Posted by Bruce:
I stopped reading right here. If this is the title of your organization, then you've already destroyed your credibility. Let's try something similar...
"Are Atheists Truly Immoral?"
Commissioned by
The Christian Fundamentalists Council to Prove That Atheists are Definitely Immoral (CFCPTADI)
(sigh) Next.
Not my organization, but the individual I chose to quote from the allegedly biased site is none other than the Director of the DU program at the Veterans Administration.
Thus the VA is saying that Du has harmed US sevicemen.
Another source
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/diss.html#CHROMSCHOTT
New paper by Dan Fahey addresses unresolved issues regarding depleted uranium and veterans' health
"There are new and legitimate concerns about the adequacy and implementation of current DU policies. This paper examines current policies to identify, evaluate, test, and monitor veterans with known or suspected DU exposures, with a focus on veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This paper also contains updated figures about the quantities of DU shot during combat in Iraq, and new information about the results of DU testing of US and British veterans."
Unresolved Issues Regarding Depleted Uranium And the Health of U.S. Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, by Dan Fahey, 24 March 2004
> Download full paper (241k PDF - posted with permission)
4. Does it make sense to refer Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans to a VA program
that has withheld information about the health of Operation Desert Storm
veterans exposed to DU?
The shortcomings of the VA’s DU Program are getting harder to ignore. In 2003, the
study assessed the health of just 32 of the approximately 900 veterans with Level I and II
exposures during and after Operation Desert Storm.26 Among the 70 total veterans
examined since 1993, at least one had developed a rare Hodgkin’s lymphoma,27 and at
least one other had a bone tumor removed from his arm;28 yet in 2001, Pentagon officials
blatantly lied about the existence of the lymphoma,29 and Dr. Melissa McDiarmid,
director of the DU Program, has still not reported or publicly discussed the bone tumor.
These shortcomings make it difficult to assess the extent and severity of health effects
possibly related to DU, but VA and DoD officials nonetheless invoke the findings from
the study to downplay public concerns about DU. Through their errors of fact and
omission, these VA and DoD officials influence policy decisions about future research
and the extension of service connected health care and benefits to veterans. The DU
Program is undersized and politicized, and someone needs to investigate whether all
relevant health effects have been publicly reported, and to put an end to the practice of
misrepresenting the health of veterans to achieve political ends.
26 Dr. Melissa McDiarmid, presentation to the VA Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’
Illnesses, Washington, DC, 24 February 2004, author’s notes.
27 The Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, “Meeting
with Dr. Melissa McDiarmid and her staff on October 15, 1999 to discuss the Baltimore DU Follow-Up
Program and the Extended Follow-Up Program,†undated.
28 See Dan Fahey, “Science or Science Fiction? Facts, Myths and Propaganda in the Debate Over Depleted
Uranium Munitions,†12 March 2003, p. 22.
29 M. Kilpatrick, Dr., statement at NATO press briefing, Brussels, 10 January 2001,
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110b.htm.
Unresolved Issues 24 March 2004 9
DoD currently refers men and women exposed to DU during Operation Iraqi Freedom
and other military activities to the VA’s DU Program, which “enrolls all patients with
embedded DU fragments and others on a case-by-case basis.â€30 However, it is not clear
that the mistakes of the past, including DoD’s failure to refer all exposed veterans to VA
after Operation Desert Storm, have been corrected. History clearly demonstrates that we
cannot simply accept the promises and declarations made by DoD regarding
environmental health issues, including exposures to DU. In this context, it does not make
sense to refer OIF veterans to an inadequate and politicized DU Program.
The Lymphoma and Bone Tumor Conundrum
The manner in which VA and DoD have ignored and manipulated the findings of a rare
lymphoma and a bone tumor raises serious concerns about the purpose of the DU
Program and whether all information about health effects among the veterans in the study
have been reported. Pentagon officials have clearly lied about the existence of cancer
among veterans in the DU Program, and Dr. McDiarmid has selectively presented
information in a manner which calls to question her judgment and impartiality. It is
essential to resolve the program’s shortcomings epitomized by the flawed reporting of the
lymphoma and bone tumor cases before adding new veterans to the DU Program.
Of the 50 veterans examined by the DU Program in 1999, one had developed Hodgkin’s
lymphoma. Hodgkin’s lymphoma develops in the lymph nodes, and it is a rare form of
cancer (2.58 cases per 100,000 people in more developed countries; 0.94 cases per
100,000 in less developed countries31) with no known risk factor.32 According to the
Institute of Medicine:
The lymphatic system is an important potential target for uranium radiation
because inhaled insoluble uranium oxides can remain up to several years in the
hilar lymph nodes of the lung. Studying the effect of uranium exposure on
lymphatic cancer is more difficult than studying lung cancer because lymphatic
cancer is much less common.33
30 U.S. Department of Defense Deployment Health Clinical Center (DHCC), “Depleted Uranium Provider
Reference Pocket Cards,†Post Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline, Version 1.0, December
2003, Cards 1 and 6.
31 In 1999 the incidence of Hodgkin’s lymphoma among U.S. residents was 2.8 per 100,000 people (3.0 for
men, 2.5 for women). For men and women aged 25-29, the incidence was 5.4 per 100,000; for ages 30-34
the incidence was 4.1 per 100,000. LAG Ries, MP Eisner, CL Kosary, BF Hankey, BA Miller, L Clegg,
BK Edwards, eds., SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD,
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1999/, 2002. Incidence rates in other countries with forces that served in
the Gulf War or Balkans are similar: Italy – 3.62; The Netherlands – 2.32; United Kingdom – 2.26; Saudi
Arabia – 2.69; Kuwait – 4.33; Iraq – 2.10. J. Ferlay, F. Bray, P. Pisani and D.M. Parkin, GLOBOCAN
2000: Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide, Version 1.0, IARC CancerBase No. 5,
Lyon, IARCPress, 2001, Limited version available from: URL:
http://wwwdep.
iarc.fr/globocan/globocan.htm, last updated on 03/02/2001.
32 National Cancer Institute (U.S.), ‘Information about detection, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of
Hodgkin’s disease,’ NIH Publication No. 99-1555, 16 September 2002.
33 U.S. Institute of Medicine, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1, Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine
Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 2000) p. 142.
Unresolved Issues 24 March 2004 10
In general, Hodgkin’s lymphoma occurs more often among men and in people aged 15-
34 and over 55.
Of the 50 veterans examined by the DU Program in 1999, one had a bone tumor in his
humerus (upper arm bone), which was later removed. This finding appears to have
clinical significance because laboratory research conducted by the Armed Forces
Radiobiology Research Institute has determined that DU may contribute to cellular
changes that result in the initiation and promotion of tumors.34 In addition, the US
Institute of Medicine reports: “Like the lymphatic system, bone is an important potential
target for the effects of uranium because uranium is distributed to the bone, replaces
calcium in bone matrix, and may remain in bone for several years.â€35
Inexplicably, the lymphoma and bone tumor have been lied about and misrepresented by
both DoD officials and Dr. McDiarmid. During the 2000-2001 DU controversy in
Europe, DoD officials blatantly lied about the existence of the lymphoma, and in 2003 an
Army spokesman denied that any veterans in the DU Program have developed any
tumors.36 While DoD officials have attempted to justify their lies by claiming they were
only reporting what was in the peer-reviewed published literature,37 Dr. McDiarmid has
offered little in the way of an explanation for her habit of withholding information about
veterans’ health.
Unlike DoD’s errors of fact, Dr. McDiarmid has committed errors of omission which
have resulted in an incomplete public disclosure about the health of veterans in the study.
In an editorial that appeared in the British Medical Journal on 20 January 2001 – at the
height of the European DU controversy – Dr. McDiarmid carefully chose her words,
narrowly presenting cancer information about 15 veterans (those who retain DU
shrapnel), and conspicuously omitting any mention of the lymphoma or bone tumor:
Other evidence [of health effects] comes from a small surveillance study of (then
30 and now 60) US Gulf war veterans who were victims of friendly fire with
depleted uranium. About 15 of these veterans possess retained metal fragments of
depleted uranium in soft tissue and are excreting raised uranium concentrations in
their urine. None of these veterans has leukaemia, bone cancer, or lung cancer.
Thus, the argument for uranium being the cause of leukaemia in peacekeeping
forces is thin, notwithstanding the short latencies implied, even by the standards
of haematological malignancies.38
34 A.C. Miller et al, “Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha
particle decay,†Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (2002) pp. 246-252 at 251
35 U.S. Institute of Medicine, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1, Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine
Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 2000) p. 143.
36 Dennis Gray, “US military says depleted uranium shells in Iraq pose no health dangers,†Associated
Press, 6 May 2003.
37 This defense was proffered by Dr. Michael Kilpatrick during the policy debate at the MIT conference,
“Depleted Uranium: Toxic Contaminant or Necessary Technology,†6 March 2004. See link to audio at
www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/diss.html#MITDU04.
38 Melissa McDiarmid, “Depleted uranium and public health,†322 British Medical Journal (20 January
2001) 123-124.
Unresolved Issues 24 March 2004 11
While European doctors and scientists looked in 2001 for information with which to
assess the risks of DU, Dr. McDiarmid not only provided incomplete information about
the health of veterans in her study, but she also did so in way that clearly supported
DoD’s efforts to downplay European concerns about the effects of DU exposure. Dr.
McDiarmid’s failure to mention the lymphoma or bone tumor is hard to overlook or
dismiss as an oversight, given the extreme media interest and political debate at that time
within NATO about the effects of DU on veterans who served in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Although Dr. McDiarmid has still not publicly acknowledged the bone tumor, she did
address the lymphoma in a December 2001 journal article, in three sentences notable for
their brevity and dismissiveness:
Of note, there was one report of Hodgkin’s disease in a newly identified member
of the low urine uranium group. First diagnosed approximately 4 years after his
Gulf War service, neither his private physicians nor he believed it to be DUrelated.
Hodgkin’s disease is not thought to have any known major risk factor,
including radiation.39
Here Dr. McDiarmid takes on an advocacy role, dismissing the significance of a rare
lymphoma among the few dozen veterans in her study. In contrast to Dr. McDiarmid, the
Institute of Medicine concluded there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine
whether an association does or does not exist between DU exposure and lymphatic cancer
(as well as bone and lung cancer).40
The Political Sieve
The cases of the Hodgkin’s lymphoma and bone tumor illustrate several problems with
the DU Program. First, there appears to be a process within DoD and VA – or rather two
separate processes – that filter information about the health of veterans in the DU
Program through a political sieve, thereby providing veterans, the public, and policy
makers with incomplete and inaccurate information about effects possibly related to DU.
Second, although the study size is too small to permit conclusions to be drawn about the
significance of cancers, tumors, or other effects possibly related to DU,41 DoD officials
and Dr. McDiarmid often present their interpretations of clinical findings in policy
contexts, drawing sweeping conclusions about all veterans and civilians exposed to DU.42
39 Melissa McDiarmid et al, “Surveillance of Depleted Uranium Exposed Gulf War Veterans: Health
Effects Observed in an Enlarged “Friendly Fire†Cohort,†42(12) Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (2001) 998.
40 US Institute of Medicine, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1, Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide,
Sarin, Vaccines (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 2000) 159-160.
41 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Baltimore VAMC, Department of Veterans Affairs Program for the
Follow-up and Monitoring of Gulf War Veterans with Imbedded Fragments of Depleted Uranium, Draft,
(23 September 1993) 11.
42 See M. Kilpatrick, Dr., statement at NATO press briefing, Brussels, 10 January 2001,
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110b.htm; Dr. Melissa McDiarmid, “Health Effects of Depletd
Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10-Year Follow-Up,†Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health, Part A, 67: 277, 2004, Dr. Melissa McDiarmid, presentation to the VA Research
Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, Washington, DC, 24 February 2004, author’s notes.
Unresolved Issues 24 March 2004 12
These actions are not only preventing an assessment of the health of the approximately
900 Level I and II veterans, but also preventing U.S. policy makers from assessing the
possible impacts of DU on civilian populations, which is a controversial and politically
charged issue in need of a thorough and objective analysis.
In her British Medical Journal editorial, Dr. McDiarmid also invoked studies of uranium
industry workers to downplay public concerns about DU.43 However, the Institute of
Medicine noted that these studies have limited relevance to other uranium exposures,
such as DU exposures among soldiers on a battlefield:
In general, animal studies have provided invaluable information on the
pharmacokinetics of uranium, as well as qualitative insight into the toxicology of
uranium. As discussed in this chapter, the majority of evidence on the health
effects of exposure to uranium is from studies of workers in uranium processing
mills and other facilities. Few studies of Gulf War veterans have specifically
focused on the effects of uranium. Additionally, the literature on uranium miners
is largely not relevant to the study of uranium per se because the primary
exposure of this population was to radon progeny, which are known lung
carcinogens. Although the studies of uranium processing workers are useful for
drawing conclusions, the study settings have inherent weaknesses. First, even
studies involving tens of thousands of workers are not large enough to identify
small increases in the relative risk of uncommon cancers. Second, few studies
had accurate information about individual exposure levels. Some authors
estimated the cumulative dose by following an employee's path through various
jobs whose average radiation exposure was known. Third, in these industrial
settings, the populations could have been exposed to other radioisotopes (i.e.
radium ore, thorium) and to a number of industrial chemicals that may confound
health outcomes. Finally, no studies had reliable information about cigarette
smoking, which may also confound outcomes of lung cancer. However, these
cohorts or uranium processing workers are an important resource, and the
committee encourages further studies that will provide progressively longer
follow-up, improvements in exposure estimation, and more sophisticated
statistical analyses.44
The uncertainties regarding the presence or absence of health effects among veterans
exposed to DU can only be resolved by an assessment of the health status of Level I and
II veterans from the 1991 war, but DoD officials and Dr. McDiarmid appear eager to
continue to misleadingly invoke the uranium industry studies as well as carefully selected
findings of the undersized DU Program to prevent an assessment of veterans from taking
place.
43 Melissa McDiarmid, “Depleted uranium and public health,†322 British Medical Journal (20 January
2001) 123-124.
44 U.S. Institute of Medicine, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1, Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine
Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 2000) 159.
Unresolved Issues 24 March 2004 13
In its 2000 report, the Institute of Medicine recommended “long-term follow-up of
veterans exposed to depleted uranium, including the Baltimore cohort [DU Program] and
other veterans potentially exposed to depleted uranium (e.g., those involved in cleanup
operations or radiation control units).â€45 This recommendation should apply equally to
veterans exposed in 1991 and since 2001, and include veterans with Level I (friendly fire)
and II (cleanup operations and radiation control units) exposures.
Recommendation: The DU Program should be restructured and expanded into a cohort
study that assesses the health of the approximately 900 veterans identified by DoD as
having had Level I and II exposures during the 1991 war. VA should create a new DU
study – under new leadership – that reports all relevant health effects to policy makers
and the public in a timely and accurate way.
Duh! That'll teach you.
That is so priceless.
