Uranium is toxic and can cause chemical poisoning in the same way as lead, for example. Uranium is also radiologically hazardous. The burn on impact and this produces very small particles which can be inhaled and which emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

Why are they used?
Uranium 238 is a very dense and hard substance. This increases the penetration power of bullets. They can open holes in thick iron plates. They are therefore made to penetrate tanks, for example.

The material burns at very high temperatures.

The material is cheap because it is a waste product.

How does it work
Essentially there are the following issues with Uranium weapons:

First, they can penetrate thick and hard materials. It is therefore often argued that they are not intended to kill people, just to disable their tanks. However, people tend to be in the tanks.

When the material impacts is vaporised and it condenses into very fine particles. They can enter the airways quickly but they stay in the respiratory system for long periods of time. They can then leach into the system. They are acutely toxic, both chemically and radiologically.

However, and despite the considerable evidence of the toxicity of these weapons, there are still those who would argue that there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove the causal connection between uranium weapons and the ill health effects experienced both by military personnel exposed to them and their families and by civilian populations in the areas in which theses weapons have been used.

Who do these weapons affect
Clearly, they affect military personnel who are exposed to them in combat situations. They also affect civilian populations in areas where they are used.

As the particles are airborne, these areas are wider than just the immediate area around the impact site.

There have been uses of uranium weapons in residential areas.

They can also affect the people who make and who transport them.

The impact – the example of Basra
Dr. Jawad Al Ali, an oncologist from Basra gave a very clear and impressive presentation of the impact of these weapons. He demonstrated through statistics that the incidence of a number of cancers had risen significantly in Basra in the wake of the first Gulf war when Uranium weapons were used there. There was, for example a 9 fold increase in cancer among children in Basra between 1990 and 2003. There is also evidence that children are worse affected than adults because they are still growing. Both the statistics and the images of the people affected are very powerful indeed.

Legal Issues
The question is: are Uranium Weapons illegal under currently established law, and if so, under what established law. We had an excellent presentation on the legal issues which introduced us to the range of law that needs to be considered in terms of whether these weapons are illegal or whether there is any cause for action for those affected and against whom.

This is a complex area involving, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international environmental law, disarmament law and international labour standards.

In terms of international humanitarian law in so far as it relates to the conduct of hostilities (rather than to States’ responsibilities for violations during the conflict) the key question is: ‘Is the use of uranium weapons a matter of military necessity?’

Both the UK and the US, both of whom use uranium weapons argue that it is a military necessity because they are cheap and because they provide higher levels of pilot safety (because of their power of penetration they can be fired from further away and thus the pilots are not at as high a risk of being shot down).

But there is a difference between military necessity and military advantage and in this area is where the disagreement lies.

There is scope for pursuing the legal arguments with regard to individuals affected by these weapons. However, in the long term, only a total ban on their use will stop their effects. An intermediate step might be to argue for a moratorium on their use until some of the available evidence has been scientifically analysed and conclusions have been drawn.

That is, if the pictures of children affected by a whole range of cancers much earlier in their lives than would be expected on the basis of average incidences of such illnesses are not enough.

Who pays for these weapons
Theses weapons are relatively inexpensive because they are made, in part, from waste products that would otherwise be hard to dispose of.

However, the manufacturers of such weapons need funding and the question is: where does this come from?

The Belgian network of NGOs, led by Netwerk Vlaanderen, have undertaken detailed and in-depth research into five of the leading banks in Belgium and their financing of what might be called ‘controversial weapons’. These include cluster bombs, landmines, nuclear weapons and uranium weapons.

They found that all 5 banks were involved in financing these types of weapons and they campaigned hard against that. We heard about the various aspects of the campaign and we were informed that 4 of the 5 banks have now changed their policies (at least to some extent) in relation to financing these types of weapons. The battle has not been won with all of them completely, and of course there are many other banks who may or may not still be financing such weapons production, but it is important to see that grass roots consumer action can work.

Serving Service Men and Women are also affected
We heard from a spokesperson of EUROMIL, the European Organisation of Military Associations, that his organisation has now adopted a position on Depleted Uranium (DU).

EUROMIL's position focuses on the recognition of long-term implication of the health of soldiers performing duties where DU has been used. EUROMIL urges governments to guarantee the safety and protection of soldiers in areas where DU munition has been used. This includes full medical screening of troops before, during, and after missions, the identification of areas in which DU has been used and regular environmental impact assessments of contaminated areas. DU weapons have so far been employed in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

The position of the European Parliament
A number of MEPs spoke eloquently about their own experience of visiting hospitals in Basra and seeing at first hand the effects of these weapons. One MEP also spoke in detail about the specific scientific issues which make these weapons so toxic and so dangerous.

In response to the presentation of Dr. Jawad Al Ali, Caroline Lucas, MEP, The Greens/European Free Alliance commented:

‘I wish Tony Blair and George Bush had been here to see what we have seen and hear what we have heard, because I defy anybody to see and hear this and still argue the validity of the use of these weapons.’

And she went on to say:

‘If we could put this kind of evidence in front of the general public, they would be outraged that this is done in their name.’

The European Parliament has passed several resolutions on this and related matters, the last of which was passed on 13 February 2003 in which it