The Debate on Agenda for Change

Workers' Daily Internet Edition News Release: Article Index :

The Debate on Agenda for Change

Key Issues for UN Uranium Testing in Iraq

Résumé on Depleted Uranium

Urgent statement and appeal by Medical Aid
for the Third World Baghdad, 16 April 2003:
Occupying Powers Responsible for Grave Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq

Reproduced from the Publication of the Health Workers Forum in the Northern region, Safeguarding the Future of the NHS – Giving Health Workers a Voice!, Volume 1, Issue 1, April 16, 2003. This was a special issue on the Unison national Health Group Conference which took place in Harrogate from April 7-9.

On Tuesday, April 8, a Special One-Day Conference was held where the delegates spent one day debating Agenda for Change – the new pay system that the government is proposing for the NHS. The grouped debate on the main two composite motions lasted four hours and was addressed by over 50 speakers to Conference.

Composite 1 submitted by the Health Group Executive called on Congress to vote for a two stage ballot on Agenda for Change the first one in May to agree the piloting of the pay system at 12 early implementer sites and the second to reject, or accept, the pay system next year once the problems of the early implementer sites had been addressed. The motion also accepted the governments 3 year pay deal of an overall 10% for NHS workers which was attached by the government to Agenda for Change last November during the firefighters strike. The motion points out that in agreeing the motion "we need to ensure that there is a real commitment by UNISON at every level to address and remedy those areas of Agenda for Change which are causing real concern."

The second motion, Composite 2, submitted by a number of branches noted that the letter from a government minister does not give any guarantee that management side would be prepared to re-open negotiations on any substantial aspect of agenda for change once the early implementer sites had gone ahead. The motion rejected the pay offer attached to Agenda for Change and argued that the new pay system was once again institutionalising low pay. It will also lock the NHS into a pay evaluation scheme that will severely limit access to legal claims based on equal pay for work of equal value. The motion called on the union to recommend to members that they reject Agenda for Change "as it stands" and "urgently develop a strategy that addresses the issues that Agenda for Change was meant to address."

Delegates spoke in favour of one motion, or the other, searching for the best way that they felt would address the recognised problems of Agenda for Change. During the debate it was revealed that the pay system was divisive depending on which sector of the NHS was discussed. What was recognised by all was that even according to the government’s own figures 8% of NHS workers will lose out under this new pay system which equates to 80,000 NHS workers. Those professional staff with an hourly week of 35 or 36 hours and administrative and clerical workers who work 37 hours a week will have their working week increased to 37.5 hours eating away at the longer holidays promised in Agenda for Change. In a public service that relies on health workers working around the clock, overtime rates, shift allowances, enhanced payments, night shift allowances have all been scrapped. They have been replaced by one unsocial hours payment and all overtime at time and a half, that leaves many, especially some of the lowest paid workers, with a substantially lower income.

Speaking on the point that Agenda for Change had been negotiated without the involvement of the union members, or activists, one of the delegates pointed out that both motions will give the members a ballot on Agenda for Change. But, he said, our members should not just have a ballot. "We should have a national pay structure in which the members set their own value", he said, "and members should be involved fully in both making proposals and taking decisions. That is what the members now expect and that is what they deserve." He concluded.

When the question was put for the second time at the conclusion of the debate Composite 1 with a small amendment was passed by a majority at Conference.

Implications of UNEP recommendations for Depleted Uranium studies in Iraq (extract) by Dai Williams*, April 10, 2003

Summary

On April 6, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) recommended studies into the use of Depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq. Their Post Conflict Assessment Unit (PCAU) started planning this Iraq project on March 21.

My worst case scenario is that coalition forces may have used up to 2000 tons of uranium weapons – several times more than in 1991. Fast, accurate UNEP assessments of uranium contamination are essential.

But UN proposals for Uranium testing in Iraq raise a number of key issues if they are to be more rigorous than recent UNEP studies of Depleted Uranium in the Balkans. Five conditions are essential if the proposed UNEP studies are to protect the people of Iraq:

a) uranium testing must start without delay especially in urban areas
b) targets must include known and suspected uranium weapons
c) analysis must include all types of Uranium, depleted and undepleted
d) the project will require powerful international support
e) airborne radiation monitoring is required throughout the Gulf region.

In addition the World Health Organisation (WHO) needs to start an urgent investigation into levels of uranium contamination for sick and healthy people in Iraqi communities, including troops and civilian casualties and victims of any new epidemics for several years. Most of the Iraqi population is at risk so studies will need NGO support. Parallel studies by UNEP and WHO are required in Afghanistan for the health effects of similar weapons. Like previous UN studies these projects are vulnerable. They are liable to be compromised by military, political and commercial interests to conceal the proliferation, use and health effects of Uranium weapons. They will need massive support from UN member states, from medical and other scientific organisations and from the international media.

====================

Full paper (6 pages + latest UNEP press releases) is at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/UNiraqissues.pdf

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is recommending that a scientific assessment of sites targeted with weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) be conducted in Iraq as soon as conditions permit.

 

* Dai Williams, Chartered Occupational Psychologist, Eos, Surrey, eosuk@btinternet.com

There follows a résumé about DU compiled by Carolyn D’Hesse Rogers. It has been slightly expanded by Dai Williams.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter". Dr Martin Luther King

Depleted Uranium is a waste product of the nuclear industry and is given virtually free to the weapons industry. Uranium is toxic and carcinogenic so it acts as both a chemical and radiological weapon.

DU is the densest metal available and can penetrate all known armour. It ignites spontaneously on impact and burns at 5000 degrees C, giving off black smoke, incandescent sparks and carbonising its victims.

On ignition a firestorm of mostly insoluble radioactive uranium dioxide particles is created which stick to tanks and objects, penetrate the soil, sand and water and are inhaled by animals and people.

The emission of predominantly Alpha as well as Beta and Gamma radiation from these particles and debris will persist for the life of the planet, not only in target areas but also wherever they are carried by winds. The particles can remain suspended in the earth’s atmosphere for months and travel vast distances.

The USA uses weapons containing a ‘mystery metal’. Examination of patents shows that this metal is Depleted Uranium.

23 weapons systems are now suspected of using Uranium warheads (depleted and undepleted) including Cruise Missiles, Bunker Busting Bombs, Small Smart Bombs, and Cluster Bombs. Because of its hardness DU is also used as armour plating around tanks.

DU weapons have been used in the first and second conflicts in Iraq, in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo during the Balkan conflict, and in Afghanistan.

There is strong evidence that weapons containing pure Uranium were used in Afghanistan. It is also likely that pure Uranium was used in the latest attacks on Iraq.

DU is contaminated with Plutonium from recycled nuclear reactor rods (Dirty DU). This gives off quantities of deadly Gamma radiation, increasing cancer risks.

During the 1991 Gulf war 320 tonnes of DU was used. During the Afghan war an estimated 1000 tonnes of Uranium Oxide dust spewed from 2,000 hard target guided missiles containing pure Uranium. During the recent war on Iraq there is suspected to be contamination from an estimated 1500 - 2000 tonnes of DU /Uranium.

In most areas where DU has been used local populations as well as allied troops in target areas have all suffered from the same symptoms and illnesses: unexplained cancers and leukaemias, neurological disorders, respiratory problems, immune deficiency syndromes, rare kidney and bowel diseases. Children are born with genetic defects, moderate to severe deformities, rare illnesses and develop cancers very young.

Gulf War veterans are found to have uranium in their systems. The USA and British governments persist in delaying doing proper tests. All tests had to be done privately.

One third of the troops involved in the first Gulf War developed Gulf War syndrome from which several thousands have died.

Radioactive particles are inhaled or ingested. They are small enough to penetrate tissues where they become embedded. They then sit there for the life of the individual emitting a permanent stream of internal radiation which is sufficient to damage chromosomes in adjacent cells.

Only one radioactive particle is needed to mutate a chromosome causing crippling damage to an individual, even if it came from a low-level radiation source.

According to the M.O.D. Alpha radiation emitted internally causes more damage to cells than equivalent Beta and Gamma doses. Externally Beta and Gamma radiation cause most damage. The American military have known about the dangers of DU since 1943 and have reports to prove it.

The present radiation risk models accepted and used by the British and USA governments were devised before the discovery of DNA and before the biological responses of living cells to radiation were known.

Now we know that one third of all genes exposed to radiation die or mutate. This can result in the production of cancers, general impairment of health and genetic defects, which are passed on to future generations.

Furthermore some people are genetically more sensitive to radiation than others putting them at greater risk when exposed to low levels of radiation.

The European Committee on Radiation Risk has just published a report which determines that previous risk models for DU exposure are incorrect. The report states that DU is 100 – 1000 times more carcinogenic than the present risk model suggests.

European MEPs have already voted for an immediate moratorium on Uranium weapons in Strasbourg on 13 Feb 03.

If DU/Uranium is being used, it is a weapon of mass destruction and a weapon of indiscriminate effect.

Weapons of mass destruction cause sudden death or destruction in target areas, some with long term or widespread effects. Weapons of indiscriminate effect cause widespread or long lasting contamination liable to cause injury, chronic illness, slow death or severe birth defects. Both are outlawed in the first protocol of the Geneva conventions.

The international media have blocked all public questions about these new weapons since the War on Terrorism began in October 2001.  Only distorted Pentagon propaganda that uranium contamination has no harmful effects has been broadcast.  So most Iraqi civilians and coalition troops are unaware even of the health hazards from tanks in their streets burned out with uranium shells.  Most have no concept of the radiation that may have spread from the bombs.  Nor is there any protection from widespread contamination.

However, United Nations health and environmental specialists do recognise the dangers of low-level radiation.  They know more than most people about emerging health problems in Afghanistan, and have been alerted to suspected large uranium weapons.  On 6 April the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced plans for environmental depleted uranium testing in Iraq - when this can be started.  Proposals for similar uranium monitoring for the human population is hoped for soon from WHO.  

Hopefully anti-tank ammunition is the only source of new uranium contamination but targets still need urgent isolation, dust control and cleanup when possible.  If many uranium warheads have been used in bombs and missiles this must be identified very fast so that local communities can be evacuated and down wind areas including neighbouring Gulf countries alerted.  There is no economic clean-up procedure for multiple attacks with large radiological bombs.  The public health implications may be 5-10 worse that the epidemics of cancers, leukaemia and birth defects experienced in southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war.   

There is no doubt that ay least 100 tons of Uranium weapons have been used in Iraq.  The billion-dollar question is how many more Uranium weapons have been used?  And how long will the facts about these weapons be kept secret by the US and UK governments - even from their own troops? 

(A summary of Uranium weapons hazards for Iraq with links to other pages is to be found at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm)

As medical doctors, we cannot remain silent in the face of the enormous suffering of the Iraqi civilian population, brought about by the US-British bombings, invasion and occupation. We have seen hundreds of civilians, including many children, injured and killed, often by prohibited weapons such as cluster bombs. We have seen how ambulances and civilian cars have been hit by US troops. We have experienced how patients and health workers had difficulties passing US military checkpoints and reaching medical facilities.

We now see how the Iraqi civilian hospitals and other medical facilities are plundered and neglected. Many Iraqi health professionals can no longer report to work. Without electricity, safe water supply and the provision of medicines and other medical supplies, many patients are simply left to die.

As health professionals and as human beings, we cannot tolerate this situation. We therefore issue the following statement and appeal:
1. The current humanitarian catastrophe is entirely and solely the responsibility of the US and British authorities, who launched a war of aggression against Iraq in complete violation of international law.
2. In the course of their war, the US and British troops have grossly and repeatedly violated international humanitarian law (Articles 10, 12, 15, 21, 35, 36, 41, 45, 47, 48 and 51of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions).
3. A genuine and lasting solution to the humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq can only be realized after the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and British occupation troops and the full restoration of Iraq's sovereignty on the entire Iraqi territory and on the basis of the Iraqi people's own free will.
4. The US and Great Britain should be made to pay for all direct and indirect damages and suffering their war has inflicted upon the Iraqi people, country and society.
5. In the meantime, as occupying powers, the US and Great Britain have the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population (Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). They likewise have the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory. They must allow medical personnel to carry out their duties. (Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention)
6. We call on the relevant UN agencies, such as the UNFP, Unicef and the WHO, to immediately resume their humanitarian operations in Iraq. A firefighter does not wait until the house has burnt down completely, but takes risks in order to fight the fire and avoid the complete collapse of the building.
7. We support all spontaneous and organized initiatives of the Iraqi population to denounce the US and British occupation and to demand that the US and British authorities fulfil their duties under international humanitarian law.
8. We support each initiative that aims to bring US General Tommy Franks and other US and British military authorities and personnel before a court of justice to make them answer for their violations of international humanitarian law. Upon the request of direct victims of US violations of international humanitarian law, among them patients and medical personnel, we have asked the well-known Belgian human rights lawyer Mr. Jan Fermon to explore the concrete possibilities of charging US General Tommy Franks in a Belgian court for war crimes, on the basis of the Belgian law of universal competence.

Geert Van Moorter, M.D., emergency physician, in Baghdad since 16 March Colette Moulaert, M.D., paediatrician, in Baghdad from 16 March to 13 April Harrie Dewitte, M.D., in Baghdad from 6 to 13 April Claire Geraets, M.D., in Baghdad since 6 April Bert De Belder, M.D., coordinator of Medical Aid for the Third World in Brussels, Belgium