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: 2981
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 # 91.

#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  


#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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 91.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#302. To: Kyle, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#91)

Do you think they have an axe to grind?

I think you have an axe to grind.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29 07:25:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 91.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest