Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Depleted U - An impromptu interview w/ a Career Tank Specialist
Source: me
URL Source: http://none.com
Published: Apr 27, 2005
Author: Tom007
Post Date: 2005-04-27 22:07:28 by tom007
Keywords: Specialist, impromptu, interview
Views: 2452
Comments: 488

Had an intesting conversation with a man I have known for about 5 months. He delivers to my store, handles alot of cash and is a "straight up" kind of guy. I like him, and I am sure his employer does as well. A steady Eddie man, the kind that makes the country run.

We somehow got talking about the ME, and he mentioned he had been to Egypt, and really did not care for any of it. I asked him how it was that he found himself in the ME and he said he was in the service of the military.

Naturally I wanted to know in what type of service he was in. Well, he was drafted into 'Nam, and did twentyfour years, and tanks were his thing. He started out in a tank designation I did not know of. I know a little about M1A1' and wanted to know some things about them, and the man was very evidently the real deal, no swagger, no he man stories etc. He is who he claims.

After some talk of tactics, guns, how to disable an M1A1, exploding armor, all of which he had the knolwedge of a solider who had spent many years with this type of equipment. He was pretty high up in the system.

Then I asked him about DU. Well turns out he was one of the men on the ground testing it at Aburdeen Proving grounds, shooting various things, like mounds of earth, then digging into it to estimate the ballistics, etc.

Did this many time, and my friend related that one time a DU projectile fragmented into the mound of earth. They were to go dig all the pieces of the remenents out. As he tells me, there was a hole that one of the fragments had made, and as they were poking around, a field mouse was scared up and scampered into that hole made by a fragment.

He just sat back and waited for it to come out-; it didn't. After a few minutes, he saw that it was dead.

He went and got the General of the testing operation, and showed him what he had discovered. The General and his men looked at the situation and told all the testers to go away. For three weeks the site was closed, except to the investigators.

Three weeks later, the investigation was complete. The report said the mouse died of "starvation". My friend looked at me, eye to eye, and laughed. "That mouse damn sure didn't die of starvation", he said emphatically.

He said when the DU rounds hit a tank, he could "see a mushroom cloud", formed (Note, alot of high intensity heat will form a mushroom cloud event).

He said "if you take a giger counter into one of the tanks with DU munitions it will beep like crazy". He said that the explosiom of a DU round into steel was" basically a miniature explosion of a nuclear bomb".

He said they would put goats in the test tanks, and around them. He stated that " for twentyfive meters around the tank, hit by a DU round, all the goats would be dead, ten meters, mangled, turned inside out".

He believed DU dust to be alot more dangerous than the military was allowing.

This man is much more creadible, to me, much more, than the talking hairdoo's reading spin points from the Pentagon.

Draw your own conclusions, this is what I heard today, from a man with incontrovertable creadibility with me. He was there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 153.

#8. To: tom007 (#0)

My best guess is that the DU dust is physically toxic metal, similar to inhaling cyanide dust. It's not that much to do with the radiation.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   1:53:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SKYDRIFTER (#8)

The basic gist of this is...

Lead used as a projectile is JUST as big a deal as DU being used as a projectile.

The only reason that DU is such a big deal, is because it has Uranium in the name, and they can create a huge public problem with it.

It is just as dangerous as lead is, BUT, that is it....

SO, if you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well, otherwise, forget about it.....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   2:17:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Aric2000, Zipporah (#10)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure. < /sarcasm >

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   9:13:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Arator, Aric2000, Zipporah, SKYDRIFTER (#13)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste.

Whoever this Dr. Rokke is, their wrong. Aric2000 has it right, but actually overstated the problem. Lead is more chemically toxic than DU and DU is far less than 1/2 as radioactive as natural (3% U235) uranium. The half life of U238 is in the billions of years, so its decay rate is extremely low.

The radioactive waste remark is ludicrously off base. Even if the DU were made from radioactive waste (which it isn't; it's made from natural uranium ores as a byproduct of enrichment), other radioative isotopes could not be present because of the process used.

Uranium is reacted with fluorine to produce uranium hexafluoride gas. At this point, most other radioactive elements are exclude because they don't react with fluorine under the same conditions.

Then the gas is centrifuged over and over and over to separate the U238 and the U235 based on the slight difference in density. Any other gaseous radioactive compounds that MIGHT be present would have densities so low that they would all be separated out with the U235. This is purely theoretical because, in practice, they don't exist.

The gas is converted back into nearly pure U238. The only contaminate possible is residual U235, but the level is monitored closely.

Because DU comes from natural uranium and because of the production process and the monitoring of U235 levels, the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   10:08:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Kyle (#16)

the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

I guess you can't handle the truth.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:16:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Kyle, Aric 2000 (#17)

Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Any points you make with these shills, no matter how rational the points, will not be absorbed. They just aren't programmed to think independently. They are only programmed to regurgitate what their masters tell them to spew.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-28   10:30:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Aric 2000 (#19)

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t: Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Red Jones: me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

1) I've never read anything from the administration on this subject. My information is based purely on my knowledge of the subject matter from independent sources.

2) I've yet to see anything purporting to 'prove' that DU is deadly, or that it has killed any significant number of people (except in the intended manner), that didn't have all the earmarks of crackpottery.

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted? That the half-life of U238 is in the order of billions of years and therefore has very, very low radioactivity? That DU contains virtually nothing except U238 and trace amounts of U235 and cannot contain other radioactive isotopes by virtue of the manufacturing process? That the chemical toxicity of U238 is much lower than that of the the principle alternative, lead?

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   11:41:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Kyle (#33)

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Where did I call you any names?? Seems that crap was started not by me ..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   12:52:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Zipporah (#36)

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted?

Apparently not.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   12:56:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Kyle, robin (#39)

Apparently not.

Nor did you address any of the facts that robin posted ..so lets see you address those.. then I'll address those..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   12:58:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Zipporah, robin (#40)

Nor did you address any of the facts that robin posted ..so lets see you address those.. then I'll address those..

2 words: LEUREN MORET

That is the ultimate source for most of it. Besides Moret's OBVIOUS conspiracy theorist biases that are revealed in Robin's posts, you might be interested to know that Moret claims that DU will wipe out all life on the planet. Moret has zero credibilty. Zero.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   13:10:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Kyle (#44)

You havent addressed Dr. Rokke's position on DU nor why the UN called for a ban:

Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.

And if DU is not harmful, then explain the high radioactive levels on the Highway of Death:

"DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain."

And the research and links from the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   13:21:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Zipporah (#48)

You havent addressed Dr. Rokke's position on DU nor why the UN called for a ban:

Who is Dr. Rokke? I submit that they are either looney or have a political axe to grind, as they are running counter to the good science that has been donr for half a century.

The UN's position is obvious - pure, unadulterated pandering to anti-US elements and crazed conspiracy theorists- happens ALL the time.

As for the rest of your post - it's BS (consider the sources) or has already been dealt w/ in my other posts.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:14:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Kyle (#61)

I submit that they are either looney or have a political axe to grind, as they are running counter to the good science that has been donr for half a century.

You profess to be an expert on DU and don't know who Dr. Rokke is?? I submit that your posts are BS since you claim to be such an expert and have no knowledge of Dr. Rokke.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   14:25:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Zipporah (#67)

You profess to be an expert on DU and don't know who Dr. Rokke is?? I submit that your posts are BS since you claim to be such an expert and has no knowledge of Dr. Rokke.

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. Every thing I've posted from experts worldwide is BS because I don't know who your looney is. Is that your reasoning?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:36:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Kyle (#71)

    "8. Should DU be handled in powdered form [DU munitions create a fine powder when fired due to their pyrophoric nature] or should a DU penetrator oxidize resulting from a penetrator's involvement in an accident such as a fire, then the intake of DU aerosol or ash via inhalation, ingestion or absorption pesents an internal radiation hazard.

    9. Depending on the solubility of the particular DU compound in body fluids, it may also be toxic, particular to the kidney."

Holy Makral, Kyle.. this stuff sounds dangerous!

Then again, it's probably just those conspiracy kooks over at the US NAVY pulling everyones chain again, eh?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:41:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Jhoffa_ (#73)

"8. Should DU be handled in powdered form [DU munitions create a fine powder when fired due to their pyrophoric nature] or should a DU penetrator oxidize resulting from a penetrator's involvement in an accident such as a fire, then the intake of DU aerosol or ash via inhalation, ingestion or absorption pesents an internal radiation hazard.

9. Depending on the solubility of the particular DU compound in body fluids, it may also be toxic, particular to the kidney."

Already addressed in previous posts. Hazards are minimal.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:04:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Kyle (#80)

From the loonies at the Health Physics Radiation Safety Journal

DEPLETED URANIUM DUST FROM FIRED MUNITIONS: PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES.

Health Physics. 87(1):57-67, July 2004.
Mitchel, R. E. J. *; Sunder, S.

Abstract: This paper reports physical, chemical and biological analyses of samples of dust resulting from munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) that had been live-fired and had impacted an armored target. Mass spectroscopic analysis indicated that the average atom% of 235U was 0.198 +/- 0.10, consistent with depleted uranium. Other major elements present were iron, aluminum, and silicon. About 47% of the total mass was particles with diameters <300 [mu]m, of which about 14% was <10 [mu]m. X-ray diffraction analysis indicated that the uranium was present in the sample as uranium oxides-mainly U3O7 (47%), U3O8 (44%) and UO2 (9%). Depleted uranium dust, instilled into the lungs or implanted into the muscle of rats, contained a rapidly soluble uranium component and a more slowly soluble uranium component. The fraction that underwent dissolution in 7 d declined exponentially with increasing initial burden. At the lower lung burdens tested (<15 [mu]g DU dust/lung) about 14% of the uranium appeared in urine within 7 d. At the higher lung burdens tested (~80-200 [mu]g DU dust/lung) about 5% of the DU appeared in urine within 7 d. In both cases about 50% of that total appeared in urine within the first day. DU implanted in muscle similarly showed that about half of the total excreted within 7 d appeared in the first day. At the lower muscle burdens tested (<15 [mu]g DU dust/injection site) about 9% was solubilized within 7 d. At muscle burdens >35 [mu]g DU dust/injection site about 2% appeared in urine within 7 d. Natural uranium (NU) ore dust was instilled into rat lungs for comparison. The fraction dissolving in lung showed a pattern of exponential decline with increasing initial burden similar to DU. However, the decline was less steep, with about 14% appearing in urine for lung burdens up to about 200 [mu]g NU dust/lung and 5% at lung burdens >1,100 [mu]g NU dust/lung. NU also showed both a fast and a more slowly dissolving component. At the higher lung burdens of both DU and NU that showed lowered urine excretion rates, histological evidence of kidney damage was seen. Kidney damage was not seen with the muscle burdens tested. DU dust produced kidney damage at lower lung burdens and lower urine uranium levels than NU dust, suggesting that other toxic metals in DU dust may contribute to the damage.

(C)2004Health Physics Society

Click here for fulltext.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:16:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#82)

From the loonies at the Health Physics Radiation Safety Journal

That was the abstract. Here is the conclusion (already posted once, but you don't read):

That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare and, as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge in the process, we should not squander our valuable and limited energies, resources and time, traveling down a road that has already been well traveled and which has already shown us that uranium, either by itself or in combination with other materials, is almost certainly not the culprit. Rather we should put politics and political correctness, personal agendas, media coverage, and posturing aside and instead focus on scientifically determining what is in fact the cause of these illnesses. This would provide a true benefit to mankind; pointing accusing fingers at depleted uranium in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is clearly wrong and counterproductive.

Ronald L. Kathren Professor Emeritus Washington State University Past President, Health Physics Society Past President, American Academy of Health Physics

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:19:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Kyle (#86)

By the way, your posted conclusion is NOT the conclusion that goes with the abstract I posted. Just a bit deceptive on your part, there little feller.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:26:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#88)

By the way, your posted conclusion is NOT the conclusion that goes with the abstract I posted. Just a bit deceptive on your part, there little feller.

My appolgies; I thought it was. You see, the link you gave required a password.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:54:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Kyle (#93)

Yeah, tell it to the Gulf War 1 veterans who, btw, your "Help is on the way" administration has pretty much told to STFU and go away. I have a lot more faith and trust in the validity of the extensive data given here than I do your sources. I guess it all comes down to who you choose to believe. I know this government has a long, long history of lying to the American people. As dumbya said here. ..

Gulf War Syndrome/Depleted Uranium

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger ~ January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   16:14:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: christine (#101)

I have a lot more faith and trust in the validity of the extensive data given here than I do your sources. I guess it all comes down to who you choose to believe.

Bingo! We have a winner. I choose to believe the vast majority of the experts worldwide who aren't political hacks. You choose to go w/ the small minority that fit into your twisted world view. 'Nough said.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:16:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Kyle (#103)

I choose to believe the vast majority of the experts worldwide who aren't political hacks.

Again with the lies. You've systematically rejected the plethora of worldwide experts that have been presented to you here.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:31:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#113)

Again with the lies. You've systematically rejected the plethora of worldwide experts that have been presented to you here.

Your 'experts', to a man, have a political axe to grind. Some are downright ludicrous. You have conveniently ignored the real experts that I've linked to, when you haven't cavalierly dismissed them as part of the 'CONSPIRACY'.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:34:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: Kyle (#117)

Your 'experts', to a man, have a political axe to grind.

Really? Perhaps you could enlighten me to the axe that the following people are grinding:

REJ Mitchel
S. Sunder
K. Baverstock
C. Mothersill
M. Thorne
Dr. Rosalie Bertell
Michael Mariotte
Col. J. Edgar Wakayama OSD/DOT and E/CS
Dr. Doug Rokke
Asaf Durakovic
Alexandra Miller
Z. Goldbert
B.E. Lehnert
O.V. Belyakov
A.M. Malcolmson . . .

And the list goes on and on and on...

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:52:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: ALL (#130)

Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving

Sunday, February 18, 2001 By DAN FAHEY

BOSTON--Despite scant coverage in the U.S. media, a controversy over depleted- uranium ammunition used in the Gulf and Balkan wars has been raging in Europe. Several governments that provided troops for these conflicts fear that a rash of unexplained illnesses in veterans--including hemorrhaging, tumors and cancers--may have been caused by ammunition fired by U.S. warplanes.

Germany, Italy, Norway and the European Parliament have called for a moratorium on using the ammunition, while the World Health Organization has announced plans for a study of civilians in Kosovo and Iraq who may have been exposed. Last week, Pekka Haavisto, the head of the United Nations' investigation of depleted uranium, warned of the necessity to "closely follow the state of health" of those exposed to the ammunition in the Balkans.

Questions abound: Is there a causal link between depleted uranium and serious illnesses? What constitutes dangerous levels of exposure? How many soldiers and civilians have been exposed? How much plutonium is there in the ammunition?

One thing is certain: The Pentagon has inflamed the controversy by withholding information and stonewalling investigations. It is likely to remain a major headache for the Bush administration, especially for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic heavy metal that emits low-level alpha radiation. It is used in armor-piercing ammunition because it is extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way through hard targets such as tanks. But depleted uranium also contaminates the impact area with a fine depleted-uranium dust that presents a health hazard if inhaled in sufficient quantities. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, research on rats conducted by the military's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found that depleted uranium's chemical toxicity--not its radioactivity--may cause immune system damage and central nervous system problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers.

Dr. David McClain, the military's top depleted-uranium researcher, told a presidential committee investigating Gulf War illnesses in 1999 that "strong evidence exists to support [a] detailed study of potential DU carcinogenicity." A separate Army-funded study conducted by the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., found that depleted uranium caused cancer when implanted in laboratory animals. While Fletcher Hahn, a senior scientist at Lovelace, cautioned about applying the findings to human beings, he also called the study "a warning flag that says we shouldn't ignore this."

Despite the military's own research, however, in recent weeks Pentagon spokesmen have dismissed concerns about depleted uranium as unscientific hysteria and propaganda. For example, Army Col. Eric Daxon recently attributed concerns about depleted uranium to "a purposeful disinformation campaign" by the Iraqi government. Yet, the Army anticipated the current controversy even before the war against Iraq. A July 1990 report from the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command predicted that, "Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU [ammunition] for military applications." The report added that depleted uranium is "linked to cancer when exposures are internal."

Six months after the Army's prescient report, U.S. and coalition fighting forces charged into Kuwait and Iraq, oblivious to the hazards of the 320 tons of depleted-uranium ammunition shot by U.S. tanks and aircraft. When thousands of veterans reported myriad health problems after the war, a series of federal investigations queried the Defense Department about its use of depleted uranium. In each case, the Army Surgeon General's office asserted that only 35 veterans had been exposed, a number so small that it did not justify further research.

Through Congressional inquiry and the determined work of Gulf War veterans' advocates, however, the Pentagon was forced to dramatically increase its estimates of the number of veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

In January 1998, the Pentagon's Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses made a long-overdue admission: "Combat troops or those carrying out support functions generally did not know that DU contaminated equipment such as enemy vehicles struck by DU rounds required special handling. The failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures."

The Pentagon's figure of "thousands" tells us little about the effects of depleted uranium on these veterans. Unfortunately, until 1998 the Department of Veterans Affairs accepted the Pentagon's original number and examined only 33 veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Some of these veterans continued to excrete depleted uranium in their semen and urine six years after the war. Several have mild central nervous system problems. The VA removed a bone tumor from one veteran who was wounded by DU shrapnel.

In the absence of an epidemiological study of a larger number of exposed veterans, however, no firm conclusions about the role of depleted uranium can be drawn. Unfortunately, the lack of candor has continued even after Kosovo. When the war ended, a United Nations task force asked NATO to identify areas contaminated with depleted uranium so that peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers might be warned about the potential hazard. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization inexplicably refused to comply with the request. In February 2000, eight months after the war, NATO finally confirmed that U.S. jets had released the equivalent of 10 tons of depleted uranium in Kosovo and Serbia. Another seven months passed before NATO disclosed the 112 locations of contamination. But it wasn't until last month--19 months after the bombing stopped--that NATO finally posted warning signs at the sites.

From all accounts, peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers in Kosovo were surprised to learn about depleted-uranium contamination in their midst. There, as in Iraq, children had long been playing on destroyed equipment. In addition, adults had scavenged destroyed equipment for usable parts and scrap metal.

European outrage increased when the U.N. disclosed that some depleted-uranium ammunition used in Kosovo contains plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. Pentagon spokesmen asserted that the amounts of plutonium in the ammunition are extremely low, but they have failed to publicly disclose the levels of plutonium in ammunition shot in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Kuwait and on training ranges in Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico and the United States.

The Pentagon's history of withholding information about depleted uranium has fueled suspicions among many of our allies. Rumsfeld should try a new approach: ordering full disclosure of all information and complete cooperation with international investigations.

Dan Fahey, Who Attends the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Is a Navy Veteran and Former Board Member of the National Gulf War Resource Center

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   17:02:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: christine (#145)

Dan Fahey, Who Attends the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Is a Navy Veteran and Former Board Member of the National Gulf War Resource Center

And not one link to anything verifiable. Shocking.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:13:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 153.

#156. To: Kyle (#153)

Link please

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:50224830&num=2&ctrlInfo=Round9l%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=

(Subscribe to High Beam Research for access)

U.S. DOD: DoD news briefing--Part 1 of 3

M2 Presswire

M2 Presswire; 8/7/1998

M2 PRESSWIRE-7 August 1998-U.S. DOD: DoD news briefing (C)1994-98 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

RDATE:040898 1:30 p.m. (EDT)

* Dr. Bernard D. Rostker, Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses

Col. Bridges: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today Dr. Bernie Rostker, the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses will present the latest in a series of public releases of investigations his office has conducted on potential causes of Gulf War Illnesses.

In addition to releasing two new case narratives, he will also be releasing the first environmental exposure report, as well as announcing two new initiatives to help our veterans.

Dr. Rostker?

Dr. Rostker: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here today.

As the Colonel said, we're going to release two case narratives in the series that deal with chemical and biological incidents. We'll also release the first of a new series that deal with environmental exposures. The case narratives on chemical and biological will be relating to French-Czech detections in An Nasiriyah. The narrative or the, now we're calling them environmental exposure reports, will deal with depleted uranium.

We'll also announce two initiatives, one following from the depleted uranium work that will have us assessing several hundred additional soldiers as to possible medical impacts of their exposures to depleted uranium, and the other an effort which we hope will be useful to our veterans. We've been able to locate many of the in-patient medical records from the Gulf and we've established a program that will allow them to request these records and to facilitate them obtaining the information that they desire.

First, in terms of Czech-French. When I took over the investigations we agreed that we would start over on all of the inquiries, and that included the inquiries about the reports of low level chemicals being developed by the Czechs and the French. In that regard we visited Prague and Paris. We had in our team a member of Senator Spectre and Rockefeller's investigating subcommittee, and we have shared with both the French and the Czechs the write-up that you're going to see today, in fact, an earlier version of that.

These exposures were well documented in the 1994 timeframe, and frankly, we can bring little new to the table. We've been able to confirm what was well known.

The area that represents new work is correlating these exposures with the bombing campaign. For the last year we've been working with CIA, DIA and NEMA, the old Defense Mapping Agency, to get a handle on the specifics of the bombing campaign -- exactly what was hit on what date. And this has turned out to be rather difficult. We've had to look at overhead photography; we've had to look at gun camera footage to determine what was actually attacked on what date.

Almost all of the attacks occurred later than the late January timeframe reported by the French and the Czechs. The only exception is that in the area of Mohamidiyah we're not able, yet, to sort out what occurred on what date.

A perfect example of this has to do with An Nasiriyah. We now know that there were chemicals at An Nasiriyah at the time of the bombing campaign. We know these chemicals were stored in Bunker 8 and Bunker 8 was not attacked. So here's where we can bring information from the bombing campaign and correlate it with the Czech-French detections.

Our conclusion in the French and Czech area has not changed. We believe the equipment was highly credible and could, in fact, detect to the low levels that were reported. The CIA had called these detections credible, and we continue that assessment.

In terms of the other reports that have not been confirmed by either the Czech government or the French government, we've made a call of indeterminate. We just don't know. They have not been able to provide us with any additional information that would shed any light on these detections -- either the magnitude of the detections or the source of any of the detections. So they remain open and we call them indeterminate.

Turning for a moment to An Nasiriyah, this is the third ammunition depot that we have examined. The first being, of course, Khamisiyah, then Talil, and now An Nasiriyah. An Nasiriyah is about a kilometer from Talil. It was examined by the United Nations and by the 82nd Division. They found no traces of chemicals in either site, although the United Nations tells us that chemicals were there in January. These are the chemicals that were eventually shipped to Khamisiyah and were, in the case of the 122mm sarin rockets, destroyed both in Bunker 73 and in the pit.

In the case of the 155mm artillery rounds that were filled with sarin, these are the rounds that the United Nations recovered and were subsequently incinerated.

An Nasiriyah is interesting because it is also the subject of several additional reports that we've been able to investigate... one of a mysterious helicopter that landed at An Nasiriyah. Samples were taken, and before the people who took the samples got back into the helicopter they took off their MOPP suits and they burned their MOP suits.

In the report you'll see documented the fact this was one of many missions that were looking for biological samples, and An Nasiriyah was a suspected biological site because it contained a 12 frame bunker that was refrigerated. You'll remember that the main thing the targeteers and the intelligence community were looking at the time were where the S-shaped bunkers were and where the 12 frame bunkers were.

So a mission was sent in to collect samples. We've talked to the pilot of the mission and he was the one who asked that the crew, when they came back in, to burn their MOPP suits. There was nothing specific in terms of what they had found. It was a general concern that he had for contamination.

The samples that were drawn that day have been identified. They were tested for biological agents. All of the tests were negative.

One of the samples was a melted TNT and came from a leaking artillery round. That was, again, one of the stories that veterans have been concerned about. It turns out that's not unusual to rounds that have been put under heat and pressure, which is what happened when we started to blow up those depots. This is one of the rounds that was not completely destroyed, was mysterious as far as the soldier was concerned. Samples were taken, and those samples have shown it to be TNT, which is what we had expected.

So with these last two chemical cases, we have brought to 16 the number of reports -- either case narratives or information papers -- that we've published that relate to chemical or biological exposures.

We continue to look in the chemical and biological area. We'll have, shortly, a paper on the 11th Marines. There's a paper on the incidents at a cement factory. We are looking at all of the 256 kit reports, the so-called Edgewood tapes are, again, reports that are in progress, and we'll be bringing those to you over time.

It's important, though, that we expand the horizons of the office to move it not only from just chemical and biological inquiries, but to other environmental inquiries. Right now we're actively engaged in looking at the impact of the oil well fires, of pesticides, and of depleted uranium. Today we're going to release the report on depleted uranium.

This report has been a long time in the preparation. Because of interest that some veteran groups have had in the subject, we wanted to make sure that there was complete unanimity of understanding within the federal government, certainly, as to what the science was concerning depleted uranium. So we have a list for you of the organizations that have coordinated, have chopped on the depleted uranium paper.

The paper really does three things. It first of all provides a short course, if you will, on depleted uranium. It points out its radioactive properties which are less than natural uranium, and that the major concern we have is for kidney damage as a result of it being heavy metal and the toxicity of heavy metals. The concern here is if the material could be ingested.

We then review the number of cases or incidences where we believe there was extraordinary exposure to depleted uranium and we've categorized those in terms of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. On page eight of the case narrative is a table which looks like the table here on the side, and here we've identified Level 1 which is of most concern, those who were involved in friendly fire incidents or immediately the retrieval of people or equipment from those vehicles; Level 2, those people who were involved in cleanup. Part of that Level 2 is those who were involved in the cleanup at Camp Doha which was a fire situation. Then all of the other people.

To date, 33 of the Level 1 people, actually 33 of these folks here have been monitored by the Department of Veterans Affairs. At their request we are extending that program to include all of those in Level 1 as well as, for safety's sake, extending the inquiry to all of the rest of Level 2 with the exception of Doha. If we find there are medical reasons to include the Doha group we certainly will do that and go even further.

Let me highlight for you the results so far of the VA's program monitoring the 33. I'm going to read a couple of short paragraphs to be very precise in this language. These can be found on page 128 and 129 of the case narrative and is also in the handout, the two page information handout that we are including with the information fact sheet we're sending to anybody we've contacted.

The important part here is that since 1993 the Department of Veterans Affairs has been monitoring 33 vets who were seriously injured in friendly fire incidences involving depleted uranium. These veterans are being monitored at the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Many of these veterans continue to have medical problems, especially problems related to the physical injuries they received during friendly fire incidents, and these physical injuries include burns and wounds from being in a tank or a Bradley that was hit by a depleted uranium round.

About half of this group still have depleted uranium fragments in their bodies. These are small, pin-sized fragments that cannot be removed surgically. Those with higher than normal levels of uranium in their urine since monitoring began in 1993, have embedded DU fragments. These veterans are being followed very carefully and a number of different medical tests are being done to determine if the depleted uranium fragments are causing any health problems.

The veterans being followed who were in friendly fire incidents but who do not have retained depleted uranium fragments generally speaking have not shown higher than normal levels of uranium in their urine.

For the 33 veterans in the program, tests for kidney function have all been normal. In addition, the reproductive health of this group appears to be normal in that all babies fathered by those veterans between 1991 and 1997 have no birth defects.

So that's the result of the work so far on 33. And as I said, we're going to extend it to all like people who have had heavy doses of depleted uranium, as well as those who worked around depleted uranium equipment.

Frankly, our expectation is that we would not see heavy concentrations of uranium in the urine except if unbeknownst to these folks they have embedded uranium fragments, so that's what we're going to be looking for, as well as to understand any kidney functions.

The report also highlights the various incidents where depleted uranium, where there were friendly fire incidents, where there was exposure to depleted uranium.

There are two other parts to our effort here. One is by CHIPM, the Army's environmental health unit at Aberdeen, and they are calculating what kind of dosages we might have expected from these various incidents. They have defined a worst case, and I say this is a worst case. It is a case that did not appear in the Gulf. It's more severe than anything we actually experienced in the Gulf. This would be where an Abrams tank, that was protected with depleted uranium armor, was hit by two depleted uranium rounds. And their calculation based on test data is that the amount of ingested depleted uranium oxide that would occur over a 15 minute period is equal to one REM which is 20 percent of the occupational limit for a year. So we're looking at exposures that are well below the occupational limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In addition, the RAND Corporation has been working on a paper that somewhat parallels our effort that looks at the medical literature as it pertains to depleted uranium. I received today their final draft that we will put in interagency review and then they will react to that review and we will publish that later this summer or early in the fall. So there is additional work that's coming forward.

I mentioned CHIPM's work. In effect, CHIPM's work is based on test data and modeling. We have, unfortunately, people who actually have been exposed here in ways that we would never expose people in a laboratory and a test setting. We expect to be able to learn a great deal about residual uranium and kidney, the effects on the kidneys from the people who will be monitored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The last program that we want to announce today has to do with medical records. As part of our inquiry, we became aware that the Army had in fact taken the inpatient records from the Gulf and had archived them and created a database, but this was not widely known and it did not facilitate the veteran's ability to retrieve this information.

We've been able to locate a good deal of the remaining health records from the Air Force and the Navy, and have created an expanded database of about 17,000 entries which identify people that we have health, inpatient records for, and we've been able to identify where those records physically are. They're generally in St. Louis, but we have been able to identify where specifically they are, what box they literally are being stored in.

If the veterans need this information, we'll be happy to facilitate that process. So we'll be working with the VSOs, the Veterans Service Organizations, to publicize this. We have an 800 hotline number. We can ascertain whether or not, if a veteran calls, whether his records are in fact in St. Louis. Then we will fill out the paperwork, requiring only the veteran's signature. We'll forward that to the veteran. If he or she will sign it, then the records can be retrieved.

We're also working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide that information in any claims processing to make sure, again, that individuals have the best information that we're able to provide them, even though this is seven years later.

We believe there were about 25,000 inpatient visits. About 8,000 were MEDEVAC'd out of theater and their records went with them, and are well scattered throughout the system. We're still looking for those in the major receiving hospitals and in their records. The Army had catalogued about 10,000 and we've been able to add to that about 7,000. So we think we're getting close to having all of the records accounted for, and we hope we can be of service to the veterans by facilitating the process with which they would be able to get those records.

I'll be happy to take questions. I'm joined here today by folks from the VA and from my medical department, as well as the analysts who did the actual work on Czech-French, An Nasiriyah and the depleted uranium papers, so I think we can have quite a useful dialogue. At times, I'll ask some of those folks to come up to the microphone and fill in whatever answers you need.

Q: It's my understanding that DU causes very specific kinds of kidney problems.

Dr. Rostker: Yes.

Q: Could you, in non-technical terms, could you tell us what those are?

Dr. Rostker: I think I'm going to ask Dr. Kilpatrick to...

Dr. Kilpatrick: As with all the heavy metals, the toxicity in the kidney is, as it comes through the kidney and is filtered from the blood and the urine, it hits the acidity of the urine, and then that heavy metal has a toxic effect on the cells in that area. That's in the collecting tube where the urine is first formed, so it's a very specific area.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28 17:16:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 153.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest