Center for American and Arab Studies

The US has announced that it is sending depleted uranium (DU) anti-tank rounds to the Ukrainians.  This follows Britain’s announcement that they are sending DU ammunition to Ukraine too.

The DU rounds were developed by NATO countries during the Cold War in order to neutralize the advantage of Soviet tanks in a possible tank war in Europe.

Using DU to defeat tank armor isn’t a new idea.  Interest in it began over 50 years ago as engineers tried to find a new way to tank armor.  One advantage of DU is that it is twice as heavy as lead (the heavier the metal, the higher the kinetic energy and the better it is to penetrate armor).  And, instead of the point of the anti-tank round mushrooming out as it hits a hard armor, it retains its sharp point as it burrows its way into the tank armor.  Although the data on DU munitions is classified, it appears to be 40% more powerful than tungsten penetrators.

There is also a large stockpile of DU since it is a byproduct of separating the uranium isotope U-235 from natural uranium, which is used in producing nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor rods.  In fact, in 1998, the US Department of Energy had half a million tons of DU.  Since only 10 tons of DU were used in Kosovo and 320 tons in the Gulf War, the military is hardly running out of material.

However, DU use isn’t limited to the UK and US.  Russia has DU munitions stockpiles although there is no proof that it is being used in Ukraine.  France, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India, and Taiwan have DU munitions.

DU is also used as ballast in aircraft, helicopters, and ships.  And, ironically, it is used as radiation shielding.

Is DU Toxic?

DU is radioactive.  However, since DU has the more radioactive uranium isotope, U-235 removed, it is only 40% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium.

The radioactivity of DU is deemed less hazardous than natural uranium.  Most of the radioactivity is alpha and beta radiation.  Alpha radiation is unable to penetrate clothing.  Beta radiation can’t penetrate human skin.  Unless the DU penetrates the bone marrow, it is relatively harmless.  A 2016 UN Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation found, “limited significant poisoning was caused by exposure to depleted uranium.”

Of course, the risk depends on the state of the DU.  Unfired penetrator rods are covered with a shielding that stops alpha and beta radiation.  It is more hazardous after it has hit the target.

Uranium burns in the presence of heat and oxygen, leaving uranium oxides.  If they are inhaled, they end up in the lungs, where most of it is collected by mucus and is eventually expelled out of the body.  They can also be ingested or enter the body through a cut.  That’s why soldiers and civilians should avoid destroyed tanks until they are neutralized by decontamination.

Collecting souvenirs of destroyed tanks is dangerous as the expended munitions are unprotected and radioactive particles can remain on the skin.

Fortunately, uranium and uranium oxides are non-soluble, which means it will not contaminate the ground water.  Since the range of the radioactivity is limited, the threat to growing food at the site is also limited.

Although many analysts are concerned about DU’s threat, it is less than many of the explosives used on the battlefield.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared TNT – a frequent military explosive – a pollutant whose removal is priority. The EPA maintains that TNT levels in soil should not exceed 17.2 gram per kilogram of soil and 0.01 milligrams per liter of water.

Areas where there have been major artillery battles exceed these levels.

Most explosives are persistent and can remain for  years in soil and groundwater.  And, while TNT tends to remain in the soil at the blast site, RDX and HMX tend to migrate into the groundwater.  Another problem with TNT and RDX is that bacteria in the soil can’t easily break them down into safer byproducts.

Detonators for high explosives pose additional problems because they contain heavy metals.  A frequent detonator ingredient is lead azide.  The delay elements consist of various chemicals, mainly lead oxide, silicon, antimony, and potassium permanganate.

DU has contaminated many battlefields in Iraq and Syria, to mention two.

Is there any way to clean up the contaminants?

The conventional way is to dig up the contaminated dirt and isolate it.  However, there are new possibilities like phytoremediation.

Phytoremediation uses a type of plant called hyperaccumulators.  These plants naturally accumulate high levels of toxic materials found in the soil as they grow.  In nature, this process protects the plant by killing insects, fungi, and molds that threaten them.  It also discourages larger, plant eating animals by making them sick.  As a result, the animalsgive them a wide berth.

Today environmental experts use this natural mechanism to treat explosives contaminated sites.  Tobacco plants are being used to degrade organic explosives like TNT and yellow poplar saplings can collect mercury compounds at sites that used mercury for detonators.

One successful example was the use of sunflowers to remove radioactive contaminants from pond water at Chernobyl.

Other plants that can accumulate compounds used in explosives are geraniums (Benzene and other hydrocarbons), Bermuda Grass (hydrocarbons), and pine trees (organicsolvents).  White Rot Fungus, although not as attractive, is effective against compounds used in explosives like toluene and benzene.

Despite the attractiveness of phytoremediation, it does have its limitations.  It is not a fast process and takes a commitment of many seasons before contamination levels are reduced to a safe level.  The process is also limited to the ability of the roots to reach the contamination.  However, for those places where it works, it is a more attractive alternative to traditional striping and storing of contaminated soil.

The environmental threat isn’t limited to DU.  When the Ukraine War ends, cleaning up the contamination of warfare will be a must, especially in and around the farming communities.

Sixty years ago, during the early days of post colonialism, unrest was rampant in Africa.  Names like the Congo, Katanga, Uganda, Angola, Biafra, and Rhodesia were common names in the news as armies and mercenary groups roamed the continent.

Finally, a degree of peace came about.  The biggest issue, the apartheid of South Africa was eliminated, and democratic elections were held.  Other nations also held elections that were “sort of” democratic.

Although Africa had problems, it seemed that they were heading in the right direction.  African organizations were formed that would try to solve African problems rather than relying on Western nations.

One of those “sort of” democratic nations was Gabon, an oil rich nation in Central Africa.  Elections were held, but the same family, the Bongo’s, had held power for five decades.  However, that changed last week.  Soldiers ousted President Ali Bongo Ondimba in a well-executed coup and put him under house arrest.

This followed the coup a couple of weeks ago in Niger.

Suddenly, African leaders started looking towards their own security.  Hours after the Gabon coup appointed a new leader, the President of Cameroon, Paul Biya, shuffled his military leadership lest they overthrow his 40-year regime.

In Rwanda, President Paul Kagame forced nearly 100 senior military officers out of power.

Meanwhile, America’s National Security Council refused to call events in Gabon and Niger a trend that needed to be addressed.

However, it does appear to be a trend and the US appears to be unprepared for it.  When US Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland travelled to South Africa, one of the host diplomats noted Nuland and her team were completely unprepared to deal with recent events in Africa.

“In over 20 years working with Americans, I have never seen them so desperate,” said an official at the SA meetings.

“She was “totally caught off guard by the winds of change engulfing the region.”  Nuland sought South African help, especially in Niger, which has been an American ally in the war on terror.

It appears that the winds of change are coming, and they shouldn’t have been a surprise.  In 2022, there were two coups in Burkina Faso, one in Guinea Bassau (failed), Gambia, Sao Tome, and Principe.

In 2021, there were six coup attempts in Africa, of which four were successful.  Obviously, there are a historical number of coup attempts as the average since the end of colonialism in the 1950s has only been 3 per year.

Half of them have been successful.

Since 2000, the rate of successful military coups in Africa had remained stable according to studies by Central Florida and Kentucky Universities.  The number of failed coups has dropped as African Senior military officers have attended military schools in the West, China, and Russia, and have become more professional and competent.

Although Africa is the leader in coups, it is Central Africa where most coups have been attempted.

Since the end of colonialism, Sudan has the record of coups and coup attempts at 17.  These have been driven by the tensions between north and South Sudan.  Burundi comes in second with 11, thanks to the tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi communities.

In the last five years, every coup (18) but one has been in Africa.

In 2021, UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez said that “military coups are back…a sense of impunity is taking hold.”

Many of the coups have happened in former French colonies.  In fact, the coup in Gabon is the eighth in the past three years.  Since 1990, 78% of the coups in sub-Saharan Africa have taken place in nations that were once part of France’s African empire.

This is a fact that hasn’t been missed and many think French post-colonial practices are partially to blame.

The economies of former French colonies are tied to the CFA (Central African Franc), which is tied to the Euro and guaranteed by France.  This ties their economies and natural resource sales to France and its companies.  On the positive side, the CFA makes imports and export easier since it is tied to the Euro.

The negative is that the African nations can’t manage their own economy.

France has also signed multiple agreements that allow French soldiers to remain in the countries long after independence.  That encouraged national leaders to remain pro-France.  It also allowed corruption as the African leadership remained in power thanks to the threat of French military intervention.

One of the first moves by the Niger junta was to cancel five military agreements with the French.

Earlier, Burkina Faso, signed an agreement with France that calls for the removal of all French Troops.

One problem is that French troops can no longer provide stability.  Despite considerable funding and soldiers, the French have been unable to defeat Islamic rebellions in the Sahel region.

France isn’t the only problem.  Each country that had a coup had some local issue that sparked the coup.  Niger had a coup when it appeared that several senior military officers were to be removed.  Thus, it wasn’t only a coup to “empower the poor masses,” as claimed, but also an attempt to protect elite military leadership.  That isn’t unusual in Africa.

Another fact must be considered is the growing Chinese and Russian influence.

China has been building up Africa infrastructure in the past few years.  In the last two decades, China has invested $155 billion in Sub-Saharan countries.

That offers a challenge to Western nations that they were incapable of facing.

Russia is also seeking African nations that will endorse its war with Ukraine in return for military support.  Mali also has a close relationship with the Wagner Group, who has assisted the government against insurgents.

Africa remains a continent with rich, untapped natural resources.  But the major powers have yet to figure out how to create a stable region that protects its citizens, while letting them benefit from that wealth.

Clearly, the French and Americans haven’t figured it out.

Despite criticism from several nations and environmental groups, Japan began releasing radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean this month.  The water is from the Fukushima nuclear reactor which was damaged by a tsunami in March 2011.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency has okayed the release of one million tons of water used to cool the damaged reactor, China and Hong Kong have threatened to prevent the import of Japanese seafood.

Japan insists that the water has been filtered and the radioactive isotopes have been removed.  Nuclear protestors like Greenpeace insist that the remaining radioactive isotope, Tritium, can’t be easily removed.

So, who is right?  Has the water been neutralized so it will not impact nations on the Pacific Rim?  Or are we witnessing a case of radioactive pollution?

For years, nuclear reactors were scheduled for decommissioning due to their radioactive waste and the threat of major accidents.  However, the attempt to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like solar and wind energy caused a major problem.  Electric power plants that used fossil fuels were closing due to their carbon emissions.  Meanwhile, nuclear energy was providing a smaller percentage of power.

Unfortunately, renewable energy sources were unable to take up the slack and there wasn’t enough electricity to meet demand.

Suddenly, nuclear power became attractive again.  It produced much less waste than fossil fuel plants and had a smaller footprint than the conventional electric power plant industry, which also needed large coal mines.  The anti-nuclear policy had lost its appeal and pro-nuclear policies had regained its momentum.

Anti-nuclear protestors like Greenpeace highlighted the Fukushima radioactive wastewater release in order to regain the momentum on eliminating nuclear power.

One of the arguments was that the water release of one million tons was massive.  However, proponents argue, in terms of the Pacific Ocean, it was minor.  The Society of Allied Weight Engineers estimated the weight of all the oceans was 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons, of which the Pacific Ocean contains over half of that amount.  The percentage of wastewater would only be a quintillionth of a percent of what is in the oceans.

Also, they stress that these one million tons of water will be released over 30 years.

The next argument was that the wastewater was a danger to people because it contained tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.  The tritium could bond with oxygen to make a water molecule.

Tritium has a half-life of 12.33 years and decays quickly.  During the 30-year release program, the radiation will only be about one fifth of what it was in 2023.

The International Atomic Energy Agency stated the “controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water to the sea,” would have a “negligible radiological impact on the people and the environment.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency will remain on site to monitor the release for the whole 30 years.  At the end of that time, the Tokyo Power Company (TEPCO) will be able to start the decommissioning.

So, how is it that the water used to cool the damaged reactor is so safe that releasing it is not a problem?  TECPCO has spent the last ten years processing radioactive water with the Advanced Liquid Processing System.

The first step was to remove radioactive cesium and strontium from the water using basic chemical separation processes.  Then, the other radioactive isotopes were removed using 16 towers to separate different isotopes.  In the end, 62 different radioactive isotopes were removed and sent to storage.

Although the process takes time, it is effective in removing small percentages of radioactive pollutants.

How do other nations treat radioactive waste?

The process for treating radioactive waste is common across the nations with nuclear reactors.  They employ well known chemical processes that can isolate small amounts of radioactive isotopes.  The waste treatment isn’t a scientific issue as much as it is a political one as most people do not want a radioactive waste dump nearby.  There is also the other fact that nuclear waste is also a source for nuclear fuel like Uranium and Plutonium, which is found in spent nuclear reactor rods.  This is especially true of high-level radioactive waste, which is a rich source for nuclear fuel.

This high-level nuclear waste is only 3% of the waste, but 95% of the total radioactivity.  Low level nuclear waste is usually short lived and is found in paper, rags, tools, clothing and filters.  It is 90% of the volume and only 1% of the radioactivity.  It is often compacted before disposal.

Intermediate level waste includes resins, chemical sludge, and metal fuel cladding.  They are frequently solidified in concrete.  They make up 7% of the volume and 4% of the radioactivity in radioactive waste.

Since most of the radioactive waste is low level and has a short half-life, it goes to near surface nuclear disposal facilities in many countries.

Long term storage of high-level radioactive materials that have a longer half-life hasn’t been a major problem as much of this waste has unspent nuclear fuel in it.  Current practice is to let this material stay in specially designed water pools for 40 – 50 years so heat, and radioactivity has dropped by 99%.

Highly radioactive liquids that are a byproduct of recycling the fuel rods, are solidified into Pyrex glass and stored in steel cylinders and stored deep underground in areas that aren’t subject to earthquakes.  There are many such deep storage facilities in several nations.

Proponents of nuclear energy claim that the improved handling of nuclear waste makes nuclear powered energy much safer.  Most of the problems dealing with nuclear waste come from nuclear weapons production in the early years, when highly radioactive waste was placed in drums and stored in a remote area.

They conclude, given the visibility of the Fukushima wastewater release and the national and international monitoring of the project, there isn’t the nuclear waste threat that some claim.

But experts and environmental groups have complained that there has been a consistent lack of sufficient public Input and that some viable alternatives, such a long term Storage in more robust tanks was not seriously evaluated. China. However, has redoubled its criticism, accusing Japan of treating the ocean like a “private sewer”. The Pacific Islands Forum, which represents 18 nations- some of which are acutely aware of the legacy of American nuclear testing- remain opposed.