What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?

But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote ‘Golden Rice’ as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries.

They did so well – before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. Its purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

I worked with a conventional fortified rice technology (Ultra Rice) for years for the NGO PATH in several countries. It became clear to us that rice-consuming populations were extremely picky about their rice and unwilling to accept even the tiniest changes in its appearance, smell or taste.

They are now to be convinced to eat rice that’s bright yellow in color? That will never happen on any large scale. If it does, it will be because a huge investment was made to overcome consumer resistance. Money that could have been spent to convince people simply to eat the low-cost plant foods easily available in all countries that can prevent vitamin A deficiency.

Yellow rice is mouldy, toxic rice

Consumer resistance has special importance among the really poor people for whom Golden Rice actually might otherwise prove useful. That’s because when rice is poorly stored it can be infected with a yellow mould causing the deadly ‘yellow rice disease’ (beriberi) if consumed. Only a decade ago this was thought to have killed dozens of male sugar workers in the Maranhao region of Brazil (Rosa et al., 2010). Is that really a type of consumer resistance we want to debunk?

The Rosa paper does not prove that the epidemic and accompanying deaths in Brazil were due to the mould, just that the mould was present in rice in the area of the outbreak. However, Brazilian authorities we talked with in 2007 believed that the mould was almost certainly involved and probably the main cause. But one does see beriberi in the East (this is the first large-scale outbreak in the West) among hard working men who drink a lot of alcohol and eat mainly white rice.

Penicillium citreonigrum Dierckx is the name of the mould that turns rice yellowish. Another can turn it brownish. Infected rice does not really look like Golden Rice. My point is rather that people in places where rice often gets wet during storage generally know that yellow rice is dangerous.

Telling people that yellow rice is safe – a message Golden Rice will have to trumpet – sounds like a typical self-serving message that has the additional disadvantage of putting people in danger. Teaching them which appearance safe vs unsafe rice has is again getting into pretty great detail and expense.

The effort should do into promoting fresh leaves and vegetables

In Bangladesh I was involved with a communication NGO, the Worldview International Foundation, that worked with 10 million people to convince them to grow and consume high-carotene foods. We conducted a large-scale evaluation to see if it worked. It did.

It cost only $0.15 per capita – though this was over two decades ago. But it also had many side benefits, such as the other nutrients contained in fresh vegetables (Greiner and Mitra, 1995).

The signatures of 107 Nobel Laureates do not prove that Golden Rice is safe or effective-but they do prove that, no matter how good scientists are in their own narrow fields, they are often no smarter than any of the rest of us about many other things. Sometimes their egos even get the best of them and they go out on a limb and say things without properly researching them first, especially when other smart people have already come out and done so.

The people who designed Golden Rice clearly were also unaware of ‘yellow rice disease’, with much less excuse. Or they were aware and had no scruples.

And if you have read this far, pat yourself on the back! You now know more than 107 Nobel Laureates about something concerning which they signed a letter – sadly putting their scientific reputations on the line.

Ted Greiner, PhD is former Professor of Nutrition, Hanyang University, Korea.

This article was originally published by Independent Science News (CC BY-NC-ND).

References

• Encyclopedia of Food Mycotoxins  (2001) by Martin Weidenbörner.
• Greiner T. and Mitra S.N. (1995) Evaluation of the impact of a food-based approach to solving Vitamin A deficiency in Bangladesh. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 16 (3) 193-205.
• Rosa et al., (2010) Production of citreoviridin by Penicillium citreonigrum strains associated with rice consumption and beriberi cases in the Maranhão State, Brazil. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 27 (2):

What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?

But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote ‘Golden Rice’ as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries.

They did so well – before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. Its purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

I worked with a conventional fortified rice technology (Ultra Rice) for years for the NGO PATH in several countries. It became clear to us that rice-consuming populations were extremely picky about their rice and unwilling to accept even the tiniest changes in its appearance, smell or taste.

They are now to be convinced to eat rice that’s bright yellow in color? That will never happen on any large scale. If it does, it will be because a huge investment was made to overcome consumer resistance. Money that could have been spent to convince people simply to eat the low-cost plant foods easily available in all countries that can prevent vitamin A deficiency.

Yellow rice is mouldy, toxic rice

Consumer resistance has special importance among the really poor people for whom Golden Rice actually might otherwise prove useful. That’s because when rice is poorly stored it can be infected with a yellow mould causing the deadly ‘yellow rice disease’ (beriberi) if consumed. Only a decade ago this was thought to have killed dozens of male sugar workers in the Maranhao region of Brazil (Rosa et al., 2010). Is that really a type of consumer resistance we want to debunk?

The Rosa paper does not prove that the epidemic and accompanying deaths in Brazil were due to the mould, just that the mould was present in rice in the area of the outbreak. However, Brazilian authorities we talked with in 2007 believed that the mould was almost certainly involved and probably the main cause. But one does see beriberi in the East (this is the first large-scale outbreak in the West) among hard working men who drink a lot of alcohol and eat mainly white rice.

Penicillium citreonigrum Dierckx is the name of the mould that turns rice yellowish. Another can turn it brownish. Infected rice does not really look like Golden Rice. My point is rather that people in places where rice often gets wet during storage generally know that yellow rice is dangerous.

Telling people that yellow rice is safe – a message Golden Rice will have to trumpet – sounds like a typical self-serving message that has the additional disadvantage of putting people in danger. Teaching them which appearance safe vs unsafe rice has is again getting into pretty great detail and expense.

The effort should do into promoting fresh leaves and vegetables

In Bangladesh I was involved with a communication NGO, the Worldview International Foundation, that worked with 10 million people to convince them to grow and consume high-carotene foods. We conducted a large-scale evaluation to see if it worked. It did.

It cost only $0.15 per capita – though this was over two decades ago. But it also had many side benefits, such as the other nutrients contained in fresh vegetables (Greiner and Mitra, 1995).

The signatures of 107 Nobel Laureates do not prove that Golden Rice is safe or effective-but they do prove that, no matter how good scientists are in their own narrow fields, they are often no smarter than any of the rest of us about many other things. Sometimes their egos even get the best of them and they go out on a limb and say things without properly researching them first, especially when other smart people have already come out and done so.

The people who designed Golden Rice clearly were also unaware of ‘yellow rice disease’, with much less excuse. Or they were aware and had no scruples.

And if you have read this far, pat yourself on the back! You now know more than 107 Nobel Laureates about something concerning which they signed a letter – sadly putting their scientific reputations on the line.

Ted Greiner, PhD is former Professor of Nutrition, Hanyang University, Korea.

This article was originally published by Independent Science News (CC BY-NC-ND).

References

• Encyclopedia of Food Mycotoxins  (2001) by Martin Weidenbörner.
• Greiner T. and Mitra S.N. (1995) Evaluation of the impact of a food-based approach to solving Vitamin A deficiency in Bangladesh. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 16 (3) 193-205.
• Rosa et al., (2010) Production of citreoviridin by Penicillium citreonigrum strains associated with rice consumption and beriberi cases in the Maranhão State, Brazil. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 27 (2):

Today’s ruling by the Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration in the Netherlands strongly condemns China for the serious and permanent environmental damage it has inflicted to coral reefs and and their wildlife in the South China Sea.

The case was brought by the Philippines which is infuriated at China’s ‘occupation’ of islands and waters that fall within its exclusive territorial zone, and the severe damage it has caused to coral reefs and other natural resources.

Since 1998 the Philippines has documented around 100 incidents in which it has found Chinese fishermen at its Spratly Islands and surrounding waters equipped with cyanide to poison fish (and all other animal life) together with dynamite, detonating cord and detonating caps.

The Chinese fisherman have additionally removed a wide range of sea life, including endangered sea turtles, giant clams, giant oysters, sharks, eels, and large pieces of highly ornamental coral. On one occasion 28 Chinese fishing boats were simultaneously trawling the coral reefs.

China has also engaged in the construction of artificial islands on coral reefs, intended to secure its territorial claim, some of them measuring several square kilometres in size, the total amounting to almost 13 square kilometres.

These are constructed using huge dredgers that cut away at coral, rock and seabed, and pile the material up onto the islands. The largest such machines can transport 4,500 cubic metres of material per hour. The effect is to destroy entire coral atolls, consolidating all their hard material into platforms elevated above high tide level.

In the majority of cases the Chinese fishers were protected by Chinese patrol vessels, and since 2012 the Philippines has ceased to attempt entry to the disputed areas to gather further evidence due to the Chinese military presence. Chinese military ships have also excluded Filipino fishers from their own waters.

Severe environmental harm condemened

In today’s verdict the the judges roundly condemned these actions, decrying the effect of China’s actions on the marine environment, including its “recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands”.

Assisted by three independent experts on coral reef biology and the Philippines’ own expert reports, the Tribunal’s damning conclusion is that “China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.”

In addition, “Chinese fishermen have engaged in the harvesting of endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea, using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment. The Tribunal found that Chinese authorities were aware of these activities and failed to fulfill their due diligence obligations under the Convention to stop them.”

As such China “had violated its obligation under Articles 192 and 194 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment with respect to fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.”

China has, in effect, laid claim to almost the entire South China Sea as its national territory, including areas considered as ‘High Seas’ and waters and  islands that lie within the exclusive economic zone of other nations such as the Philippines. Its claim is founded on the argument that Chinese fishers have made use of these waters for hundreds of years.

While agreeing that China had acquired historical rights to fish in some of the disputed waters, the Tribunal was clear that these rights were non-exclusive and did not exempt China from its legal obligations under the Convention.

Legal obligations on the environment

Under Article 192 of UNCLOS “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.”

Under UNCLOS Article 194, “States shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection.”

In addition Article 194 states that “measures taken in accordance with this Part shall include those necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.”

Obligations on states bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea – such as the South China Sea – are created by Article 123, to “cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties under this Convention”, for example to “coordinate the management, conservation, exploration and exploitation of the living resources of the sea”, and to “coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment”.

Article 206 also imposes reporting and monitoring requirements on signatory states, to which China has not adhered: “When States have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, they shall, as far as practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the marine environment and shall communicate reports of the results of such assessments … “

One of the world’s last great coral seas despoiled

The tragedy is that the South China Sea “includes highly productive fisheries and extensive coral reef ecosystems, which are among the most biodiverse in the world.” The marine environment around Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands, in particular, “has an extremely high level of biodiversity of species, including fishes, corals, echinoderms, mangroves, seagrasses, giant clams, and marine turtles, some of which are recognised as vulnerable or endangered.”

As well as using cyanide, dynamite and trawling to extract the marine wealth from the coral reefs, Chinese vessels have also resorted to less conventional techniques. These include towing anchors across the reefs, in effect ‘ploughing’ them and reducing them to rubble in order to dislodge large coral pieces and giant clams.

Specially adapted marine vessels have also been driven directly across reefs in order to break up the coral with their propellers. This alone has been responsible for destroying some 70 square kilometres of coral, of around 124 square kilometres of reef destroyed by China. This enables the removal of valuable giant clams and coral pieces, while the rubble can be used for artificial island construction.

In concusion the Tribunal finds that:

• “China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial islands, installations,and structuresat Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef has caused severe, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem;
• “China has not cooperated or coordinated with the other States bordering the South China Sea concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment concerning such activities; and
• “China has failed to communicate an assessment of the potential effects of suchactivities on the marine environment, within the meaning of Article 206 of the Convention; and
• “China has breached its obligations under Articles 123, 192, 194(1), 194(5), 197, and 206 of the Convention.”

China has publicly rejected both the Tribunal itself and its findings as “a farce”. It remains to be seen if the unusually powerful verdict will do anything to restrain or reverse China’s ongoing, deliberate destruction of what was, until recently, one of the greatest biological treasures of our global ocean.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

Today’s report by the Government’s official advisors on climate change paints a stark picture of a future which may befall us if our leaders don’t get their act together.

It’s possible this prophetic warning will get lost amid all the headlines about Brexit and its economic and political consequences.

But when Theresa May becomes Prime Minister tomorrow, she should make acting on this document her highest priority. Her ability to act rapidly and decisively on this vital issue will mark the first key test of her premiership.

The snappily titled UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report 2017 may not sound like a great read but its findings are gripping. Although written in the measured tones of the British Civil Service, you can detect the palpable urgency with which its authors want to see action.

Topping the list of threats facing the UK is flooding, endangering homes, businesses and infrastructure. Marked as “High Magnitude” both now and in the future, the report authors describe these impacts as “already significant” and expected to worsen due to climate change.

To ram home their point they write in bold, all-caps: “MORE ACTION NEEDED”.

Health risks, water shortages, higher food prices

In this same urgent category are health risks due to rising temperatures. Already 2,000 people die prematurely each year in the UK from heat-related conditions and this number is expected to more than triple by the 2050s. The report warns that newer homes are more at risk from overheating than older designs, in part due to the small windows preferred by cost-cutting builders.

Shortages in the public water supply are predicted with painful trade-offs to be made between the needs of agriculture, industry and domestic consumption with consequences for our freshwater ecology. UK food prices are likely to increase as climate change impacts production around the world, disrupting supply chains and hampering trade.

Britain’s natural environment also makes the list with increased soil aridity, wildfires and the acidification of UK seas becoming more commonplace.

In case you were concerned that the experts of the Climate Change Committee were ‘scare-mongering’ you’ll be pleased to know they also outline some of the potential opportunities global warming may bring to the UK. It’s a meagre list, with plenty of caveats, such as an extended growing season for certain crops (assuming we can manage the plunging soil fertility and can find enough water to irrigate them).

One ‘opportunity’, which stands out as almost comically perverse, is that British engineering and insurance firms may be able to cash-in on this fossil fuel-induced suffering as global demand increases for climate adaptation related goods and services.

Such narrow benefits are going to be of little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of British people (not to mention the millions overseas) who face the prospect of floodwaters ruining their homes and livelihoods. In recent years we’ve seen what misery flooding has brought to the Somerset Levels and Cumbria, as well as Devon, Cornwall, Yorkshire, Surrey, Kent and the Thames Valley.

A recent report by the charity Christian Aid on the threat of coastal flooding around the world, revealed the precarious nature of our island nation. The report, Act Now or Pay Later, ranks countries by the number of people expected to be living in low lying coastal areas in 2030. The UK makes the top 20, placing 18th in the world.

The case for a Climate COBRA Committee

The current set up of government departments has clearly proved inadequate at managing such a cross cutting problem as climate change, with complex domestic and international dimensions. Climate change is a national security threat without a conventional security response. Barbed wire isn’t going to stop it.

It’s become so serious that Theresa May should chair a cross-government task force to handle these risks more effectively. This Climate COBRA Committee would have the political clout to address these dangers with the urgency required.

It’s worth taking a moment to acknowledge the vital work of the UK’s Climate Change Committee. Chaired by the Conservative peer Lord Deben, a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher who went on to be Secretary of State for the Environment, the CCC has a vital role to play in helping the country shape our response to the dangers of a changing climate.

The UK may have voted to withdraw from the European Union but we cannot pull up the drawbridge to climate change. The only solution is global cooperation to cut emissions, a rapid U-turn in business-as-usual spending on fossil fuels and a rapid acceleration in clean energy and climate adapted infrastructure.

If we don’t undertake a fast and orderly transition to a low carbon economy we risk massive economic and environmental shocks making the change for us.

The good news is there is still time if we heed the warnings. The UN Paris Agreement agreed last year at COP21 showed the global will to act, and the progress being made in renewable energy, especially in developing countries, is hugely exciting. The UK is in a privileged position of having the resources, policies and science base to play a major role in helping other countries respond to these dangers.

But tackling climate change is no longer just for the benefit of others – today’s findings show us we have plenty of skin in the game ourselves. 

The report: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report 2017 is published by the UK Climate Change Committee.

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a ‘New Voices’ writer for The Ecologist. He can be found on twitter at @wareisjoe.

Hidden in the Chilcot report: a previously classified Ministry of Defence (MoD) paper setting out the UK Government’s thinking on depleted uranium (DU) munitions.

In it, the clearance of unexploded ordnance and DU is considered and the MoD argues that it has: ” … no long-term legal responsibility to clean up DU from Iraq”.

Instead it proposes that surface lying fragments of DU only be removed on “an opportunity basis” – i.e. if they come across them in the course of other operations.

In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used, in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

The question is examined in Section 10-1 of the Chilcot inquiry which briefly considers DU in the context of the UK’s obligations as an occupying power. The MoD had submitted the paper to the then newly established Ad Hoc Group on Iraq Rehabilitation.

Unlike landmines and cluster munitions, there is no treaty to ensure that affected countries receive international assistance or are themselves obligated to protect their own people. Nor is anyone required to record the impact of the weapons on individuals and communities.

Vehicles contaminated by DU – for example destroyed tanks, armoured personnel carriers – pose a particular risk to civilians, both to workers in the scrap metal industry and to children who may play on them. Levels of contamination can be high and, because the interiors are not exposed to the elements, DU may remain in the vehicles for long periods.

Just how high these levels can be was a question of scientific interest to the MoD at the time and, while tanks suspected of being struck by DU would be marked, this would be “…pending examination by an MoD-led team scientific team for research purposes.” The MoD gave no guarantees that vehicles identified as contaminated would be dealt with appropriately.

DU in the UN General Assembly this October

This October, governments at the United Nations General Assembly will be debating a sixth resolution on DU weapons.

Thanks to the experiences of Iraq – who in 2014 called for assistance from the international community in dealing with contamination, and for a global ban on DU weapons – attention is increasingly being focused on this lack of obligations on nations that use DU weapons to clean up the areas they contaminate.

These same governments are often extremely conscious of the financial and technical burden of clearance as they have domestic firing ranges that are contaminated. Earlier this year, the US Army lost a long-running battle with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over legacy DU contamination at 15 of its facilities. Meanwhile in the UK, the Scottish government continues to oppose further test firing into the Solway Firth.

The cost and complexity of dealing with DU contamination at home is not the only issue focusing minds on how governments and their militaries should be obliged to address DU following its use in conflicts. New research that has revealed the presence of DU in people 30 years after they were exposed is also showing how urine testing could identify civilians affected by the UK and US’s use of DU in Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

Between 1958 and 1982, Colonie, a suburb of Albany, New York was home to National Lead Industries (NLI), a factory that manufactured products containing DU. The plant made penetrators for DU munitions, counterweights for aircraft and vehicles, and shielding for medical devices.

Lax controls on the facility meant that waste was burnt in a furnace on site, which routinely operated without filtration controls. Over the period, it is believed that more than 5,000kg of DU oxide escaped the facility in the form of micron-sized particles, to be dispersed in a plume over the surrounding community, as well as contaminating the factory itself.

For eight of those years, NLI also processed enriched uranium from fuel for experimental reactors.

Persistent US contamination akin to that in conflict zones

If the uncontrolled dispersal of DU particles into residential areas sounds familiar, it should, and the studies from Colonie have been viewed by some as analogous to the use of DU weapons in conflict settings.

Research into the shape and composition of the Colonie particles has demonstrated that they are similar to those produced by DU weapons when they hit hard targets. A UK study published in 2014 agreed that these kinds of particles are persistent in the environment, in that case surviving unaltered for 30 years in the wet conditions of a firing range in southern Scotland.

That the contamination occurred in the US itself should in theory have made the environmental and health monitoring studies that followed easier to undertake than would be the case a post-conflict setting.

However this would prove not to be the case, largely thanks to the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – the government public health body dealing with exposures to hazardous substances. The local community would have to fight tooth and nail for recognition and research into the risks posed by the site following its closure, including collecting evidence from their friends and neighbours on the rates of health problems, which included rare cancers and immune disorders.

In 2007, and thanks to a campaign from the community that had lasted 25 years, the results of a study combining forensic environmental studies with urine analysis were published, garnering international media coverage.

The study was led by Professor Randall Parrish, then of Leicester University in the UK. All five of the former workers that they tested revealed uranium in their bodies 23 years after production had ceased, meanwhile 20% of the residents they tested were also excreting DU and, although the human sample size was small, their environmental analysis also revealed the presence of DU in homes and gardens at concentrations exceeding US intervention levels.

The publication of the results coincided with the conclusion of the main remediation programme at the NLI, which was managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers after the site was transferred to the government for a token $10. The project cost $190m, involved the removal of 150,000 tons of uranium, thorium and lead contaminated soil and debris, extracted from depths of up to 40ft, which was then sent 2,000 miles by rail to an underground radioactive waste facility in the Rockies.

Failings in the official response delayed health research

Prior to the remediation work, and Parrish and colleagues’ research, an initial study by the ATSDR had already concluded that there was a real and significant health risk to the public from past DU emissions from the plant. However it had decided not to pursue any environmental surveying or health surveillance activities.

The ATSDR had been coming under pressure over the quality and independence of its work for many years and in 2009, Randall Parrish and other experts would provide evidence to a congressional committee on the ATSDR’s conduct in relation to the Colonie case. In his testimony, Parrish argued that “In most respects other than providing information on toxins, [the ATSDR report] failed to deliver its remit for the Colonie site.”

This April, a follow-up study on exposure rates among workers and residents was finally published. It had a larger sample size than Parrish’s 2007 study, analysing the urine of 32 former workers and 99 residents. For the workers, 84% showed DU exposure, with a further 9% showing exposure to both DU and enriched uranium, whereas just 8% of the 99 residents tested were excreting DU.

One of the arguments used by the ATSDR when it had failed to act on community concerns was that too much time had passed for DU to be detected. Parrish’s 2007 study was the first to show that DU was still detectable after 20 years. The latest study shows that even after 30 years it is still possible to detect the signs of DU exposure.

Just as important are the techniques they used, which can differentiate between the different isotopes of uranium, provide valuable clues to the original source of the exposure – although ascertaining how much people have been exposed to remains difficult.

Persistent particles and pernicious politics

The refusal of the ATSDR to act in the interest of the local community in the Colonie case has parallels with the behaviour of the governments who employ DU weapons in conflicts.

This is often characterised by a lack of transparency over where the weapons are fired, what they are fired at and in the quantities used. This is data that is crucial for not only determining the risk to civilians from the use of the weapons but also to facilitate the management of contamination after conflicts. It is therefore no coincidence that these themes come up time and again in United Nations’ resolutions.

There has also been, and continues to be, a studied disinterest on behalf of the DU weapon users in supporting civilian exposure studies of the kind seen in Colonie. They argue that assessing harm, and the costly and technically challenging task of clearance, is the sole responsibility of the affected state – arguments they also used to make for land mines and cluster bombs.

When the United Nations last discussed DU two years ago, 150 governments recognised the need for states to provide assistance to countries like Iraq. This October, our Coalition will add our voice to those of the states affected by DU weapons in calling for an end to the use of DU weapons and for the users to finally accept responsibility for their legacy.

Colonie eventually got its exposure studies and remediation, Iraq is still waiting. 

Doug Weir is the Coordinator of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), which campaigns for a ban on the use of uranium in all conventional weapons and for monitoring, health care, compensation and environmental remediation for communities affected by their use. @ICBUW

Australias’ re-elected Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has scraped victory with a tiny majority that will make delivery on the health of the Reef more difficult. Turnbull will need support from independent MP’s, having rejected a deal with the Australian Green Party.

Independent Bob Katter’s constituency of Kennedy borders nearly 200 miles of the Great Barrier Reef, and he’s been openly critical of the government’s record on Climate Change and the Reef saying “the Government with their self-righteous hypocrisy of how they are saving the planet and the Great Barrier Reef…

“Every single commentator from David Attenborough down has attributed coral bleaching to global warming, and Australia has done absolutely nothing about its CO2 obligations.”  The Kennedy coastline is some of the hardest hit in the latest wave of coral bleaching.

A Third Wave of Coral Bleaching

The Great Barrier Reef took centre stage early in the election campaign when research showed that 93% of the Reef is dead or dying from bleaching. Coral bleaching happens when increasing ocean temperatures from global warming forces corals to eject zooxanthellae[i] algae. Corals need the algae to help photosynthesize and reproduce. Without photosynthesizing the corals turn white, and eventually die.

Scientists liken the phenomenon to ten cyclones slamming one after another and another into the corals. Aerial and underwater surveys found that 81% of the northern section is severely bleached with just one percent still intact. The central section fairs a little better, with 33% of the corals severely bleached, and 10 percent escaping. Marine scientists claimed that without drastic action on climate change, there will be more intensive waves of bleaching along the length of the Reef. 

Eliminating Risk by Removing the Facts.