the ground confirms the use of internationally banned bombs containing depleted uranium by Israeli forces, warning of the risk of contracting many diseases as a result of inhaling the dust caused by the bombing.
It said in a “very important warning” that it condemns “the barbaric aggression against civilians in Lebanon and the massacres being committed against the Lebanese people,” noting that the warning aims “to raise awareness about the effects of inhaling the dust from Israeli bombings in several Lebanese areas.”
“The extent of destruction and the penetration of buildings and ground by dozens of metres is evidence of the use of bombs containing depleted uranium, which has tremendous penetrating power,” it added.
The SCL stressed that “the use of such types of internationally banned weapons, especially in densely populated Beirut, leads to massive destruction, and their dust causes many diseases, especially when inhaled.”
The SCL called on “the international community to stop the aggression against Lebanon, and to stop the use of internationally banned bombs.”
It also called on the Lebanese state to file a lawsuit with the UN Security Council “against the violations taking place on Lebanese soil and the attempted mass killings of innocent civilians.”
Citizens, it added, should not “approach the bombed areas within a radius of more than two kilometres,” while those forced to approach these areas must “wear protective clothing”.
The SCL confirmed that it “closely monitors the enemy’s use of internationally banned weapons.”
The most prominent use of these anti-fortification bombs was during the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on 27 September, in addition to attempts to kill his successor, Hashem Safieddine.
Israel has killed 1,204 people in Lebanon since it launched its most vicious attack on the country in nearly 20 years on 23 September. More than 1.2 million have been displaced.
To poison the land and the people.
It's the only reason to use DU anything for any reason. Even if used against "heavy armor" the knock-on effect of poisoning the land and its people are desired. It's the modern version of salting the earth. It's the same reason Agent Orange was used in Vietnam. The key difference here is that Agent Orange had no real technical use case. It was being used as Ecocide, in an attempt to destroy the forest cover being used at the time. It's not like Agent Orange was somehow dealing with a new form of tank armor, besides, it was an aerosol spray that blanketed an area. Now, however, we have this convenient technical application, which is penetrating "heavy armor" mech units. The ammunition is tipped with DU, and the US regularly says it has not seen trustworthy evidence that the resulting impact leaves enough DU to cause health issues. It's clear that zero care is made in ensuring minimal ecological damage is done by these munitions, though, as there are many studies of battle zones that show an uptick in cancer rates and birth defects.
The DU bombs have even less legs to stand on. What does a DU bomb do that a conventional bomb couldn't do when targeting residential structures? Trying to justify its use is equivalent to trying to justify the use of Agent Orange. These buildings are not hardened targets, they're apartment complexes, hospitals, and schools. That alone should raise red flags for most, but it doesn't. Even if it doesn't make you pause, the use of DU bombs on those targets, I would hope, would make you pause.
Did you read your own source? Pretty much every conclusion on Gulf War veterans says that there is insufficient evidence that DU negatively affected their health. This is probably not the best source to use if you want to illustrate the negative effects of DU exposure on human health.
The only possible conclusion you can draw from this is that DU exposure makes you worse at using a computer or any automated testing system, while still being proficient at pen and paper tests. Which is a bit absurd.
I think a much better idea for a study would be to study the long term effects of DU on civilian populations, which would have a much more long term exposure to any Uranium Oxide dust lingering in the air and soil for years afterwards, as well as exposure to intact DU ammunition that missed the target. It is estimated that 90% of DU rounds fired from Gatling guns or chain guns on aircraft and helicopters miss. Looking at cancer rates in warzones after the war is over, for example.
I agree that the US is covering up the adverse health effects of DU. It certainly cannot be healthy to be exposed to a mildly radioactive toxic heavy metal. It should be banned internationally in weapons manufacturing. It's just that there are a lot of people who also spread FUD making absurd claims about the amount of DU in weapons or comparing them to nuclear weapons or enriched uranium, which is very unhelpful. There is no need for that, when the facts are already enough to make a strong argument for banning DU.