BEFORE anybody starts using depleted uranium (DU) anti-tank shells in Iraq or elsewhere, they ought to think hard about the aftermath of their use in Bosnia. I suggested this to the veterans minister, Lewis Moonie.
Moonie replied that a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) team used sensitive instruments to measure radioactivity at 14 sites. They found DU contamination in a tank repair facility and ammunition storage areain Hadziciand in the Han Pijesak barracks. UNEP says that no UN peacekeeping forces or British forces have used these facilities. Its final report is due this month, but is not expected to reveal any more DU-contaminated sites.
The minister added that the UNEP press release recommends that any DU-tainted building should be decontaminated immediately. Britain鈥檚 policy on environmental monitoring and DU clean-up is well documented in parliamentary records: the health of civilians is the responsibility of their own government, although the British government does provide help and advice, mainly through the Department for International Development.
Advertisement
Moonie emphasised that a survey of Britain鈥檚 military sites in Bosnia was undertaken in August 2002, and early indications support the assessment that there are no significant risks to British personnel in Bosnia from DU munitions.
That鈥檚 as may be, but the former commander of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia, General Sir Michael Rose, said on Channel 4 TV鈥檚 news programme on 21 February that he did not believe the medical services for the British army were anything like adequate for a war in the Gulf. I suspect that coping with the effects of depleted uranium was one of his concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL stresses are causing the demise of many of the world鈥檚 reefs and the many creatures they support. Last year 快猫短视频 reported marine biologists Thomas Goreau and Wolf Hilbertz鈥檚 successful attempts to grow an artificial 鈥渂iorock鈥� reef in the western Indian Ocean (6 July 2002, p 38). They used a framework of steel girders and passed a small electric current through it to create a coating of calcium carbonate. The surface helped to generate a calcareous skeleton for coral polyps to colonise, speeded up coral growth and produced coral with better resistance to stress. Because reefs are so important for maintaining fish stocks, I asked fisheries minister Elliot Morley what he thought of such research.
Morley replied that although the 鈥渂iorock鈥� process could work at a number of sites in the tropics, it was unlikely to achieve similar benefits in the relatively temperate British waters, where calcareous corals are scarce and reefs tend to be dominated by barnacles, mussels and algae, with crabs and lobsters occupying the gaps between rocks and boulders. These reefs attract fish such as cod and whiting, as they provide them with food and shelter. He went on to say that the other reef-forming species of interest in British waters are the cold-water corals, such as Lophelia and Madrepora. Although it is possible that these might benefit from the 鈥渂iorock鈥� technique, they are oceanic species that are found offshore in waters generally more than 100 metres deep, so its application would be impractical. The best approach for such reefs is to ensure that they are effectively protected, and consideration is currently being given to designating the Darwin Mounds 鈥� a large cold-water reef system off north-west Scotland 鈥� as a special area of conservation.
Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the government is working with other governments to protect coral reefs, notably to tackle coral bleaching and activities that can result in their physical degradation and destruction.
