[ RadSafe ] RE: uranium in the gulf war

Sun Jun 25 00:31:50 CDT 2006

Okay thanks James, http://www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/du_link.htm is
maybe what we are looking for.

Carlos

On 6/24/06, James Salsman <james at bovik.org> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Thanks again for your questions.  I don't call myself an
> activist, and I don't want to, because there are some really
> strange DU activists out there.  I don't get any money from
> anyone with a point of view about any kind of uranium, or
> nuclear power, or mining, or even military issues.  I used to
> be a member of the Campaign for a Landmine Free World, which
> is part of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, but I
> think my membership lapsed after I moved last year, and I was
> giving them money instead of the other way around.  I've never
> been employed or taken money or received anything of value for
> any of my work on uranium.  I have, however, been declared
> an "interested party" by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission lawyer,
> which means that someday (far in the future) I might qualify
> for reimbursement under the Equal Access to Justice Act for
> my efforts if the NRC ever recognizes the reproductive and
> developmental toxicity of uranium -- which, amazingly, they
> have not yet done, even though all the major uranium toxicology
> textbooks have noted those problems since at least the early 1950s.
>
> I am not a veteran.  The reason that I am interested in this
> issue, primarily, is because of the disturbing implications
> for the general reproductive health of the civilian and military
> population.  My parents were both in the military, my father a
> paratrooper during the Korean War, and my mom and dad both
> eventually became science teachers in the Defense Dependents
> School system, and I was born on a US Army base in Germany.
> But what really got me into this issue was a friend of mine,
> whose brother was a Vietnam vet, and who died of cancer within
> a few years from returning home.  That was a horrible experience
> for him, but I really didn't think about it.  Then, sometime in
> the mid-1990s, I read the story of how the carcinogens were
> contaminating the Agent Orange (with which my friend's vet
> brother had been working) and I was struck by how careless the
> military was, and how much it reminded me of Eisenhower's
> warning about the "military industrial complex" in his fairwell
> speech.  That stuck in my mind.  Then, in 2004, I read a
> "Project Censored" report about depleted uranium weapons and
> gulf war illness.  It had some obvious factual errors (something
> about 200,000 times the amount of radiation from the Nagasaki
> bomb, when they meant 200,000 times the kilograms of uranium)
> and so I started studying the issue.  The more I read, the more
> it seemed obvious to me that there needed to be some more
> research.  But there is also an active, semi-coordinated
> campaign by active and retired military to do public relations
> work in support of depleted uranium weaponry -- there is a memo
> from Los Alamos about this, which you can read here:
>    http://www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/LosAlamos.gif
> That site, which I just found with a web search, would seem to
> be a pretty good resource by and for veterans with Gulf War-
> related problems; I hadn't seen it before today:
>    http://www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/du_link.htm
>
> So, my motivation these days is, if it was so difficult for the
> people in the early 1970s to test the Agent Orange shipments to
> which soldiers were being exposed for carcinogens and
> teratogens, then the government probably needs someone to
> remind them to check the uranium for inhalation risks which may
> have been missed, until they do.  I have been at this for about
> two years now, and the only thing that has really changed is
> that there are now a bunch of state governments which mandate
> urine isotope ratio tests, which I think are completely flawed.
> I don't think there is exactly a conspiracy involved, just
> naturally-occurring stupidity and unprofessionalism.
>
> As for nerve agents like sarin and mustard gases to which people
> were known to be exposed, the actual extent of the exposures
> must have been very low for one simple reason:  Of all the
> symptoms of Gulf War illness, an increase in the cancer rate has
> never been confirmed by medical studies except very recently
> with respect to brain cancer deaths:
>    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/255812_gulfvets16.html
>
> Nerve and mustard gases are fast acting, and they cause immediate
> symptoms of poisoning which were not reported in Gulf War troops.
> Their chronic effects include increased incidence of cancer, and
> a MUCH SMALLER increase in congenital malformation (birth defect)
> rates in the children of the exposed:
>    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp49-c3.pdf
>
> If it had been from nerve agents, there would be a whole lot more
> cancers, and they would have appeared early along with the
> expected and well-understood symptoms of those poisons.  However,
> Gulf war illness symptoms took a long time to appear, consistent
> with the slow damage done by heavy metals such as uranium
> accumulation in cellular nuclei.  The Centers for Disease Control
> did not report any increased hospitalizations in deployed Gulf
> War veterans until almost four years after the war:
>    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no2/knoke1.jpg
>
> The trend in the Iraqi civilian population is remarkably similar.
> Presumably the Iraqis were not also attacking their own people
> with nerve gas; at least not during the 1991 Gulf War.  However
> this chart reflects the number of congenital malformations per
> 1,000 births reported in Basrah University Hospital:
>    http://www.bovik.org/du/basrah.gif
> A subset of that data was reported by I. Al-Sadoon, et al.,
> writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University; see Table 1:
> http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm
>
> The trend in US and UK troops has been the same, with early-1990s
> data reporting no effects, late-1990s data reporting increasing
> effects in both American and British troops. And now there is a
> clampdown on the release of any data more current than from 2000.
> Even worse, the same people responsible for reporting the birth
> defect rate trend have come pretty close to -- if not outright --
> lying about it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.  They
> are Dr. Margaret Ryan of the U.S. Naval Health Research Center,
> who is in charge of the Birth and Infant Health Registry, and
> Dr. Pat Doyle in the UK who works as an epidemiologist on the
> subject.  They authored a paper entitled, "Reproductive health of
> Gulf War veterans," in the Philosophical Transactions of the
> Royal Society B (2006) volume 361, pages 571–584.  On page 574
> they state that Dr. H. Kang, et al. (2001) in "Pregnancy outcomes
> among US Gulf war veterans: a population-based survey of 30,000
> veterans" in Annals of Epidemiology, volume 11, pages 504–511,
> "reported some evidence of a modest increase in risk of birth
> defect for male veterans' offspring...."
>
> In fact, Dr. Kang and his colleagues reported a near-doubling of
> birth defect risk in male veterans' offspring and a near-tripling
> in female veterans' offspring.  Drs. Ryan and Doyle omitted any
> mention of the female veterans' birth defect rate in their article.
>
> Now, on this particular topic I refuse to say whether I believe
> there is a conspiracy involved.  But the medical data is clear,
> the symptoms of Gulf War illness, including birth defects, are
> consistent with the slow poison of heavy metal uranium poisoning
> rather than the fast acting and far more carcinogenic nerve agents.
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
> Carlos Billings wrote:
>
> > James, are you an activist or a vet-why do you do this?
> >
> > How do you know that the birth defects come from uranium and not stuff
> > like the nerve gas and mustard gas?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > On 6/24/06, James Salsman <james at bovik.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Colonel Daxon:
> >>
> >> I apologize for not completely representing your comments.
> >> I did not understand some of them because they were so brief.
> >> What part of my message to Carlos Billings is incorrect?
> >> In particular, do you disagree with any of the following
> >> points?  I believe these all are well-supported, and as-yet
> >> undisputed facts:
> >>
> >> 1.  Uranium combustion from munitions fires such as those
> >> from 30mm DU rounds occurs above 2500 Kelvin and directly
> >> produces uranium dioxide (UO2) and trioxide (UO3) gas.
> >>
> >> 2.  Much of both of the uranium oxide gases condense into
> >> particulate aerosol and dust solids.
> >>
> >> 3.  When UO3 gas condenses, it decomposes into U3O8, which
> >> comprises 75% of solid uranium combustion product.  (UO2
> >> particulates comprise the remainder.)
> >>
> >> 4.  Some of the UO3 gas escapes into the air, before it can
> >> condense with other UO3 molecules to form U3O8.
> >>
> >> 5.  Some of the UO3 plates out on surfaces, e.g., as
> >> detected in the swabs collected by Salbu et al. (2005).
> >>
> >> 6.  Nobody has ever measured the gas products of uranium
> >> combustion.  So far, only the solid combustion products have
> >> been measured.
> >>
> >> 7.  UO3 gas inhalation and U3O8 particulate inhalation will
> >> both lead to uranyl ion absorption in the bloodstream.
> >>
> >> 8.  Uranyl absorption from UO3 gas inhalation is immediate,
> >> while absorption from U3O8 particles is much slower, because
> >> U3O8 is partially soluble and takes months for half of it to
> >> dissolve in the lungs.
> >>
> >> 9.  The particulate aerosols diffuse through the air at a
> >> different rate than UO3 gas.  Therefore, UO3 gas exposure
> >> will not always occur simultaneously with particulate oxide
> >> exposure.
> >>
> >> 10.  Uranyl ions absorbed by cells from the bloodstream
> >> soon become undetectable in the urine, as renal elimination
> >> occurrs with a half-time of less than two weeks.
> >>
> >> 11.  Since UO3 gas may be encountered without particulates,
> >> urine isotope ratio studies which depend on detecting
> >> uranium from slowly dissolving uranium oxide particles do
> >> not necessarily indicate uranium combustion product
> >> inhalation exposure, or the extent of uranyl poisoning.
> >>
> >> 12.  The toxicological profile of uranyl poisoning is
> >> dependent on elimination effects, such that a small dose
> >> occurring quickly (such as from UO3 gas) will have a
> >> different physiological effect than from a larger dose
> >> occurring over a longer a period of time (such as from U3O8
> >> particle dissolution in the lungs.)
> >>
> >> 13.  All uranyl poisoning is genotoxic and teratogenic,
> >> increasing the probability of chromosome aberrations in
> >> white blood cells and birth defects in children.
> >>
> >> 14.  Karyotyping measurements of chromosome aberrations will
> >> proportionally reflect uranyl exposure, in addition to other
> >> genetic damage.
> >>
> >> 15.  Empirical measurement of the amount of UO3 gas produced
> >> by uranium combustion is necessary for determining the proper
> >> medical response to uranium combustion product exposure.
> >>
> >> For those items with which you do disagree, please let me know
> >> why.  Based on the content of your earlier messages, where
> >> exactly we disagree is currently a mystery to me.  Thank you.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> James Salsman
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately Mr. Salsman did not relate the main thrust of my
> >> comments and
> >> > Dr. Alexander's comments concerning UO3.  I do not agree that UO3 is an
> >> > issue for reasons that I have already discussed.  DoD did look for
> >> and found
> >> > trace amounts of UO3 as expected.  I have read the references quoted
> >> below
> >> > and they support my conclusions and the findings in the DoD Capstone
> >> report.
> >> >
> >> > The message conveyed by the remainder of Mr. Salzman's post is
> >> incorrect and
> >> > at odds with what we know about uranium and depleted uranium.  This
> >> subject
> >> > has been studied since the late 1940's.
> >> >
> >> > If your friend has concerns about his exposure, the Department of
> >> Veterans
> >> > Affairs and the Department of Defense have programs that can provide
> >> > information and assistance.  I helped put them together.
> >> >
> >> > v/r
> >> >
> >> > Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP
> >> > Colonel, USA(Ret)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: uranium in the gulf war
> >> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:57:28 -0700
> >> From: James Salsman <james at readsay.com>
> >> To: Carlos Billings <billingsauto at gmail.com>
> >> CC: radsafe at radlab.nl,  alexandc at battelle.org,  edaxon at satx.rr.com
> >> References: <e9f470380606230059q6c199f31ie5a6b3b02b4c5c at mail.gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Carlos,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your questions.  What happened to your vet friend?
> >>
> >> All of the combustion products of depleted uranium munitions are
> >> toxic, including both the uranium dioxide (UO2, which is 25% of
> >> the aerosol particles produced -- technically not "gas"), and
> >> more so the triuranium octaoxide (U3O8, 75% of the particles
> >> produced) because the U3O8 is more soluble.
> >>
> >> I have asked Dr. Alexander and Colonel Daxon about whether there
> >> is also gas vapor produced.  I think they agree that there must
> >> be uranium trioxide (UO3, or "uranyl oxide") gas produced from
> >> the combustion, which condenses to form the U3O8.  The question
> >> is how much of it remains uncondensed in the air, and for how long.
> >> There are a reasons to believe that substantial amounts do for a
> >> while:  Firstly, U3O8 is too large of a molecule to be produced
> >> directly from a uranium fire, which takes place at a temperature
> >> of over 2500 Kelvin.  Since it comes from UO3 gas condensation and
> >> decomposition, some of the UO3 gas must escape before it can
> >> condense with other UO3 molecules, and remain isolated in the air.
> >> Also, there is some direct evidence of UO3 film condensation, as
> >> opposed to particulate condensation which forms U3O8:
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf
> >> Please see also:
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf
> >>
> >> However, nobody in the government, or anyone responsible for the
> >> health aspects of DU munitions has ever measured the combustion
> >> products of uranium for their gas products.  This is something of
> >> a sore spot with me, because I think it represents some pretty
> >> serious negligence.  If uranium fires do produce UO3 gas, then
> >> the people treating exposure to the fumes need to know, because
> >> unlike aerosol particles of U3O8 or UO2, UO3 gas goes directly
> >> into the bloodstream if inhaled.  That means it has a different
> >> toxicological profile.  As far as I can tell, so far no medical
> >> research has even explored this fact.  Because I have spoken out
> >> against those I feel are responsible, my posts to the radsafe
> >> list are now moderated, unlike most other people's.  For more
> >> information:
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/Sutton04.pdf
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/Stradling2000.pdf
> >>
> >> Inhaling any kind of soluble uranium, such as U3O8 or UO3, can
> >> cause uranium accumulation in gonocytes, which lead to birth
> >> defects.  The best source for information about this is:
> >>    http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
> >>
> >> There is some pretty convincing evidence that the birth defect
> >> rates for Gulf War veterans kids has been sharply increasing
> >> over time.  The Birth and Infant Health Registry at the Naval
> >> Health Research Center used to release statistics about this,
> >> but 2000 was the last year they actually did after a sharp
> >> uptrend in the congenital malformation rate.  See:
> >> http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract
> >>
> >> I have no idea how much uranium the various troops in different
> >> locations were exposed to.  I think the idea of using urine tests
> >> to study isotope ratios, which is currently popular, is not a
> >> good idea, because if some of the exposure was from gas instead
> >> of particles, that gas will not remain partially undissolved in
> >> the lungs like the particles do and so it won't show up as much
> >> in urine many years later.  I recommend that anyone wanting to
> >> know their exposure to birth defect problems get a "karyotyping"
> >> test, such as is described in this paper and slides:
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf
> >>    http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.ppt
> >>
> >> Most of the therapies which work to alleviate uranium exposure
> >> are really only effective if applied a short time after the
> >> exposure occurs.  After uranium is absorbed from the blood to
> >> the organs and tissues, there isn't much that can be done.  I
> >> recommend these articles on related topics:
> >>    http://vitw.org/archives/405
> >>    http://www.cadu.org.uk/news/17.htm#icbuw
> >>    http://www.factsofwny.org/buff12162004.htm
> >>    http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html
> >>
> >> P.S. Here is the most recent medical research of which I am aware:
> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16679544
> >>
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> James Salsman
> >>
> >> Carlos Billings wrote:
> >>
> >>  > A good friend of mine is vet who has some real problems, and some
> >> questions
> >>  >
> >>  > I've been looking the May archive of this radsafe at radlab.nl emailing
> >>  > list, on the subject "
> >>  > [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much
> >> UO3(g)?]"
> >>  >
> >>  > I want to know:  What gas, comes from burning uranium,  what does it
> >>  > do, does it cause birth defect problms,
> >>  > and how much was the 1st Infantry exposed to from Hafar Al Basin,
> >>  > Saudi Arabia to Safwan, Iraq to Kuwait City exposed to, and what can
> >>  > be done about it if they were?
> >>  >
> >>  > I'm a subscriber to the email list now, so you can reply to me or you
> >>  > can reply to this email list
> >>  >
> >>  > Thank you!
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > Carlos
> >>
> >>
> >
>