[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: Uranium blamed for Gulf War Syndrome (BBC)




     I feel compelled to respond to this issue and I apologize for the 
     length of the post, but I have been in the midst of this issue since 
     1992 and I believe that it is important for this community to be 
     informed.  You have the potential to help those of us working to help 
     current and future veterans.  It is my personal belief that the media 
     and activist focus on depleted uranium as a cause of the illnesses of 
     our veterans is hurting our veterans.
     
     Unfortunately, so much of the controversy is being generated by the 
     press and special interest groups who use the logic described by Gus 
     Potter in his 4 Feb 99 post:
     
        "As occurs often with these kind of issues, no cause->effect 
        logic is being used.  They are saying that since they were 
        exposed to high levels of DU and they are sick, the sickness 
        must be from the DU."
     
     There is no dose relationship between the illnesses and depleted 
     uranium exposure.  People reporting the illnesses are from all parts 
     of the Theater of Operations.  They are not centered where depleted 
     uranium was used.  The other point not addressed is our continued 
     exposure to natural uranium.
     
     The second point that is raised is a delineation of the symptoms 
     quoted by Laurie Taylor in her 4 Feb 99 post:
     
         "I'm not an IH, but MSDS info and info in the Merck Index 
         concerning uranium (including uranium oxide and dioxide) 
         indicates that exposure can cause dermatitis, eye irritation, 
         renal damage, necrotic arterial lesions."
     
     Lung damage is often quoted in the activist literature and in the 
     press.  Unfortunately these symptoms have a wide variety of causes and 
     if you read the literature the MSDS used to generate the information 
     presented, a lot of the symptoms are from exposure to UF6 (dermatitis, 
     and reported incidence of lung damage) and forms of uranium other than 
     the oxides formed when a depleted uranium round strikes a target or 
     burns.
     
     The point that is never discussed in the press or by the activist 
     groups is the relationship between the symptom and the amount that 
     must be internalized to cause the illness.  For each of the symptoms 
     listed in the MSDS large (in excess of standards) exposures are 
     required.  As discussed at the MidYear and correctly quoted by Doug 
     Minnema, the highest exposure anticipated was: 
     
         "Their estimate is less than 5 mSv (0.5 rem) CEDE, based 
         upon 15 minute exposures, and inhalation of 22 mg insoluble 
         DU oxide and 4 mg soluble DU oxide, and secondary ingestion 
         of 13.3 mg insoluble DU oxide and 2.7 mg soluble DU oxide."
     
     The point I need to emphasize is that this is a worst-case estimate of 
     the dose from inhalation.  This is the dose from inhalation to 
     personnel inside armored vehicles at the time the vehicles were struck 
     by depleted uranium munitions.  All of our other measurements 
     (airborne concentrations around the vehicle during the strike, soil 
     concentrations) indicate levels that are well below regulatory 
     standards.
     
     Second, the potential health and environmental impacts of the use of 
     depleted uranium has been reviewed by several DOD and National Academy 
     of Sciences panels starting in the mid-seventies.  Testing to 
     determine airborne concentrations from fires and strikes has been 
     ongoing since then also.  This testing formed the basis for the does 
     estimates made.
     
     The VA and DOD have done measurements and are still doing measurements 
     on uranium levels in urine.  Some of the veterans have also gone 
     through whole-body counting.  The only positive results were for 
     personnel with retained embedded depleted uranium fragments.  As some 
     of you might be aware, the press is reporting that "positive results" 
     were obtained by a veterans group conducting independent assessments 
     of veterans.  To date, no one working the issue has seen the data nor 
     do we know which veterans were tested.  If the veterans had retained 
     depleted uranium fragments, it is not surprising that the results are 
     positive.
     
     These measurements are a part of the VA/DOD follow-up program for 
     soldiers with embedded depleted uranium fragments that were not 
     surgically removable.  There is a significant animal research effort 
     (DOD and non-DOD) looking at the health effects of embedded depleted 
     uranium.  The results are being published in the open, peer-reviewed 
     literature.
     
     Kim Merrit in her 4 Feb 99 post makes a very important point when she 
     wrote:
     
          "As for the introduction of Uranium into the search for 
          the cause; I would look no farther than the troops 
          themselves.  Troops are not HP's or IH's and know little 
          more about their DU rounds than that they are radioactive 
          and are good for killing the enemy."
     
     As noted in a 1993 GAO report on issue, soldier concern was raised 
     because the Army did not have a training program to educate all 
     soldiers who would come in contact with depleted uranium on the 
     battlefield.  The soldier needed to know what the hazards were and, 
     more importantly, WERE NOT.  This has been fixed.
     
     My personal concern is helping our veterans.  The best way we can do 
     that is by using good sound science and focusing our attention on 
     finding the cause.  The potential for DU causing the illnesses of our 
     veterans has been reviewed by a long list of independent scientific 
     panels and all conclude that it was very unlikely for two very 
     important reasons - the symptomatolgy does not match, the doses are 
     too small.
     
     These opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the 
     opinions of the Army.
     
     
     COL Eric G. Daxon, CHP, PhD
     egdaxon@juno.com
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Uranium blamed for Gulf War Syndrome  (BBC) 
Author:  <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu > at internet-mail 
Date:    2/4/99 5:56 PM
     
     
In a message dated 2/4/1999 2:27:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu writes:
     
<< The so-called Gulf War
 Syndrome has not been previously observed in other human populations or 
 individuals with either acute or chronic exposures to uranium; similarly I 
 believe that all studies to date, including a Congressional investigation, 
 have shown no correlation between depleted uranium and the so-called Gulf 
 War Syndrome. >>
     
There is a political aspect to the controversy about the Gulf War Syndrome 
being caused by uranium.  This claim apparently came originally from fringe 
groups who are extremely distrustful of the government and who are active in 
various somewhat radical causes.  Ramsey Clark and Helen Caldicott are two 
names that come to mind in this connection.  
     
     
************************************************************************ 
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription 
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
     


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html