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: 2451
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

Comments (1-58) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#59. To: Kyle (#33)

I've never read anything from the administration on this subject.

I don't believe you. It is very clear from your many posts on LP, and your posts here, that you have read plenty of propaganda, talking points, etc., from your administration. So there is no reason to suppose that you did not read about this subject.

What I do believe is: the persistent reports of illness among Gulf War I veterans, and birth defects among their offspring. Your telling us that depleted uranium is "less toxic than lead" (which is pretty toxic) is a weak, limp-wristed argument. But then, you administration shills are always doing weak, limp-wristed things.

You have never been convincing, in any of your many posts on LP, nor in your posts here, because your drive to defend your administration, above all else, makes your bias glaringly obvious. If you are receiving any compensation of any kind (monetary or otherwise, including inward feelings of self-satisfaction), you are getting this reward for free--because your strenuous defenses of Bush & Co. are completely ineffectual. One might even speculate that you do Bush more harm than good, by being so obvious a shill.

And your continued overblown support of this mal-administration makes you, in my opinion, as bloody-handed as is the administration itself. The blood of every American and Iraqi and Afghan needlessly killed in Bush's fraudulent war is on your hands. May you pay for it for all eternity, murderer.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-28   14:10:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: tom007 (#0)

One wonders why this was done intially.

Could it have been a relatively easy way to utilise the vast amounts of nuclear material left over from the frantic pace of nuclear weapons building in the ColdWar.

At least they're going to be looking for an alternative.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-04-28   14:12:15 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: SKYDRIFTER (#49)

Who are you to question an MD? I thought you lived & breathed for authority?

Read my other posts - I quote tons of experts who say the diameteric opposite. Why do you insist that the one looney is correct and ther vasdt majority are wrong? I know, it's the CONSPIRACY.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:16:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: crack monkey, christine (#50)

i don't know what's going on either, but i can guess. it's spelled s-h-i-l-l.

Looking at the support Kyle offers for his arguments, my guess is that Kyle's primary purpose here is to punish people who dare voice opinions that diverge from the RNC party line.

Read my other posts. My bias is toward facts and logic. Your attempt to discredit me by labeling me is lame. Deal w/ the substance or remain quite.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: crack monkey, SKYDRIFTER (#52)

This is true. I was told in chemestry class that all heavy metals are poisonous in a similar manner. Mercury, lead, etc. The explanation I heard is that we have no good mechanism for cleaning them from our system and that they destroy emzines necessary for life. Constant low level exposure to anything from that region of the periodic table builds up in our systems and is eventually toxic.

In spite of your memory of chemistry class, the truth is in my posts. Most is excreted rather quickly and studies have found that there is no evidence of significant hazard.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:20:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Red Jones (#47)

They both agreed that about 85% of the radioactivity remains in the DU after the rest is extracted.

Taken in the context of a substance, both of who's isotopes have half lives measured in billions of years, it's next to nothing.

And, the substance is an Alpha emitter. A sheet of paper stops Alpha radiation because an Alpha "ray" is actually a helium nucleus.

Where DU simulation cores are used in testing at Livermore's site 300, the main issue is it's heavy metal toxicity from a materials management standpoint...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   14:23:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: SKYDRIFTER (#53)

You dumb-shit! U-238 is a variant of U-235 - and radioactive! What does the term "Half-life" tell you about U-238? You can't even comprehend what you write!

You may as well argue that U-239 isn't radioactive! Jesus jumpin'-up-Christ. How stupid do you want to portray yourself as?

I keep telling you how freakin' stupid you are, but you just won't listen!

You obviously no nothing about radioactivity. U238 is not a 'variant' of U235. They are separate isotopes with entirely different decay properties. The term 'half-life' means the time for half of the material to decay. the FACT that the HL of U238 is 4.5 billion years means that it emits radiation at VERY low levels!

You are calling me stupid while displaying your ignorance. Priceless.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:23:57 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SKYDRIFTER (#53)

The longer a half-life a substance has, the more stable and less radioactive it is.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   14:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#59)

I've never read anything from the administration on this subject.

I don't believe you. It is very clear from your many posts on LP, and your posts here, that you have read plenty of propaganda, talking points, etc., from your administration.

Don't call me a liar, asshole.

I have the views I have for two reasons:

1) I'm educated.

2) I'm rational.

If you are receiving any compensation of any kind...

This is inevitable. Everytime I post the truth and it conflicts with the conspiracy theorist rantings on these boards, I am immediately labeled as a paid shill. That is a lame comeback - You can't support your position so you label me as part of the 'CONSPIRACY'.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:32:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Kyle (#63)

Hi Kyle..

Here's Page Three of the DU MSDS Sheet. MSDS Sheet

Isn't the FIOA wonderful? The Navy sent this in response.

PS: Looks like the dust is explosive too.. Now, isn't that interesting?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:34:48 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Jhoffa_ (#70)

Here's Page Three of the DU MSDS Sheet. MSDS Sheet

Isn't the FIOA wonderful? The Navy sent this in response.

PS: Looks like the dust is explosive too.. Now, isn't that interesting?

ROTFL!!!!

If that's what you're down to, I guess you are about to concede. I can show you and MSDS on the hazards of air!

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:38:27 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Kyle (#69)

Since you are so educated and rational, I know you are going to want to consult this information.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   14:41:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Kyle (#72)

I can show you and MSDS on the hazards of air!

Okay do it. Or, maybe you are just a liar.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   14:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Kyle (#72)

    If that's what you're down to, I guess you are about to concede.

But, I thought you liked authoritative sources, Kyle?

In an effort to accomidate this, I give you the US Navy themselves, and you choke.

Tsk, Tsk, Kyle.. For shame!

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#75)

I agree with Kyle. Under certain cnditions, AIR may indeed be harmful.

Regardless however, it does nothing to prove DU is not.

If you read the link, they seem to be concerned aith fine particulates. They're a "radiation hazzard" Explosive and may be toxic, especially to the Kidney.

This ain't fucking Nerf balls we're shooting, regardless of Kyles (well intentioned, I'm sure..) arguements to the contrary.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:45:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Kyle (#71)

Every thing I've posted from experts worldwide is BS because I don't know who your looney is. Is that your reasoning?

Dr. Doug Rokke was a U.S. Army health physicist assigned to 12th Preventive Medicine AM theater (Gulf War) and was with University of Illinois Physics Department and was "sent to the Gulf to ensure that all military and civilian personnel were prepared for the anticipated nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental exposures. and was assigned to two equally vital special operations teams: Bauer's Raiders and the Depleted Uranium Assessment team."..so I suppose if he's loony then the military are the loons since they sent him there .. thus you are loony since you support the military and their use of DU.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   14:56:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Jhoffa_ (#77)

An intact DU shell is not that big of a hazard - assuming the manufacturer uses ONLY depleted uranium. Unfortunately, studies have proven that the shells often have excessive concentrations of non-depleted uranium as well as other radioactive isotopes.

But the real issue, as you point out, is that a high percentage of the DU penetrator is gasified on impact. It becomes an aerosol. Consequently, you get high levels of internal contamination.

Kyle knows this. He knows damn well it is dangerous. He just doesn't care. Military be damned, civilians be damned, just so long as he gets to revel in the deaths of muslims.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:03:03 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Kyle (#80)

Hazards are minimal.

Nobody is as fucking stupid as you present yourself.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:09:12 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#81)

Hazards are minimal.

Nobody is as fucking stupid as you present yourself.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what I've posted.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Kyle (#83)

I'm still waiting for that MSDS on air that you promised.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:17:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Kyle (#80)

    Already addressed in previous posts. Hazards are minimal.

Kyle.. You're not supposed to breathe this stuff. The dust can explode and it is toxic to your kidneys.

The instructions are clear: You have to be surveyed, your clothing trashed and be completely washed clean.

You are not supposed to: Eat, Drink, Smoke, Apply cosmetics (IOW do ANYTHING that could, potentially allow you to injest this stuff) prior to being decontaminated.

Given this, I must ask.. Are you aware what the word "hazzard" means?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   15:19:04 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Kyle (#86)

Kyle, you might want to slow down, take a breath and pull your head out of your arse. Ronald Kathren is not saying that DU is safe. What he is saying is that some of the maladies attributed to "Gulf War Syndrome" are not directly caused by depleted uranium.

You see Kyle, each individual isotope has a very specific effect on very specific body parts. That doesn't mean they aren't a hazard. Renal failure, bone cancer, leukemia. Those are things that some of us would consider a hazard.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:25:18 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#84)

    I'm still waiting for that MSDS on air that you promised.

He DID promise this, didn't he?

Perhaps he's full of molarkey?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   15:30:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Kyle (#86)

Maybe you'd like to try this one?

Compendium of Uranium

and Depleted Uranium Research

1942 to 2004


Table of Contents

Index of Additions since original publication

Preface

Introduction

I. Cellular and Molecular Response to Uranium and Depleted Uranium Exposure

II. Organ and Organism Response to Uranium and Depleted Uranium Exposure (Including Reproductive Effects)

III. The Effects of Low Level Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Living Tissue, Cells, Chromosomes and DNA

IV. Epidemiological and Population Studies I: Exposure to Uranium, Depleted Uranium and Low Level Ionizing Radiation

V..... Epidemiological and Population Studies II: Gulf War Veterans and Gulf War Syndrome

VI.... Epidemiological and Population Studies III: Uranium Miners and Mill Workers

VII... Uranium, Depleted Uranium and the Environment

VIII.. Testing and Analysis Procedures for Uranium and Depleted Uranium

IX.... Civil and Military Uses of Depleted Uranium

X. .. Biological and Environmental Remediation Techniques for DU Contamination

XI. Biochemical Studies - DNA and Protein Binding

Appendices

A. Author Index

B...... Journal Index

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:37:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#90)

Maybe you'd like to try this one?

Compendium of Uranium and Depleted Uranium Research

1942 to 2004

That's a lot of material. I'll look at it later. I did note that it was commisioned by:

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)

Do you think they have an axe to grind?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:50:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#87)

Ronald Kathren is not saying that DU is safe. What he is saying is that some of the maladies attributed to "Gulf War Syndrome" are not directly caused by depleted uranium.

You see Kyle, each individual isotope has a very specific effect on very specific body parts. That doesn't mean they aren't a hazard. Renal failure, bone cancer, leukemia. Those are things that some of us would consider a hazard.

What part of, "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." don't you understand?

Buzz, you might want to slow down, take a breath and pull your head out of your arse.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:53:02 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Kyle (#91)

All of the sources I've provided are extremely well documented and your attempt to write them off as biased is just another example of your patent dishonesty.

A German study published in 2003 (110) found specific chromosomal aberrations known as dicentric and centric ring chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral lymphocytes of 16 Gulf War and Balkans War veterans. The veterans were ill and suffered from chronic fatigue, headaches and muscle and joint pain (111). None of the veterans were heavy smokers. The number of chromosomal aberrations were 5 times greater than expected. Dicentric and centric ring chromosomal aberrations are known to be caused by ionizing radiation. All the veterans in this study suspected that they had been exposed to DU dust on the battlefield

The DU Program at the Baltimore VA Medical Center (112) has followed a small number of Gulf War veterans some of whom have DU shrapnel in their bodies from friendly fire incidences. Begun in 1993 with 35 veterans, the program expanded to 70 or so veterans (113). To date the DU Program has served 3 percent of the approximately 900 Gulf War veterans known to have been exposed to DU in either Level I exposures (friendly fire incidences) or Level II exposures (clean up operations and radiation control (114).

Studies of the veterans in the DU Program have found that veterans with embedded DU shrapnel had high levels of DU in their urine. Veterans with high levels of uranium in their urine did poorly on neurocognitive tests stressing accuracy and performance efficiency (115). Veterans with high levels of urinary uranium also had high levels of prolactin in their urine (116). In addition veterans with high urinary uranium had significantly lower monocyte percentages and lower mean lymphocyte counts than veterans with low urinary uranium as well as significantly higher mean neutrophil percentages (all related to immune function) (117). When 22 veterans with embedded DU had their semen tested for DU, 5 tested positive (118).

McDiarmid et al (2004) (119) reported on a ten-year follow up study done on interviews with 31 Gulf War veterans in the Baltimore DU Program and 8 Gulf War veterans new to the program. In the spring and summer of 2001 researchers gave a battery of tests to the 39 veterans. Ten years after initial exposure to DU all 39 veterans had DU in their urine. The 17 veterans who had embedded shrapnel in their bodies basically had the highest concentrations of uranium in their urine (13 of these were in the high urine uranium group). The other 22 had been exposed to DU through: inhalation (some of these vets had been in or on a tank hit by friendly fire), wound contamination or ingestion of DU through coughing etc.(120). None of the veterans in this group had been involved in clean-up or repair operations on tanks or vehicles destroyed by DU (i.e. no Level II veterans).

There was no difference in frequency of disease including cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, nervous system, or psychiatric conditions between the two groups of veterans (121). None of the veterans had kidney dysfunction and the researchers stated that ?there is a clear absence of a ?signature? specific medical problem shared by this cohort of Gulf War veterans?(122). The veterans who did not have embedded shrapnel in their bodies, with one exception, had lower urine uranium concentrations. The cut-off point in uranium urine concentrations between the high uranium urine group (n=13) and the low uranium urine group (n=22) was 0.10 micrograms/gram creatinine (measured over 24 hours) (123) . Range of urinary uranium values were 0.001 micrograms/gram creatinine to 78.125 micrograms/gram creatinine (124). The mean urinary uranium concentration in the high uranium group was reported to be 62.2 micrograms/Liter, with levels similar to those seen in a study of uranium mill workers in the mid-1970?s (125). (For a discussion of uranium miners and workers, see Appendix C).

The veterans had their urine and blood tested. The high urinary uranium group had significantly lower hematocrits (the volume percentage of red blood cells in whole blood, a low reading indicating anemia) than the low uranium group. Renal function differed significantly between the two groups ? both urine retinol binding protein (a test for proximal kidney tubules) and urine total protein were higher in the veterans with high concentrations of urinary uranium, suggesting decreased protein absorption or increased glomerular filtration of protein (126), i.e. indicating stress on the kidney.

Genotoxic testing included testing for chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchange (SCE) as well as use of an HPRT assay which detects mutations at the gene level. (HPRT stands for Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase which is used to detect mutations at the genetic level. It is extensively used in human research (127)). All testing was done using peripheral blood lymphocytes to measure the frequency of genetic mutations. Although there was no significant difference in SCEs between the high and low urine uranium groups, as had been found in a previous study (128), there was a statistical difference in frequency of chromosomal aberrations between the high urine uranium and low urine uranium groups (129). With respect to this latter finding, researchers stated that the chromosomal aberrations were based on near normal ?absolute frequencies of chromosomal aberrations per cell? (130). The HPRT assay showed an association of the HPRT mutation frequency with high urine uranium concentration (131). There was no association with low uranium urinary levels. (132) (The frequency of mutations was significantly higher in the first group). More study was called for. These results demonstrated the mutagenic nature of DU.

Statistical differences between the two groups of veterans were found in free thyroxine levels (an indication of underlying disease unrelated to thyroid function (133)), with the lower urine uranium group having the higher levels. Prolactin levels were also higher in the low urine uranium group although the difference was not significant (134). Thyroid function was within normal range but the prolactin levels were above normal range (135). In immunological testing differences between the two groups were statistically significant in only two of fourteen parameters with all values being within normal range (136). (The percentage of T-lymphocytes was significantly lower in the high uranium group whereas the percentage of monocytes was not quite significant between the two groups with the high uranium group having the higher percentage).

Neurocognitive tests did not find statistical differences between the high level urinary uranium group and the low level group although there was a marginal association (p=.069) between urinary uranium levels and an automated accuracy index, which was not statistically significant. The researchers stated however that two veterans with severe combat injuries and high uranium urine levels ?drove? this (137). A result of this sort can occur with small numbers.

Twenty-seven of the veterans had their semen counted. Tests included volume of sperm concentration and indices of sperm motility (138). Differences between the two groups of veterans were not significant, although the mean of sperm concentration (over 20 million/ml) was higher in the high urine uranium group as were the means for total sperm count and total progressive sperm, a measure of sperm motility including sperm moving randomly and others not moving at all (139). Incidences of motility characteristics and subnormal sperm count were below WHO 1987 norms (140). The researchers said that the semen characteristics overall were ?based on average values? and that the higher values in the high DU-exposed group ?are not considered clinically significant for an individual?s fertility, as upper limits of normal do not exist? (141).

In summary, the results with prolactin, though significant, were the reverse of what had been found in other research on the veterans in the program. Results indicated that kidney problems might occur in the future and there was evidence that DU could be genotoxic. With this report as with most of the other reports by McDiarmid et al., the small numbers of veterans involved make it difficult to base policies on these results as the V.A. has itself noted, with regard to the induction of cancer (142).

Gwiazda et al.(2004) (143) using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry showed that 8 years after exposure to DU, 2 groups of the Baltimore V.A. DU Program veterans had DU in their urine. Those veterans with embedded shrapnel (n=16) had higher urinary uranium concentrations (with one exception) than the group suspected of having been exposed through inhalation, ingestion or wound contamination. Soldiers in the control group had not been involved in friendly fire incidents in 1991. One veteran with embedded shrapnel did not have any DU in his urine. Only 10 out of a total of 28 had DU in their urine in the group of exposed veterans without embedded shrapnel. In the control group, one veteran had DU in his urine. Overall, veterans with embedded shrapnel had the highest urinary uranium concentrations.

The median value for urine uranium concentrations in veterans with shrapnel was significantly higher than the median values of urine uranium concentrations in either of the other groups (144). The median uranium level in the exposed group without embedded shrapnel was six times higher than the median uranium level in the control group (n=13). The range of values for the second and third groups overlapped, leading the researchers to state that urine testing alone was not sufficient to indicate body contamination with DU (145). Urine uranium values for the group of veterans who had been exposed to DU but did not have embedded shrapnel, were within normal limits for the U.S. population (after work of Ting et. al 1999 who used 500 participants in the NHANES III survey to ascertain urine (natural) uranium levels in a normal population (146). The 50 percentile was 6.32 nanogram/L (or .00632 micrograms/L) whereas the 95 percentile was 34.5 nanogram/L) (147).

A more recent article by McDiarmid et al. (July 2004) (148) studied 446 veterans (including about 100 active duty soldiers) found that 95 percent of the veterans who had suspected that they had been exposed to DU did not have elevated urine uranium levels (149). Testing for DU was done only if a urine sample had a uranium concentration equal to or more than 0.05 micrograms/gm. creatinine; soldiers with urine samples with uranium equal to or more than 0.05 micrograms per gm. creatinine were retested and if the uranium content of their urine was still high, only then were tests for the presence of DU done. Testing for uranium isotopes was done using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Eighteen samples were tested and the ratios of U235/U238 found for these samples ?were consistent with ratios expected for natural uranium (range = 0.0066 to 0.0078)? (150) (DU has a ratio of 0.002).Veterans with embedded DU shrapnel had DU in their urine (151). Three out of 6 veterans with embedded shrapnel had the highest urine uranium levels; the next two highest positive predictive values for DU exposure were for soldiers in or on a vehicle hit by friendly fire or in a vehicle hit by enemy fired (152). As a group, the 446 veterans when compared to the NHANES population, had higher urine uranium levels percentile by percentile but these differences were not significant (153).

Dr. Helen Caldicott states that it may be possible to be exposed to DU and have no evidence of this in the urine at a later time. For instance, DU may have been stored in the bone or other tissues. DU formerly in the body may have caused mutations before passing out through the urine, leaving no trace of the actual injury (154). Gulf War veterans were not tested for DU until some time after exposure to DU. Also as insoluble ceramic DU that may exist in the lung, does not readily solubilize and travel to the kidneys, the DU in the urine does not necessarily represent the total body burden of DU.

Guidelines regarding embedded shrapnel may be changing in part as a result of AFRRI research (155). In August 2002, Col. Wakayama of the Defense Department stated at a DOD conference that new guidelines indicate the advisability of removing embedded shrapnel longer than one cm. unless medically contraindicated (156).

In March 2003, a physician with the Department of Defense reiterated that the Baltimore Program veterans showed no ill effects from their exposure to DU, in particular no visible signs of kidney disease (157). They had made similar statements in the winter of 2001.

However, at least two veterans in the Baltimore program have been ill. One veteran had a bone tumor removed from his arm while another veteran who did not have shrapnel in his body has lymphoma (158), a rare type of cancer (the incidence for Hodgkins Lymphoma in the U.S. is 2.8 cases per 100,000)(159). The fact that this cancer has been largely ignored by the Baltimore DU Program from the point of view of DU exposure, may be partly because the nuclear industry, including the military, makes a distinction between radiation that causes cancer and radiation that promotes or accelerates cancer (they discount the latter) (160).

The veterans who are in the DU Program in Baltimore are a small number compared to other highly exposed veterans who inhaled or ingested DU or had wounds contaminated by DU who are not in the program. Veterans not enrolled in the program have reported having health problems including kidney dysfunction and birth defects (161).

Another VA Program in Wilmington, DE treated 24 Gulf War veterans who had been involved in the clean up and decontamination of 24 U.S. vehicles and tanks destroyed by DU munitions in Saudi Arabia over a three and a half month period. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, an expert in Nuclear Medicine and head of the program from 1991-1997 discussed the illnesses of many of the veterans in the program with a reporter with the World Socialist Web Site in September 1999. Fourteen of the veterans tested positive to DU (162) and they suffered from kidney pathology, as well as lung disease, GI dysfunction and immune system problems. At the time of the interview Dr. Durakovic was Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University (163).

Of the over 600,000 service men and women who served in the Gulf War in 1991, 100,000 veterans have reported having symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome ? including symptoms of chronic fatigue, memory loss, joint pain, headaches, anxiety and depression (164). DU may likely be responsible in part for these disabilities.

A study by Winrow et al. (2003) (165) found that the inhibition of a gene, neuropathy target esterase (NTE), in mice produced neurological problems similar to some of the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome when mice were exposed to organophosphates present in some chemical warfare agents such as certain nerve gases and pesticides. The organophosphates inhibited the activity of the gene. NTE is involved in neurodevelopment and is active in the hippocampus, important for memory and learning, the cerebellum, site of control of gait and movement, and the spinal cord. Inhibition of the gene killed unborn mice and produced the type of hyperactivity found in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as some of the symptoms of Gulf War illness (166). The study was partly funded by the Department of Defense.

A group of researchers at Duke University (2004) (167) did a rat study on conditions affecting Gulf War troops in 1991. Rats were exposed to stress for 28 days and were given low doses of chemicals encountered on the battlefield: the anti-nerve gas pyridostigmine bromide, the insecticide permethrin and DEET, an insect repellant. Rats exposed to stress and the chemicals showed significant brain and liver damage. Rats exposed only to stress and rats exposed only to the chemicals did not suffer injury, or in the case of the chemicals, little or no injury to brain or liver.

Areas of the brain damaged by the combination of stress, as on the battlefield, and chemicals, included the cerebral cortex, which controls motor and sensory regulation, the hippocampus, and the cerebellum. Damage included death of neurons and increased destruction by oxygen free radicals (168). The researchers stated that the changes seen in the stressed rats receiving the chemicals ?likely explain some of the symptoms such as loss of memory, muscle weakness, and alterations in learning ability observed in Gulf War veterans.? (169). They called for further research.

An editorial on Gulf War illness in the December 13, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (170) states that ?war is incredibly stressful? (171). The writer asserts that the Gulf War veterans are ill but that their symptoms can be found in the general population as well. He refers to an article by Hotopf et al. in the BMJ (same issue), which found that Gulf War veterans have experienced poorer health (172) than military personnel who did not serve in the Gulf War in 1991; or had served as peacekeepers in Bosnia (but their level of health was better than that of the Gulf War veterans). The Gulf War veterans suffered significantly more persistent fatigue than the veterans in the other two groups, but were not, however, experiencing new illnesses to a greater degree than the veterans in the other two groups (173). A larger study published in BMC Public Health in July 2004 found that British Gulf War veterans reported higher rates of general ill health and higher number of symptoms than military personnel who were not deployed to the Gulf, and were more likely to have reported at least one new medical symptom or disease since 1990 (174).

The writer of the BMJ editorial mentioned a large study by Macfarlane et al. (175) also in the BMJ which found no difference in incidence rates of cancers between veterans who had served in the Gulf War and soldiers who had not been in the war. The Gulf War veterans sustained 270 cancers as opposed to 269 cancers in the control group (176). Investigation of site-specific cancers suffered by Gulf War veterans showed no excess in numbers of cancers at different sites (177). However, there were 24 cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic cancers in the Gulf War veterans group as opposed to 11 in the Era (not Gulf War) cohort (178).

The researchers commented that exposure to DU or pesticides were self-reported with the most common symptoms including fatigue, poor memory, stiffness, inability to sleep, irritability and sudden mood changes (179). Non-melanoma cancers and cancers where site information was lacking, were not included in the study (180). The study was funded by the U.K. Ministry of Defense.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:58:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Kyle (#93)

You see, the link you gave required a password.

Well, if you want to base your opinion on education and reality, you're going to have to actually expend some effort. Or, you could just regurgitate the Newsmax / WND / Fox / Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:00:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Kyle (#92)

What part of, "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." don't you understand?

The part I don't understand is where some moron who calls himself Kyle claims that DU is not a hazard.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:01:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)

I'm still waiting for that MSDS on air that you promised.

He DID promise this, didn't he?

Perhaps he's full of molarkey?

http://www.airliquide.com/safety/msds/en/000A_AL_EN.pdf

http://www.airliquide.com/safety/msds/en/000B_AL_EN.pdf

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:06:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Kyle (#97)

Interestingly enough, I just read the MSDS you provided for compressed air, and guess what! It isn't considered a hazard. Doh! The MSDS for DU was just the tiniest bit more serious. Eh?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:09:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Kyle (#97)

    Hazard Identification: Not Hazardous..

    No effect on living tissue.

Thanks for the sheet, Kyle.

I'm afraid it does little for your arguement, however.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   16:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (100 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest