We previously commented on Canadian use of Depleted Uranium (DU) and legal issues related to it.

But DU is making the news again, this time in California.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has received a permit to detonate test weapons that include the use of DU by the Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Local citizens have raised concerns.

International Human Rights Attorney Karen Parker was interviewed by Cathy Garger, where she commented:

Q – In a telephone interview, I asked Ms. Parker, with regard to the UN resolution 1997/36, does this also apply to open air explosions and military training firing of Depleted Uranium used outdoors by the Departments of Energy and Defense within the United States?

KAREN PARKER – “Testing was part of the resolution…including stockpiling and trafficking. It’s not actually as clear as actual use in combat, whether the mere presence for instance of a nuclear bomb in your arsenal is a violation and a number of countries have nuclear weapons in their arsenals.”

However, explained Parker, the US government “does not view DU subject to test ban treaties and therefore there is no international restriction on the testing.” Ms. Parker continued, “I would argue that there is an inherent violation of human rights if a weapon that releases dangerous substances is tested in an area where there are people who could be negatively affected. From that perspective, carrying out, say, a Depleted Uranium test, open air, in the Bay area is a crime – a violation of international law from the perspective of the right to life, the right to health and those kinds of rights.”

Q – Isn’t the explosive testing a violation of humanitarian law?

KAREN PARKER – “It’s not so much a violation of humanitarian law, because the weapon isn’t used in combat. The fact that it is a weapon and could be, and is intended to be used in combat doesn’t make a test of it a combat exercise.”

Q – Okay, so the explosions of DU as “tests” are not considered a combat exercise, and it’s not a violation of humanitarian law. But it’s certainly a harmful substance, is it not?

KAREN PARKER – “Depleted uranium weapons release dangerous substances. And so from that perspective, it becomes what we call a kind of a tort, only because it’s a dangerous substance. It’s a strict liability and the United States is on notice that there are health consequences of Depleted Uranium. They of course, downplay them… but they have never denied that there aren’t any.”

“And there isn’t any way that you can carry out a Depleted Uranium open air test – or an open air test of weapons containing Depleted Uranium, without it having some effect on a very heavily populated northern California area. The central valley as a whole is fairly heavily populated and I’m certain that within a 50 to 100 mile radius of where they’re testing there are considerable population groups.”

NOTE: Within this 100 mile region exists a great many of California’s farms and vineyards which produce vast amounts of fresh produce and wine that are shipped all over the world. In fact, the Livermore Laboratory monitors radioactive tritium in the crops grown there.

KAREN PARKER – “I just think again there’s no prohibition in our conflict law because they’re not being used in combat; however, there are probably prohibitions in a number of other areas including, of course, human rights but also in environmental… the environmental aspect, which is part of the four-point test so you can have environmental and personal damage – damage to people… that would be the United States in violation of its own law in many, many areas.”

Q– The US in violation of its own law? What law is that?

KAREN PARKER – “Well their Human Rights law… The United States has a duty to promote and protect the right to health. So if you’re detonating weapons that causes illnesses – preventable – You’ve violated that.”

“Obviously, environmental laws – both state and federal laws about releasing dangerous substances – the release of dangerous substances is, in a sense, automatically a violation of what we call domestic law or tort law. It’s a strict liability violation, meaning there’s no defense. It’s not like it’s negligence. It’s not like the US could be sued for negligence because of injury. In the case of hazardous substances, it’s strict liability.

It’s hazardous stuff. It’s strict liability – It means that there is no defense. It’s as if the United States wasn’t properly maintaining a dam and the dam burst. The US can’t use any arguments in its defense, saying well we didn’t have adequate budget for maintenance. It’s strict liability. The dam busts, you’re liable.”

Q – Are there any other types of violation of US law that DU breeches?

KAREN PARKER – “Under human rights law, you can’t do it in the first place. It’s not just a question of who pays for the damage. And one of the reasons the United States has been so blatantly mendacious about Depleted Uranium is to generate confusion as to what exactly does it do…So the government is taking advantage of what it expects to be elements of proof in a legal action. And it’s been very clever. They have taken many, many defensive postures in anticipation.”

Q – In my final question, I asked Ms. Parker, with regard to the 1994 Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, if what I had read was true – that is, had she worked on this document? And, I asked, does this Declaration also apply for US citizens too, with regard to Livermore Laboratories’ Site 300 radioactive explosions?

KAREN PARKER – “I did indeed have a hand in the draft principles. Any UN documents holds equally for anyone in any country. That said, these are “draft” principles and did not “go up” to the General Assembly. Still, they are the “principles” the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Toxics uses. So they are operational. The question is, are they binding? But the underlying Human Rights law on which they are based is binding. So you can argue the underlying law, as expressed in the Draft Principles.”

It’s great that American citizens have valid concerns about the use of toxic substances in their backyard.

But shouldn’t more be done to prevent governments from using it in conflicts overseas as well?

h/t The Rag Blog