Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I add my voice to those who congratulated the Green Party and Senator Boyle and Senator Dearey on introducing the Bill. I am delighted to hear that the Minister of State believes it is a good Bill. On that basis I assume it will be accepted and I hope it will get through the House because the use of depleted uranium in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects. Normal functioning of the kidneys, brain, liver, heart and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.

This initiative is very worthwhile. Ireland acts as a beacon state on the world stage when it comes to development aid, giving large per capita amounts. We have maintained that standard very well up to now and I hope we are able to continue to do so. Such an approach encourages, or perhaps embarrasses, bigger countries to give more to the world's poor. This Bill to prohibit depleted nuclear weapons could have a similar effect in encouraging countries to give up these controversial weapons. I realise what we do might be said to be whistling in the dark and not having a major effect but there is no doubt it sets a standard.

There is still so much we do not know about depleted uranium. I was reading one story of an American Gulf War veteran who currently takes ten prescriptions. He has memory loss, chronic fatigue, stomach and sinus problems, muscle aches, vision loss, headaches and infections. He is one of approximately 200,000 American Gulf War veterans who claim to suffer from mysterious Gulf War syndrome. Depleted uranium is just one of the suspected causes, including toxic fumes from detonated weapons depots and pills which soldiers took to protect themselves from nerve gases and pesticides.

We must remember that there is not total consensus on the danger of depleted uranium and we heard the case being made. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, which was established by the United Nations, stated: "Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts". It further stated:

It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage.

United Nations Environmental Protection, UNEP, studies in Kosovo in 2001, in Serbia and Montenegro in 2002 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2003, to which IAEA experts contributed, found it was highly unlikely that a reported increase in the risk of cancer in the Balkan regions could be associated with the residue of depleted uranium munitions used during the war in the mid-1990s. It found the probability of significant exposure to the local population was very low. There are views on it, therefore.

Local doctors have their own reports. In the whole of Kosovo the cancer rate before 1999 was ten among 300,000 people and today stands at 20 among 60,000 people. That is a huge increase. An alarming rise in cancer cases has been recorded also in neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina, where depleted uranium was used by NATO against Bosnian Serb forces earlier in 1995. According to official figures, more than 300 people from two districts of Sarajevo died of cancer from 1996 until 2000. It is not proven but there is enough evidence to suggest there is a link.

The other side of the story is perhaps most evident in former war zones. The real hazard for the Iraqi population these days is not so much terrorism, occupation or oil but cancer. Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. There is strong evidence that the United States army used depleted uranium in Iraq. Thousands of infants are now being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment. Falluja was heavily bombarded by the United States in 2004 and as many as 25% of newborn infants there have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumours and defects in the spinal cord. There is no definite proof of the cause but the link seems very credible. The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad, has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009. Iraqi doctors and some Western academics say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in US and British bombs are not unconnected to the sharp increase in cancer rates. Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, believes there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects.

Depleted uranium is obviously a much more tangible problem in countries that have been affected by war. I understand the Iraqi Ministry for Human Rights is filing a lawsuit against the United States and Great Britain for allegedly using more than 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium in Iraq. Obviously we must remain vigilant on issues of public safety from radiation exposure and take on board all reports which are involved in assessing any possible radiological effects from depleted uranium but given the massive rise in cancers in areas where depleted uranium has been used, it is difficult not to make the logical link. We must do our best to encourage countries to abandon the use of depleted uranium. I hope this Bill will send out a very forceful message.

Israel is one of the biggest offenders in this respect. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza has stated that the consequences of the three week conflict continue to affect the lives of the people of Gaza eight months later. Dr. Mowaiyaj Hassanen, director of al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip, said the use of internationally banned weapons, including white phosphorus and depleted uranium, has resulted in a series of abnormalities in newborn babies in Gaza, ranging from heart defects to brain abnormalities. It is shocking that babies and children are often the ones who are suffering from the effects of depleted uranium. If only to draw awareness to this fact, this Bill is very worthwhile.

Although not in the strictest sense related to this motion, it is worthwhile to mention Bill Gates and his new project to make use of depleted uranium. The founder of Microsoft, Gates is probably better known these days for his role in the fight against malaria. He has emphasised that even more important than developing vaccines are new energy technologies such as nuclear power and next generation batteries. To meet his 2050 deadline for cutting all carbon emissions, he is promoting a nuclear approach called terrapower, which will develop nuclear reactors that run primarily on natural or depleted uranium rather than enriched uranium. With un-enriched fuel, the reactors could be loaded up with fuel and sealed for 30 to 60 years.

Switching from enriched fuel would reduce the risks associated with nuclear proliferation and transportation as well as the amount of nuclear waste primarily because the stockpile of uranium would go farther. Depleted uranium is a waste product in the enrichment process. Terrapower's reactors need some enriched uranium at the beginning but only to initiate a reaction. The switch would also mean that the available supplies of uranium could be exploited to provide power for centuries or even thousands of years, which is far longer than what can be done with enriched uranium.

Regardless of whether we like it, nuclear power is making something of a comeback worldwide. I would like to debate the pros and cons of nuclear energy and while I am aware the Green Party is not very enthusiastic about it, other Greens around the world are considering its use. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive approximately 30 applications for new reactors over the next few years. Prominent members of the green movement in the United Kingdom have come out in favour of nuclear power after having a change of heart from an anti-nuclear stance to believing that atomic power is a necessary part of the energy mix in the struggle to cut carbon emissions and halt global warming. Chris Goodall wrote in the London Independent last week:

The green movement must learn to love nuclear power... Including nuclear power in this mix will make a low-carbon and energy-secure future easier to achieve. Nuclear power has substantial drawbacks, but the consequences of not embracing it are likely to be significantly worse.

Bill Gates's new initiative does not use rare, enriched uranium, as today's nuclear reactors do, but regular old uranium, including the kind that is currently treated as waste. That means reactors could use depleted uranium sources as fuel and produce far less waste in the process. This is a very interesting development which we should follow with interest over the next few years. I welcome the Bill and hope it does not stop here.