Since 2003, measurements made by Green Audit in Fallujah, Iraq 2003, Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008 have provided unequivocal evidence of Uranium residues which show anomalous Uranium U-238/U235 isotope signature ratios. Results from independent laboratories in Europe and the UK, using different techniques, revealed the presence of enriched Uranium in biological materials and environmental samples including soil, bomb craters and air (as recorded in vehicle air filter dust).

More recently, 2021 results published in the Journal Nature, show that Uranium enrichment levels in background samples from Gaza have been increasing markedly since 2008. Since enriched Uranium is an anthropogenic substance which does not exist in nature, the question arises as to the source, in the weapons employed by the USA (Fallujah) and Israel (Lebanon, Gaza). It is proposed that the only logical answer is that a Uranium-based weapon exists that produces U-235 by neutron activation and has been deployed. Such a weapon must be some kind of neutron bomb.

There are many questions relating to the findings of Enriched Uranium in Lebanon, Gaza and Fallujah. But logic points to only one overall conclusion, in Rumsfeld terms, a thing we know we know. This is that U-235 is in clear and statistically significant excess: it is present in the samples. In the case of the recent 2021 Gaza study, it is definitely there in 55 of 69 samples. The only samples where it is not clearly present are the 14 samples from Sinai, that is, not from Gaza, and the Sinai results may therefore be employed as a control group to show clearly that there is enriched Uranium in Gaza.

Following logical questions, if U-235 is found in the three locations in the Middle East shown in Table 1, there are only two possibilities:

1. The Israelis dropped U-235, enriched Uranium, which they had produced in Israel or
   purchased in bombs or other Uranium weapons. Why would they do this?
2. The Israelis employed a weapon which contained U-238 but which produced U-235
   as part of a nuclear explosion. Such a weapon must produce neutrons, and would be
   designated a neutron bomb.

The first of these possibilities can be discarded: to drop enriched Uranium on your enemy is absurd. It is expensive. It is like killing your enemy by dropping diamonds. Enriched Uranium reportedly was valued at £250,000 a kilogram in the 1990s [17]. This leaves result (2), which is that the source of the U-235 is a neutron-producing bomb.

An inevitable deduction from the consistent findings of enriched Uranium in samples from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq, is that a neutron weapon of some kind has been employed since the second Gulf War, and possible before then. The weapon is ideal for armies employed in methodological destruction both of fighters hidden in urban environments (where neutrons pass through walls) and for any State that has the aim to destroy the civilian population using a genetic mutation weapon (cancer, fertility loss, birth defects). It is, however, a nuclear weapon and those deploying it are using a nuclear weapon against civilian populations as part of a cynical project to destroy an enemy State population without acknowledging this, and this is a war crime.