Depleted Uranium in Scotland is a complex tale of military needs, public outcry, and scientific scrutiny.

Depleted Uranium (DU) shells have been a subject of public concern ever since their first widespread use by military forces.

A recently published research paper by Dr. Alexander Boyd from Northumbria University, titled ‘Protect the land. Poison the sea. An environmental history of the Kirkcudbright Training Area and the firing of depleted uranium by the British Army (1982–2013)‘ dives into the intricacies of this controversial issue.

Boyd meticulously investigates the history of DU shell testing in Scotland’s Kirkcudbright Training Area, providing a nuanced examination of the tension between military imperatives and rising public and environmental concerns. Boyd told me:

“Few munitions used in the field are as controversial as that of Depleted Uranium. The story of their development and testing by the British Army is one of public outcry driven by a media opposed to the actions of the Ministry of Defence. On the ranges at Dundrennan in the South West of Scotland, where the rounds were fired into the Solway Firth, journalists and activists found a focus for this mistrust. Together with representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the use of Freedom of Information requests, and campaign groups, they created a narrative that the military found difficult to effectively counter which continues to this day.

Coverage of the MoD in Scotland has largely been portrayed through the lens of activist journalists, with inaccuracies, outrages and misrepresentations a fairly common occurrence. This is largely a result of a long history of obfuscation, denial and silence from the MoD, previously unable, or indifferent in responding to negative coverage. Instead the MoD in Scotland have focused on promoting the positive environmental stewardship of their sites, conserving wildlife while preserving fragile habitats on sites used for training and bombing exercises.

As DU is deployed to Ukraine from the reserves of the UK and the US, old controversies have once again resurfaced. Russian propagandists have been quick to seize on these with Putin himself threatening retaliation for the use of DU. In the ever-changing digital battlefield, lessons must be learned from the coverage of munitions such as DU, and these used to combat narratives generated and disseminated by those who threaten the freedom of nations such as Ukraine.”

Background: The Setting for Controversy

The Kirkcudbright Training Area in South West Scotland, adjacent to the Dundrennan weapons ranges, has a long history of serving as a British Army training ground. Boyd narrows the focus to the years between 1982 and 2013, a period during which the area was extensively used for firing DU shells.

Providing a critical take on the decision-making process, Boyd mentions that “Military decision-making practices were driven by expediency rather than by concern for public outcry.”

The Year 2001 and its Aftermath

“In September 2001, the MOD reported that firings had largely been completed, following many months of renewed media interest in the range,” Boyd writes. This period was crucial because it signaled a change in the MOD’s stance.

In the following year, Boyd notes that “the army announced that DU would eventually be replaced by tungsten alloy rounds, although current stocks of DU would still be available to be used.”

The era was also characterised by Dan Kenny’s campaigning, who was vocal in his calls for “…tests for all the people of Galloway and a full independent public inquiry,” appearing in both the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

Reports during this time also included mentions of “a strange red dust” outside the base, and the controversy escalated further with claims of increased cancer rates in the area.

Scientific Investigations and Controversies

The narrative took a new turn when claims of higher cancer rates began to surface. Boyd details that “these claims, so far unsubstantiated, would in February 2004 be repeated as fact by The Glasgow Herald.”

The public’s concern led to scientific investigations, and Boyd states that following a ruling by the Court of Session, a report by NHS Staff for the Scottish Cancer Registry in 2007 found that “over the 3 decades of live firing of DU, there was no statistical increase in illness amongst children in the area.”

The Ministry of Defence’s Response and Environmental Surveys

Surveys were conducted in an effort to mitigate the situation. Boyd references a MOD terrestrial survey carried out in 2006 that “revealed ‘very low levels of DU’ in 67 samples collected from 6 sites.”

However, Boyd also highlights that despite these findings, “activists criticised the survey results due to the MOD internalising the process, as well as a perceived lack of scrutiny through peer review.”

Protests and Campaigns

Public outcry never subsided. Boyd discusses the role of protesters, campaigners, and environmental groups who have constantly challenged the Ministry of Defence.

He points out that the “unlikely alliance” between Scottish nationalists and environmental activists was “driven by a common goal: to challenge the British Army’s activities on Scottish soil,” particularly during the tenure of the first SNP government.

A Continuing Saga

Describing the paper, Dr. Linda Ross, Nuclear Historian, said:

“Dr Boyd’s research shows the value in bringing together a range of sources – whether of military, political, protest movement or environmental origin – to present a balanced account of a complex and controversial subject. Through this, counter-narratives that go beyond attention-grabbing media headlines are revealed. Such in-depth analyses are particularly important when misinformation is often seized upon for political gain, skewing the discourse.

Dr Boyd’s work is an example of thorough and ethical research: achieved, for example, through such methods as a critique of the MOD’s Sanctuary sustainability-focused publication, or by spotlighting political representatives’ misunderstanding of the nature of Depleted Uranium. Importantly, this highlights the potential for similar studies at other military sites across the UK, particularly in Scotland where the land managed by the DIO provides a rich topic for further research.”

Boyd’s paper offers a complex look into the Kirkcudbright Training Area’s troubled history, revealing how the narrative around DU testing has been shaped by a myriad of factors—from military needs to public sentiments and scientific findings.

The issue remains contentious, and as Boyd leaves us contemplating, “Whether the story of DU testing at Dundrennan is over remains to be seen.”

You can read the paper for yourself by following this link.