I read the article "Disinformation and depleted uranium" by Tadit Anderson with interest, as I've just completed a course in radiation protection for biomedical use here in France. As usual for the articles posted at the Free Press, I found it very well-written and agree with the author's conclusions about the cynical use of this radioelement (although I have not followed the Ohio discussions about this issue).

I simply wanted to correct a tiny error that made it in, relative to two quotes (but it relates to a very common misconception):

"when the particles are embedded in living tissue, it can do considerable damage to the adjacent cells and their molecular components including the genetic codes of the nucleic acids which will release cancers and cause birth defects."

and

"U.S. soldiers who have been medically harmed by their exposure to "depleted" uranium weapon contamination, have contributed to medical harm to their partners, and have by their contamination experienced a high level of genetic birth defects among their children."

The underlying assumption that would be made by pretty much anyone is that the birth defects mentioned in both quotes are due to exposure of a parent's germ cells, and transmission of mutated DNA to the egg/sperm and thereby to the unborn child.

In fact, this has never been shown to be true, even for the large and largely exposed population at Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Observed birth defects due to radioactivity of any sort have only ever been proven to be due to direct exposure of the unborn child (through exposure of the pregnant woman, of course). No genetic transmission has (to date) been demonstrated, even on very large populations of unwittingly exposed people.

So, a US soldier who is pregnant herself and exposed to uranium, could certainly seek justice on the basis of giving birth to a child with a birth defect. However, a male US soldier can not. One must keep in mind that about 3% of births are subject to "defects" of varying degrees under normal circumstances, but we notice them more if there is a question of exposition to radioactivity. By the same logic, it is not very accurate to say that the soldier harms his/her partner, given the very short range of alpha particle transmission, unless they are making organ donations between them.

In any case, it is in the interest of keeping the overall argument strong that I point out these little quibbles that could distract the general public in the case of a disinformation campaign, so they can be corrected ahead of time.

Best wishes,
Heather Etchevers, Ph.D.