By Frank Rando
Frank Rando discusses the devastating consequences that munitions, CBRN warfare and its research and development, and heavy military activity can have on both the natural environment and human populations.
War and armed conflict impart their legacies in so many ways. The most obvious victims and tragic byproducts of military actions over the centuries can be seen in the rows of coffins, broken bodies, injured minds, and drained human spirits.
However, the intentional and collateral damage of armed conflict do not only extend to innocent human non-combatants, but to entire ecosystems and even the planetary biosphere. Indeed, that the environment can be a silent victim of conflict is seldom considered by warfighters, military planners, or the public.
Historically, the commission of ecocide – either intentionally or as a byproduct of military actions – has been evidenced in peacetime and on the battlefields. Particularly the environmental consequences of war have generated a sub-specialization of environmental science and ecology dubbed “war ecology”.
It follows that a healthy environment contributes to healthy humans, both physically and mentally. War and conflict, on the other hand, upset ecological and human homeostasis and overall community health and wellness. The predominant causes of environmental harm due to war involve the expenditure of ammunition containing heavy metals, high explosive artillery shell bombardments cratering the landscape and contaminating it with TNT and heavy metals, as well as the direct destruction of flora, fauna, and animals’ natural habitats. The impact of high explosives can also change the geochemical composition of soil.
Jet fuels, diesel oil, lubricants, and solvents permeate into aquifers and pollute groundwater and waterways, while their combustion byproducts toxify the air with vapors, fumes, and particulate matter, bringing further adverse respiratory and systemic effects. Incendiary weapons can cause wildfires that destroy acres of forest, pasture, and shelter, displacing animals, people, and contributing to air pollution, climate change, food shortages, and biodiversity losses.
The disruption of land masses by mechanized military forces and heavy equipment, as well as the destruction of critical infrastructure – namely power plants, water and waste treatment facilities, dams and reservoirs, industrial facilities, and healthcare delivery systems – further contribute to environmental and human health hazards and complex humanitarian disasters.
Conflict-induced displacement of indigenous populations generate other environmental and public health concerns. These include overcrowding, malnutrition, poor sanitation, exposure to the elements, infectious disease outbreaks, inadequate access to healthcare, increased morbidity and mortality, heightened aggressive behavior, traumatic stress, and other psychological disorders.
Despite condemnation from the United Nations and activist organizations such as Stop Ecocide, nation states have continued to commit crimes against the environment either intentionally or as an expected and accepted byproduct of war and armed conflict.
The Soviet Union and the United States
The cavalier attitudes of nations such as the former Soviet Union, contemporary Russia, and the U.S. have created vast “environmental sacrifice zones” for the sake of biological and chemical warfare research, development, and weapon production. Some of these zones predate even the Cold War.
The weaponization of nuclear energy has generated millions of gallons and thousands of tons of radioactive waste and hazardous chemicals that have seriously contaminated hundreds of hectares of land, soil, aquifers, marine environments, the food chain, and the air.
For example, between 1949-1956 in the Soviet Union, there were several operational and accidental releases of radioactivity into the environment by the Mayak Production Association Chemical Combine, including discharges of liquid radioactive waste into the Techa River and Lake Karchay. Residents living near the banks of the river were affected by the highly radioactive water, and the floodplain, sediments, banks, flora and fauna, and food chain have been highly contaminated by various radionuclides for decades.
Then, in 1957, in the secret atomic city known as Chelyabinsk-40, now known as Ozyorsk, one of the worst nuclear disasters in history occurred in the Southern Ural Mountains. In September of that year, an exothermic chemical reaction caused by cooling system failure led to a liquid radioactive waste storage tank explosion equivalent to 75 metric tons of TNT. The explosion generated a 1km-high radioactive plume of radiochemical aerosols and liquids that spread over 16,000m2. Approximately 200 individuals were killed instantly and over 270,000 people were exposed to radiation. Despite relocation efforts, residents of the villages and municipalities in the area continue to suffer the health consequences of radioactive contamination, including cancers and congenital anomalies.
On the other side of the Cold War, several American sites that were a part of the Manhattan Project, such as the Hanford plutonium operations facility near Richland, Washington, have been responsible for contaminating the environment and affecting human health since the 1940s. Corroded underground storage tanks leaked gallons of highly radioactive waste into the aquifer system and Columbia River for years and there have been several accidents at the Hanford facility and other nuclear weapons-related sites across the U.S.
Agent Orange and the Halabja Massacre
The use of “Agent Orange” as a herbicidal defoliant during the Vietnam War is a prime example of widespread environmental damage and the associated human health impacts on both an indigenous population and combatants. Extensive dioxin contamination of Vietnamese land, waterways, and the food chain has left a tragic trail of birth defects, developmental disabilities, cancers, and other adverse health effects. What possible genetic effects may be expressed as disease and disabilities in future generations are currently unknown. The use of napalm also destroyed huge areas of triple canopy jungle and disrupted ecosystems and biodiversity in the region.
Meanwhile, landmines and explosive remnants of war litter many post-war landscapes, including Southeast Asia. Huge numbers of people have been and continue to be maimed and killed by the post-conflict detonation of such contamination. In any case, whatever the nature of the consequence, the long range environmental and human consequences of the Vietnam War are still playing out almost 50 years on.
Prior to the Persian Gulf War and the Global War on Terror, chemical weapons were used in the 1988 Iran-Iraq War on Iranian soldiers with devastating results. Referred to as the “King of the Battle Gases” during World War I, sulfur mustard resulted in mass casualties from severe chemical burns and airway necrosis. Terrain was also contaminated with sulfur mustard to frustrate or deny territorial gains.
Most infamously, on March 16, 1988, nerve agents, sulfur mustard, and possibly cyanide against the Kurdish populations in northern Iraq, particularly Halabja in the region of Kurdistan, were used in the largest and deadliest chemical attack on a civilian population in history. The death toll of this diabolical attack reached 5,000.
Sulfur mustard is also known for its radiomimetic effects and can cause damage to the hematopoietic (blood cell creation) system, much like ionizing radiation. Its effects on bone marrow can lead to white and red blood cell depression, immune system dysfunction, and leave victims susceptible to overwhelming infection. Sulfur mustard can alkylate DNA and lead to mutations that result in cancers.
The Gulf War
One of the most toxic battlefields since World War I in terms of chemical warfare agents was the Persian Gulf in 1990-1991. Military operations in Iraq and Kuwait and their environs resulted in contamination of the desert, atmospheric and even the coastal-oceanic environment with crude oil and hydrocarbons, depleted uranium, oil well fires and their highly toxic smoke, diesel emissions from military vehicles, toxic burn pits, and even atmospheric releases of chemical warfare agents from targeted strikes on munitions facilities. During the initial air campaign several chemical weapon facilities were targets for destruction.
The most well-known neurotoxic chemical agent storage facility was in Kamisiyah, Iraq. Rockets filled with sarin and cyclosarin mixes were discovered there, and U.S. forces destroyed the storage depot along with several tons of precursor chemicals and chemical munitions. The quantity of toxic chemicals dispersed into the ambient environment and other environmental media is unknown.
United Nations teams carried out further demolition of chemicals from 1991-1994, including approximately 36,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, and more than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals. Saddam Hussein ordered oil wells to be lit on fire creating dense toxic clouds that blocked out sunlight, degraded visibility for miles, and contributed to an unprecedented environmental and public health disaster in the region. In addition, intentional releases of crude oil into the Persian Gulf killed many marine life forms and degraded the marine ecosystem in the Gulf. These egregious acts of environmental terrorism were part of Saddam’s scorched earth policy during the Persian Gulf War. These war atrocities contributed to the constellation of symptoms among the members of military forces sent to the region, known as Gulf War syndrome.
In terms of preparations for war, U.S and allied troops were given multiple immunobiologics, including anthrax vaccine and botulinum toxoid, as military commanders and medical planners anticipated that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons ready to be deployed against troops. Several vaccines administered contained the adjuvant squalene which is known to cause an adverse inflammatory response.
Pyridostigmine bromide tablets were also administered to troops deployed to the Persian Gulf as a pre-treatment for soman exposure. Uniforms were also impregnated with the insecticide DEET to counter insect-borne vectors of infectious diseases endemic to the Persian Gulf battlespace.
Organophosphate (OP) pesticide sprays were commonly used in the Persian Gulf area. Like military nerve agents, OP compounds are toxic to the nervous system because they block the activity of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This enzyme normally breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. When acetylcholinesterase is blocked by OP compounds, acetylcholine builds up, causing nerves to keep firing without stopping.
This leads to profound neuromuscular dysfunction which includes tonic and clonic seizures, and the three “killer B’s”:bronchoconstriction (airway narrowing), bronchorrhea (increased respiratory secretions), and bradycardia (slowed heart rate). Severe OP toxicity can lead to death via cardiopulmonary arrest.
It has been postulated that low level exposures to military neurotoxicants, such as sarin and OP pesticides, may have led to the neurological symptoms among Gulf War veterans. Moreover, pyridostigmine bromide intake may have also contributed to neuromuscular symptomatology. There has been a cluster of Gulf War veterans who have developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological diseases. Is there a connection? Possibly.
Vast desert territories contaminated with depleted uranium (DU) shells and dust has created an environmental health hazard. DU dust can be inhaled or ingested and is not only radioactive, but it is also classified as a toxic heavy metal that can poison the kidneys.
During the Gulf War, many Iraqi children were born with congenital abnormalities and these birth defects have been attributed to DU and other environmental exposures; a variety of cancers have also been reported among the affected population. Indeed, DU is an alpha emitter which can irradiate tissue as it is retained in bodily systems, and it is known to transcend the placental barrier and can affect developing fetuses.
DU dust was also widely dispersed in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, particularly in Sarajevo, where many combatants and others continue to suffer adverse health effects related to battlefield environmental exposure. It is this author’s opinion that DU projectiles are radiological weapons and should be banned in warfare.
When in combination, these multiple exposures may result in a synergistic effect leading to Gulf War syndrome and several sub illnesses such as neurological diseases, cognitive dysfunction, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, respiratory dysfunction, reproductive disorders, cancers, and others.
One of the challenges in environmental epidemiology and toxicology is proving causality of disease and dysfunction by an environmental toxicant. Exposures to multiple environmental agents becomes problematic due to the complex nature of such exposures.
The Syrian Civil War
In August 2013, the world watched in horror as the Assad regime delivered the deadliest salvo of sarin chemical attacks in Ghouta, Syria, killing between 281 and 1,729 civilians and injuring 3,600 more. In April 2017, another sarin attack occurred in Khan Shaykhun, killing approximately 90 non-combatants. This was followed by the April 2018 Douma chemical attacks that led to 43 fatalities and 500 injuries.
Many of the chemical attacks involved the use of chlorine, which is a potent, water-soluble irritant gas that interacts with the aqueous medium of the respiratory tract and then forms hypochlorous and hydrochloric acids leading to damage of respiratory mucosa, particularly the upper and central airways. The airways become reactive with severe bronchoconstriction and the effects on the upper airways can lead to glottic edema and airway obstruction, which impedes gas exchange. Prolonged and high exposures can lead to pulmonary edema, also known as “dry land drowning”.
It has been shown that several chemical attacks involved the dissemination of sarin nerve agent as well as possible sulfur mustard attacks by ISIL, but most of the chemical weapons attacks were initiated by the Syrian government forces under the orders of Bashar al-Assad. The Assad regime, Syrian Arab Armed Forces, and pro-Assad paramilitary forces have all been implicated in more than 300 chemical attacks in Syria.
The Russia-Ukraine War
In February 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, igniting the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Many members of the EU, NGOs, and international legal and scientific institutes have reached a consensus that Russia is guilty of ecocide.
Environmental crimes – also known as green crimes – can be characterized as primary and secondary crimes. The destruction and degradation of Earth’s resources through human actions, such as pollution of the air, land, water, and deforestation constitute primary green crimes, while secondary or symbiotic green crimes include circumventing or flouting laws, rules, and regulations that seek to prevent and prosecute environmental disasters. Russia is believed to have committed both categories of crimes against the environment and Ukraine is seeking attribution and compensation from the Russian government. Furthermore, as per the UN’s own categorization regarding key environmental issues, Russia has actively and wantonly caused a “triple planetary crisis”: pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change.
Ukrainian officials and international authorities are conducting environmental war crime investigations by performing scientific assessments through observation, meticulous evidence collection, laboratory analysis, and careful documentation to confirm intentional and collateral environmental damage committed in wartime. Environmental war crimes are addressable and may be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It is more than apparent that Russia has been employing a scorched earth policy in its war with Ukraine.
Environmental modification and ecological damage in Ukraine has been extensive and profoundly devastating. This devastation has included severe air and water pollution, destruction of natural habitats, agricultural damage, and contamination of the land with heavy metals and other toxic substances.
Recent reports indicate that the largest nuclear power facility in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, continues to be under threat from artillery shelling and limited power generation to support the reactor cooling system. If the cooling system were to fail, then the reactor core temperature will rise, and a core meltdown would result in another nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine. In the first weeks of the full-scale invasion, Russian troops also occupied areas of the Chernobyl restricted zone and re-suspended radioactive particles in the air.
The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam on June 6, 2023, has resulted in an environmental catastrophe. Particularly the destruction of buildings has contaminated the environment with asbestos, highly alkaline dust, respiratory cement particles, heavy metals such as lead, fiberglass and silica, and polycyclic hydrocarbons.
The war has exposed the Ukrainian population and combatants to a highly complex mixture of toxicants and a variety of stresses, both physical and psychological. Once the war is over, thousands will need to be evaluated, treated, and rehabilitated for unprecedented toxic exposures, exacerbated chronic illnesses, injuries, and traumatic stress. The threat of use of chemical weapons by the Russian regime and the existential threat of nuclear weapons adds to the complexity and dire nature of this war. A similar condition exists in Gaza as the Israel Defense Forces continue to root out Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and their strongholds.
“War is not healthy for children and other living things”
It has been said that “War is hell”. Anyone that has served in combat can attest to this statement. The 1960s and 1970s antiwar sentiment which had been displayed on posters and stickers during those tumultuous times in history perhaps explains it plainly: “War is not healthy for children and other living things.”
While war will probably always be considered as a resolution to social, economic, and geopolitical conflicts, it is imperative that ways be sought to both protect and preserve our planet’s natural systems as well as enforce international laws and treaties that address the humane conduct of military operations.
Frank Rando currently serves as an allied health programs educator, lead instructor, healthcare emergency preparedness, medical readiness, public health preparedness and tactical, operational, disaster medicine and homeland security subject matter expert, educator, instructor, and curriculum designer. He has served in instructional, guest speaker, and consultative roles for DHS-FEMA, various components of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, Department of Defense, industry, academia, health, safety and regulatory entities, emergency services organizations, and healthcare.
