Welcome to Peter Eyre's Space

Thank you for joining my space. The world is truly a remarkable and beautiful place but somehow we have lost our direction. Why can't we all get on together and live in peace? Why so much agression and no compassion or love for each other? Why do our leaders want to wage war in order to gain an economic advantage in controlling the natural resources of our planet? Why do such nations as the USA allow the manufacturing of weapons containing uranium components and yet profess that they are promoting disarmament? Who do they, the UK, European Countries and Israel insist in using these WMD's. I sincerely wanted to welcome you all in such a very nice and gentle way but I carry so much pain for the innocent men, women and children of past and current war zones that have sucumbed to these evil uranium weapons. We must all try to prohibit DU/EU or any other "Dirty Weapon" and learn to live in peace. We in the west have to close all bases that exist on Islamic soil and learn to trade instead of fighting. So I again welcome you to "Peter's Space" If you support war in any shape or form please do not enter my space. If you are a Christian Zionist or Jewish Zionist please do not enter my space. If however you are against war and any form of intimidation you are most welcome to take over my space.

Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Depleted Uranium - World Genocide - Part 5 Special

Could this man( Liam Fox) be implicated (by his own admission) in any future war crime

I am astounded at the knowledge base of some politicians that hold vital positions in our government. it is one thing for all those in power (all parties) to ignore the massive fraud/corruption that is being carried out by the corporate, banking and financial sectors in this country (but then maybe not as they themselves are involved), but on the other hand to disregard authentic evidence regarding depleted uranium and the harm it causes to innocent civilians around the world, including our own troops is totally unacceptable.

It so happens that a Scottish Member of Parliament, Dr Bill Wilson does have deep concerns (as I have always had) about the use of weapons that contain uranium components in any shape or form.

The world’s public must clearly understand that many many weapons today contain vast amounts of such things as depleted uranium. This can be in the form of a penetrator, shaped charged liners or simply as a counterweight in such weapons as cruise missiles.

We are not talking here about a few grams but rather amounting to many kilo's To give some sort of approximation a 105mm round would contain around 3.82kg of DU, 120mm between 4.12 and 4.63 kg, The round from an A10 or Harrier aircraft is 30mm and contains around .30kg. These rapid fire guns can fire approx 4,000 rounds per minute which equates to around 1.5 tons of DU per min. Then we step up dramatically with an assortment of missiles with the Cruise Missile containing around 360kg......even if we estimate a figure of around 1,000 Cruise missiles in the Balkans for example, that is equivalent of dumping highly radioactive waste at around 360,000 kg in their backyard. I know that many more than this were actually fired in the Balkans ( as I have the statistics) so one can imagine the contamination value and the fact that its half life is 4.5 billion years and can never be cleaned up.

I have a friend who comes from the area and every time he returns to England he tells me of the very high death rate from an assortment of cancers....especially in the young.......the village graveyards are packed to capacity and now they have to bury their loved ones in some other distant place.

As an example the minimum munitions used by tanks and aircraft during Gulf War 1 amounted to over 286,233 kg of depleted uranium....this was only in relation to tank shells and rounds fired by A10 & A16 aircraft, Harrier's, M1 & M1A, M60A3, Challenger tank and the Phalanx rapid fire guns aboard naval vessels. The latter were also eventually modified to operate from vehicles and trailers in Iraq etc. This does not take into account the larger amount of DU carried in missiles (especially cruise missiles) or the excessive amounts of DU carried in many bombs such as Bunker Buster's and JDAM bombs etc.

The impact of DU ammunition against a hard target creates a fine DU dust that contaminates the impact site. Large amounts of DU dust then drift downwind. Test data from the United States demonstrate that, normally, about 20 percent of a DU penetrator is aerosolized on impact with a tank. The impact of one 120 mm DU tank round could therefore create approximately 950 g of DU dust. During a single attack by an A-10aircraft shooting a burst of 30 mm ammunition, between five and 16 DU bullets will likely hit the target, creating300 to 960 g of aerosol. On must also bear in mind that as with all rapid fire guns many of the projectiles miss there target and embed themselves in soft ground or sand without even going off…….the creates a long term contamination of the land and water systems.

One example that comes to mind is when a DU round from an A10 aircraft lodged in the water supply that created ice for a district in the Balkans…..can one even imagine the spin off from this simply act………the water had been totally contaminated forever which then became ice, which in the summer is consumed in vast quantities. Perhaps now we can start to see the bigger picture as to how one small aspect of a war can expand into a catastrophe.

Below is the pathetic response from the not so Rt Hon Liam Fox - MoD who obviously is surrounded by misinformed advisers. Below that you will see the response from Dr Bill Wilson (MSP) who obviously takes a more compassionate view on this issue and is a stalwart in revealing the truth behind these weapons.

Telephone 020 7218 9000
Fax: 020 721 87140
E-mail: defencesecretary-group@mod.uk
Our ref: D/S of S/LF MC00767/2011

You ref: RES/BW 080211

February 2011

Thank you for your letter of 8 February about the health of Service personnel
and civilians exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU), and for the list of reference

I remain very conscious many people are concerned there is a link between the
use of DU ammunition and medical problems such as cancers and birth
defects. This is an issue taken very seriously by the Ministry of Defence
(MOD). The cases of illness reported in places such as Iraq are extremely
distressing especially when they affect children. However, I must stress that
DU has not been shown to present the health or environmental risks suggested.
None of the inquiries to date, including those quoted in your letter, has
documented long-term health or environmental effects attributable to DU

On the basis of reports by the Royal Society and others, the MOD does not
consider DU is 'safe'. It is hazardous {making the accepted health and safety
distinction here between a hazard and a risk). As a heavy metal (like lead), and
with radioactive properties, DU use, storage, handling, and environmental
considerations are governed by the Radioactive Substance Act 1993 and the
Ionising Radiation Regulations Act that came into effect on 1 January 2000.
These are part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 enforced by the
Health and Safety Executive.

The precautionary principle you advocate is manifest in our approach to
managing risk on the balance of likelihood and consequences.

On the issue of Service personnel health we have conducted several
investigations into the effects of DU. Some 3,400 Service personnel attended
the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme under which no evidence
of ill-health due to DU exposure has been found.

The UN General Assembly draft resolution you refer to calls for action by the
Secretary-General and UN member states based on the alleged harmful effects
of the use of DU munitions on health and the environment, The UK does not
support resolutions that presuppose DU is harmful.

The draft resolution requests states that have used DU in armed conflict to
provide information about its use. I hope you will be reassured to know the UK
has already provided details of this nature to inform studies and the work of the
UN, but it is up to each state to provide data at such a time and in such a
manner as it deems appropriate.

The Government's policy remains that DU can be used within weapons; it is not
prohibited under current or likely future international agreements.

UK armed forces use DU munitions in accordance with international humanitarian law. It
would be quite wrong to deny our serving personnel a legitimate capability.
I hope this information is useful to you

Please note that the original document on MoD letterhead is held on my file.

The following was received by email from Eris Swanepoel

MSP "astonished and confused" by Liam Fox's statement that depleted uranium neither safe nor harmful

Wednesday, 2 March, 2011 17:29



View contact details



Message contains attachments

2 Files (503KB) | Download All

• Fox_Liam_re_DU_220211.pdf

• Bill_Wilson_telephone.JPG

Liam Fox, Secretary of State for Defence, recently replied to a letter on depleted uranium (DU) from Bill Wilson MSP in which he informed him that whilst DU was not safe, neither did he consider it to be harmful (letter attached).

This has left Bill Wilson feeling slightly confused and he has challenged Liam Fox's view of DU in the letter below. Related previous releases may be found here: http/www.billwilsonmsp.com/index.php?option=com_search&Itemid=5&searchword=depleted+uranium&submit=Search&searchphrase=exact&ordering=newest.

A picture of Bill Wilson MSP is attached.

Best regards


Dr R. Eric Swanepoel

Office Manager/Researcher for Dr Bill Wilson MSP

Here’s Dr Bill Wilson’s response:

1 March 2011

The Right Honourable Liam Fox MP, Secretary of State for Defence

MOD Ministerial Correspondence Unit

5th Floor, Zone A

Main Building

Whitehall, London


Dear Mr Fox

The health of service personnel and civilians exposed to depleted uranium (DU)

Thank you for your letter of 22 February in response to mine of 8 February. I must admit to astonishment and confusion.

You state that no inquiries have documented long-term health or environmental effects attributable to DU. (To clarify things, we are, of course, referring to the uranium oxide generated when DU weapons are used.)

1) Why have you used the term "long-term" and how do you define it?

2) Do you deny that any health effects, resulting from exposure to DU (uranium oxide), have been documented? If so, how do you explain the coroner's report on Stuart Dyson (http/www.ngvfa.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?item=48&from=fp),
The Pension Appeal Tribunal Service hearing in Edinburgh regarding Kenny Duncan (http/www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/first-award-for-depleted-uranium-poisoningclaim-1.94325),
And the Italian Government's decision to pay considerable compensation (http/bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/154.html http/www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/306.html)(see my letters of 8 and 17 February)?

I attach a document by Col. J. Edgar Wakayama, of the US Department of Defense, titled "Depleted Uranium (DU) Munitions" (http/www.grassrootspeace.org/wakayama2.pdf). In it he states, amongst other things:

The alpha particle taken inside the body in large doses is hazardous producing:

o Cell damage and cancer,

Note: Lung cancer is well documented.

The beta particle is hazardous to the skin and the lens of the eyes

DU is chemically toxic:

o Due to heavy metal like lead,

o The target organ is the kidney and bone.

Urine samples containing uranium are mutagenic as determined by the Ames test.

The cultured human stem bone cell line with DU also transformed the cells to become carcinogenic.

Emerging environmental concerns include:

o A significant exposure to DU among children playing in the impact sites by ingesting heavily-contaminated soil,

o Slow leaching of DU in local water supplies over years,

o Consuming DU contaminated food sources(animals and plants).

He recommends:

a. Monitoring of kidney function and urine uranium levels among children, peacekeepers, and inhabitants.

b. Epidemiological monitoring of cancer incidents among soldiers surviving during friendly fire and soldiers working for protracted periods in heavily contaminated vehicles, including urine uranium testing, kidney function tests, and neurological evaluations.

3) Please specify what elements of the above you take issue with and explain why.

4) Are you monitoring any soldiers or civilians as recommended?

You state that the MoD does not consider DU to be safe but that the UK does not support resolutions "that presuppose that DU is harmful".

5) Can you explain this apparent contradiction? How can you believe it to be a hazard and, at the same time, attack resolutions that "presuppose" it to be harmful? Just what do you consider DU to be?

6) Why did the UK Government undertake to clean up DU in 2003 if it does not consider it to be harmful? (See attached BBC article. http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2970503.stm)

7) How are studies relating environmental contamination with DU to health effects supposed to be carried out if the UK does not support UN resolutions calling on state users of DU weapons to reveal where the weapons have been fired when countries affected by them ask for such information? You must understand that this gives the impression that the UK and its allies are deliberately refusing to release information on where and how much DU they have deployed in order to prevent epidemiological analysis, and so avoid responsibility for what would amount to a war crime.

In short, if you believe that DU is not harmful why can you not support UN resolutions calling on state users of DU weapons to reveal where the weapons have been fired when countries affected by them ask for such information? Such studies would, if you are correct, disprove any connection between the use of DU and ill health (such as cancers, birth deformities and miscellaneous genotoxic effects).

With regard to the provision of information regarding the use of DU, you state that "the UK has already provided details of this nature to inform studies and the work of the UN, but it is up to each state to provide data at such a time and in such a manner as it deems appropriate". In response, I would say that it is only "up to each state to provide data at such a time and in such a manner as it deems appropriate" because the UK and its allies consider that they have the right to withhold such information!

9) Has the UK revealed the full extent of its use of DU in all the theatres where it has been deployed, detailing all quantities and localities? If not, will you do so now? If not, why not?

You state, "Some 3,400 Service personnel attended the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme under which no evidence of ill-health due to DU exposure has been found".

10) If no one looked for the presence of and the effects of exposure to uranium oxide (and other substances produced by radioactive decay) then no evidence would have been found. Please provide full details of the above programme. How many people were examined and in what years? What tests/assessments were used and how many of each type were performed? In particular, what tests were used to detect residues of uranium and the products of its radioactive decay? How long after potential exposure were such tests carried out? Was genetic damage looked for? Can you provide me with a breakdown of the health profile of the people tested, i.e. how many skin complaints, kidney problems, bowel complaints, neurological complaints, cancers, joint problems, etc?

Your last two sentences are astounding: "UK armed forces use DU munitions in accordance with international humanitarian law. It would be quite wrong to deny our serving personnel a legitimate capability".

11) Can you confirm that you stand by these statements and that they were not made in error? Causing disproportionate civilian casualties is a crime against humanity. Uranium oxide dust is widely dispersed and therefore DU weapons are indiscriminate. There has long been significant evidence (provided even by the US military) of the potentia lfor DU weapons to cause significant health problems.

12) In light of the above, how can DU weapons be "legitimate" and how is their use in accord with international humanitarian law?


Dr Bill Wilson MSP
End of Dr Wilsons communications

Finally in closing I should not have to keep repeating the magnitude of the problem environmentally speaking or the magnitude of the problem on the health side,

What I will conclude with is the fact that these weapons in every sense of the world breach the Geneva Convention and anyone who thus knowingly uses them could constitute as being a war criminal.

I would also like to point out that many use the term to "Ban" such weapons from the world's arsenals. I would insist that the termology be changed to "Prohibit"

To summerise:

The contamination from such weapons does not stay within the area of conflict, but rather drifts on the wind to ever corner of the globe. It is killing million over a period of time in both the areas of conflict and also all other downwind countries.

One could extend this to the fact that when the US attacked Baghdad during "Shock and Awe" the contamination arrived on the shores of the UK within 10 days with alarming levels of radiation in the atmosphere.

It is fact that they are pumping into the atmosphere massive contamination. For example 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs

This is progressive slow genocide of gigantic proportions and makes the “Holocaust" appear miniscule by comparison.
What is ironic is the fact that the Israeli Government assisted in the development of such weapons and still do to this day and that some of their kinfolk also played a major role in their distribution (by illegal means).

It is also fact that due to the neglect of the US and the UK Governments at least 3 SRAM Nuclear Missiles (US) were stolen from under the eyes of the US and another 3 Battlefield Nuclear Bombs (ex South Africa) were stolen from under the eyes of the British Government (from their insecure compound in Oman)...with the added bonus of £17.8 million of British Tax Payer's money being siphoned off, that later was deposited into the Tory Party Election Fund?...see Hansard June 22 1993 from column 197.

One could ask our current PM about this because he was involved and maybe ask why Lord Hoyle and Margaret Beckett MP did not pursue this in the Houses of Parliament after they had raised the issue? Was it a case of "Too hot to handle?"..either way they are all guilty (and many many more Politicians) of violating the UN Embargo on South African and may also be pulled into an future inquiry on the missing nukes…..”That they all knew about but said nothing.”

They are in breach of the Nuclear Explosions Act 1998 and guilty of fraudulent activities, in receiving such money and could also be named in ongoing war crimes investigations as a result of their gross neglect and in taking our country to war for the wrong reasons and I might add with the wrong country!!

The acceptance in the use of the weapons named above also constitutes as being a war crime, not only against innocent civilians around the world but also against our own troops, knowing the danger's associated with such weapons.

To Dr Wilson - I thank you for your very brave effort in bringing this to the attention of the MoD but I would also insist that it be tabled in the House of Commons and also in the Scottish Parliament so that it is on record.

I will forward you the War Crimes Report that Leuren Moret and I are currently writing as evidence of the facts (as and when it is complete)

A Special thanks must go to all the other unsung heroes that fight the fight.... such people as Dr Chris Busby, Doug Rokke, Bob Nicholls and Leuren Moret etc....too many to mention.

Peter Eyre - Middle East Consultant - 6/3/2011 www.eyreinternational.com

No comments:

Post a Comment