[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: Uranium blamed for Gulf War Syndrome (BBC)
COL Daxon,
Thanks for taking time to enlighten us on the DU issues. As always, the ARMY leads the way! Hooha!!
Jim Myers
>>> <col_eric_daxon@medcom2.smtplink.amedd.army.mil> 02/05 12:18 PM >>>
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