You are to be congratulated for bringing to public notice the possible causes of birth defects and cancers among infants in Falluja (Report, 14 November). You mention radiation poisoning, but not depleted uranium munitions.
These munitions were used in the first and second Gulf wars, and in the Balkans. The then defence minister, Geoff Hoon, said in January 2001 that banning their use would put British service people's lives at risk, and that the weapons were "astonishingly effective". There are suspicions that they are now being used in Afghanistan.
Depleted uranium is "1.7 times denser than lead, and highly valued by armies for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles. When a weapon made with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it and erupts in a burning cloud of vapour. The vapour settles as dust, which is both chemically poisonous and radioactive" (BBC News, 4 January 2001).
On impact, a DU missile burns at 10,000C, 30% of the shell fragments into shrapnel, and the remaining 70% vaporises into three highly toxic oxides, including uranium oxide. Its target is left covered in black dust, while further particles remain suspended in the air and can travel over great distances, according to wind and weather.
Laws that are breached by the use of DU shells include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Genocide convention, the convention against torture, the four Geneva conventions of 1949, the conventional weapons convention of 1980 and the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907.
• Air pollution and drug use do not produce infants riddled with tumours. The US military initially denied using white phosphorous, a banned substance. So why would they admit to using depleted uranium? These are 21st century crimes against humanity and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
New York, US
• Your report contains only one reference to the health risks of depleted uranium warheads, which you tactfully referred to as "components of munitions". The worldwide community knows that radiation is a serious risk to health and specifically causes birth defects. And how astonishing to read that Professor Nigel Brown says there is no reliable evidence to show that the components of munitions cause birth defects, except for ionising radiation.
Do we have to wait until someone is brave enough to publish the research that shows the harmful effects of depleted uranium? Do we need to wait for some specific scientific proof before we put an end to this grossly irresponsible practice?
• Martin Chulov reports on birth defects in Falluja, and Denis Campbell discusses possible etiologies. In neither article is there a mention of the role of folate deficiency in those defects, but it is known to be responsible for about 200,000 children a year around the globe being born with spina bifida and anencephaly – also referred to as neural tube defects. Most of these defects can be prevented if all women of reproductive age consume enough folic acid. Mandatory fortification of wheat and corn flour has been required in the US and Canada since the late 1990s, and the incidence has dropped dramatically.
Godfrey P Oakley
Research professor of epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, US
• I looked at malformations of chromosomes in newborn children in Vietnam in 1971. The Vietnamese ascribed them to the exposure of their mothers to Agent Orange. The US army, which used it as a defoliant, denied the connection but eventually we found out that it contained dioxin, which causes mutations. What genetically "harmless" adjuvant will be found to be the cause of the Falluja malformations? Since our government took us into this lamentable war, we shall have to share the responsibility.
Dr Martin Rosendaal