I am disgusted by the doube standards. To lay their hands on Serbia's natural resources in Kosovo, to build the biggest US base overseas in Kosov, there were no limits to expose European Christians to these deadly weapons. And the Europeans standing by idly. Shame on Europe, shame on NATO.

This is another proof of the superiority of the Albanians. There is NOT a single case of cancer reported among Kosovo Albanians. The Serbs are dying with cancer, NATO soldiers are dying with cancers (at least in Italy). But, the Kosovo Albanians are living happy without cancer.

Similar claims have been made in Iraq. Firstly, there is no verified increase in cancer incidence. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the alleged increases to depleted uranium. Most experts agree that the risks from depleted uranium are very low, negligible.

From Bulgaria: Russia Today, please report that NATO bombings' aftermath takes toll on Bulgaria as well! We (Bulgaria) are neighbouring country of Serbia. In my country, the level of people suffering from cancer is the highest in EU. In the last 5-10 years this number has been constantly increasing, it is disgusting. People in my country even dont know why the number is so great - some of them think it should be linked to the food we eat, the air we breath and so on. After the NATO bombings the level of uranium in our rivers and lakes has increased drastically!!! According to recent report, the rates of mortality from cancer in Bulgaria is the highest in EU!!!

They should collect the uranium and throw it back on Nato-Ground !

Re. from Bulgaria. Why do you connect cancer to DU use in Serbia. Uranium is naturally present in rivers and lakes, and just about any environmental media. I guarantee that you can not detect a rise in uranium related to Nato bombings. Where do you get that idea from? We are talking ultra-trace addition to a variable natural background, negligible contamination to Bulgaria.

It's pretty easy to determine if DU causes cancer just measure the cancer rate where these weapons were first used and what countries and conflicts these weapons were used. Granted US and other Nato countries will liekly have covered it up fearing law suit by former serving officers like they did in the first Gulf War but you could probably find out they rate of people and service men who have died or gotten ill in these regions.

July 02, 2009, 15:37, Nigel Lamb wrote > Re. from Bulgaria. > Why do you connect cancer to DU use in Serbia. Uranium is naturally present in rivers and lakes, and just about any environmental media. I guarantee that you can not detect a rise in uranium related to Nato bombings. Where do you get that idea from? We are talking ultra-trace addition to a variable natural background, negligible contamination to Bulgaria. Because when you breathe in particles in the air you get terminally sick with cancer. As long as it is in its natural state, somewhere in the ground it might not be that risky, but dispersing the powder upon explosion all over the city equals deliberate poisoning of the population.

You see there is your problem, you are assuming that breathing in this stuff is a significant risk. But there is no evidence that it is, for the very low levels that people have likely encountered. Natural aerosols also contain natural uranium, some of which is taken into our lungs. Our skeletons contain ultra-trace quantities of natural uranium, naturally. A miniscule increase in this is not significant. The paradox here is that very few people breathed in more than negligible quantities of DU, but people are claiming so many are sick. The evidence is that those who actually inhaled DU aren’t sick (see McDiarmid’s recent papers). If only it were as simple as johnx thinks, but we have to consider all the other possible causes of cancer. And before that we have to ask if there has been a per capita increase in cancer, which was increasing prior to DU weapons use anyway. Epidemiology is complicated at the best of times.

I would like to invite Nigel Lamb to come and live in Hadžići, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was heavily bombed by NATO's DU bombs, and where, back then in the 1990's, Serbs lived. Majority of them now lives in Bratunac, where cancer became the No. 1 killer since they arrived (btw., they all had to leave since that town became part of the non-Serbian part of B&H and vast majority came to Bratunac). There's an evidence for you, clear, scientific... It is easy for you to theorise what would happen and when and how... Many live it and suffer. However, your approach is correct, but there already are many scientific works (eg. those mentioned in this very article) about it but, obviously, not enough. Why would a criminal admit crimes? Why would any of the NATO states admit the consequences of this irrational, criminal, illegal bombing. Therefore, the Free world (non-NATO) counts on media like this one. Thank you, RT, for having these stories shown. Those who experienced the horrors and lived to read your news are grateful. God bless You.

Nigel Lamb Please read this: http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=586 From a scientific point of view. Rev12

Perhaps some sharp young lawyer will file a class action suit before a US court some day?

July 02, 2009, 10:12, Nigel Lamb wrote > Similar claims have been made in Iraq. Firstly, there is no verified increase in cancer incidence. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the alleged increases to depleted uranium. Most experts agree that the risks from depleted uranium are very low, negligible. The Iraqi Health Ministry had no shortage of evidence, Nigel. The evidence all disappeared shortly after the US/UK invasion of 2003. More personally, I ran into an Iraqi physician in Amman in early 2000 and, when I asked him if there were any consequences still present from the first invasion, he instantly, matter-of-factly said "The babies. Congenital deformities." I've also known French veterans of the first invasion: Gulf War Syndrome is real. The effects of Agent Orange were officially denied for decades. Finally they were confirmed. It makes sense: you want to delay confirmation as long as possible so that the total number of plaintiffs will be as small as possible, thereby reducing the amount of compensation you will have to pay out. It is rightful to love one's country, Nigel, but not at the expense of truth.