Whatever Happened to Peace?

Christopher Hitchens predicts that Al Gore is about to get the Nobel peace prize for his recent efforts in promoting global-warming denial denialism. Hitch further calls on big Al to take advantage of the status the award would bring and take a run at the Democratic ticket. Good for Al Gore, probably good for America and by proxy the rest of the world, and good for mother Earth.

Kind of ironic though, that with at least two ongoing wars to get worked up about, the closest thing to peace advocacy we can find worthy of rewarding is environmentalism. Maybe they should change the name from "Nobel peace prize" to "Nobel warm-and-fuzzy" prize. At this rate, I predict we're headed for a future Earth teeming with bountiful life, a balanced carbon cycle, an intact ozone layer, completely "natural" temperature cycles, shelled-out terrain, bombed-out buildings, spent ammo and no human beings.

Clearly this is not the 60s. I guess these days we're lucky if pop culture awareness is focused on even one real issue at a time.

Depleted Uranium and Cancer: What Does The Science Say?

After reading this news story mentioned on a Digg post (Digg my comment) which suggested that an American Gulf War veteran's cancer had been caused by exposure to depleted Uranium, I was interested to see what the science had to say. The use of high-density depleted Uranium in armor-piercing ammuntition and armor by American, British and NATO forces has been the subject of much controversy. Critics cite it as a cause of cancer in troops exposed on the battlefied, and a hazardous environmental pollutant for local residents. Actually, quite a few studies have been done to investigate this matter, most of them by various European countries falling outside the influence of the so-called American "military industrial complex". Here's what they say:

• A Danish study published September 2006 examined cancer incidence in 14,000 of that countries veterans who had been deployed in the Balkans as part of the UN force. Contrary to previous speculations, no increased incidence of leukemia or testicular cancer was found amongst veterans in comparison to the overall Danish population.

• A similar study of 9000 Swedish Balkan veterans showed no increased incidence of leukemias or testicular cancer.

• A UK study comparing cancer incidences of 50,000 British veterans of the 1991 gulf-war to 50,000 control servicemen who had not been deployed showed no increased risk.

• United Nations Environment Programme scientists have measured soil samples from known sites of artillery impact in Kosovo. Although radioactivity was increased slightly above background, counts were well within safe bounds and one expert declared the soil emitted so little radiation that it would be safe to eat.

What's the bottom line? Studies have been done and so far there seems to be no evidence linking depleted Uranium use to cancer. Of course, cancer is a slow-developing disease and continued follow-up studies will be necessary to determine if incidences are affected decades from now. So while human beings firing armor-piercing ammo at each other while littering the environment with heavy metals and explosives (ie war) should probably be considered as something that is bad for human health, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether you're firing lead or depleted Uranium. Can't we all just settle our differences over a little LAN party?