[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: Uranium blamed for Gulf War Syndrome (BBC)
Col. Daxon: Thank you for your well-presented information about this topic.
It seems that the many person years of data in the DOE oxide and metal cycle
(Fernald, Y-12, Ashtabula, Weldon Spring, and Paducah) could also be used.
Bill Goldsmith
wagoldsmith@mindspring.com
-----Original Message-----
From: col_eric_daxon@medcom2.smtplink.amedd.army.mil
<col_eric_daxon@medcom2.smtplink.amedd.army.mil>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 12:16
Subject: 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html