Continued footnotes:
Ebinger M. H. and Oxenburg T. P. (1997) Modeling exposure to depleted uranium in support of decommissioning at Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana, National Technical Information Service, Report LA-UR-96-3907.
Erickson, R.L., et al., Geochemical Factors Affecting Degradation and Environmental Fate of Depleted Uranium Penetrators in Soil and Water, PNL-8527, Battelle PNL, Richland, Wash., 1993.
Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses (OSAGWI) Environmental Exposure Report, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf, 4 August 1998, http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/.
SAIC (1990) Kinetic energy penetrator environmental and health considerations. Science Applications International Corporation, Report 2, Volume 2.
Shelton et al., Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, June 1995.
Stolfi, R., J. Clemens, and R. McEachin. Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings vs Individual Soviet Tanks, Air Force/56780/2, February 1979-2000.
12

Military Applications of Depleted Uranium -Health and Environmental Aspects (continued)
U.S. Air Force, Draft Environmental Assessment, Nellis Air Force Range, Target 63-10, June 1997.
7. Independent assessments:
Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel, "The Hazard Posed by Depleted-uranium Munitions," Science and Global Security, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1999);
Although an extremely important link it must be deleted as per the rules. Sorry.
Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel, "When the Dust Settles," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 55, No. 6 (November/December 1999);
Although an extremely important link it must be deleted as per the rules. Sorry. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Centre for Human Settlement, The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements, 1999. (included a comprehensive desk study on the potential effects of depleted uranium).
-END OF LIST -
13

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DaveBarker,

Good info there Dave, many thanks for the update as I have been wondering what the word on this was since we got into this discussion a month or so ago.

There is much more to come.

I have been contacted by a person who has much interest in the topic. He has given me some additional base data. When I get the time to evaluate that information and match it to what I currently have, there will be another article.

So far 80% of my information has come from my cleints medical records and available medical resources. As my information develops it will be posted here.

Douglas Lind Rokke, PhD Vocational Education (the teaching of high school classes to students who do not intend to go on to college), is a self-proclaimed expert in depleted uranium who has also misportrayed himself as a Colonel (instead of retired Reserve Major; he was a 40 year old former enlisted First Lieutenant during and after the Gulf War) in the video "Poison Dust". Rokke has been filling the internet and the world with lies about depleted uranium since he found out that he could travel to exotic places like Cambridge University or Australia on other people's money in 1999. Rather than listen to Rokke, listen to the genuine experts who were assembled in Minnesota in January 2009 - suggest that you start with the Q&A at the end and learn that these scientists both care about veterans and also know their stuff.

http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du...ResearchFindings.htm

Roger
<< Mod Note - Email removed -Per TOS >>

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave_M,

For more on Douglas Lind Rokke, contact me - a lot of the documentst that Barker has posted here look like they came out of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's ADAMS document retrieval system. Rokke filed e-mail complaints that led to massive expenditure of your tax dollars to prove pretty much nothing. Rokke was offered the opportunity to testify but never responded and did not avail himself of that opportunity. At the time that Rokke submitted these complaints, he was teaching undergraduate science at Jacksonville State University in Alabama. I expect that Dave Barker, being the professional that he is, will scrub all of the Rokke bovine excrement from this site once he has viewed this video and perhaps contacted some of the knowledgeable scientist participants.
http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du...ResearchFindings.htm

Roger
<< Mod Note - Email removed -Per TOS >>

Another interesting fact about Rokke - the producer of the video "Beyond Treason" that features Rokke, his close associate Leuren K Moret, Dennis Kyne and Joyce Riley, the producer's wife is the master of ceremonies at this event - remember that every time that you see Doug Rokke, or read something from the American Free Press

Neo Nazi American Free Press/The Barnes Review convention << Mod Note - Link removed per Terms of Service - No Links except as authorized>>

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave_M,

Dear Mad Colonel

As I advised you in the e-mail response.

Quote: "As I explained, the information I print is information gathered. I am going to adjust anything that is shown to be incorrect. I have a large caseload of clients and not a large amount of time. Bottom line is information was used that I had available. I do not personally know Dr. Rokke so I have zero loyalty toward him. However I do not have counter information either.
Dave"

Please allow me the time to review the information you sent me.

If you will note the few preceding posts, were made from information from Colonel Dan. Whom I presume you are wroking with.

Dave Barker

As many of you may know there are some people who disagree with my position on depleted uranium. They have every right to do so. The good part is the disagreements keep me hopping.

We all need to respect others opinions, which I do respect those folks and will continue to do so. But as you all should know, something is making these veterans drastically ill. Many of the undiagnosed illness I have observed and reviewed medical records showed backgrounds of being exposed to DU. Remember my mindset is based on my reviews in the early 1980's and on regarding Agent Orange. I openly admit I am partial.

Oh well...

The following article echoes some of the things I have published over the years.

From Veterans For Change

Gulf War Veterans Have Been Fighting For Help



By James Bunker



The gulf war veterans have been fighting for help with their illnesses due to their service since Operation Desert Storm, and still today with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Southwest Asia was and still is one of the most toxic places for a service member on deployment. We have been coming home from the gulf sick, and not getting any real help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).



In 1993 many of us worked Congress to get the first bill passed to compensate veterans suffering from gulf war illness (GWI) passed; but it was not until November 1994, when Iraq started to mass troops, once again, that the bill was finally passed and signed into law. Veterans did not get any help with this new law because of the attitudes of those in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The VBA did not and still does not like to grant service connection for GWI. Some of the VA Regional Offices (RO) will go out of their way to deny these claims. In 1997, we worked to change the law in hopes it would help us. The changes did help some veterans, but not many. The last change came in 2002 when we added to the list ill-defined illness like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia (FM), and or Irritable Bowl Syndrome (IBS). Even to this day veterans still have a hard time with their claims



Even to this day, I see many claims that are denied for reasons like, “your claim cannot be granted under the undiagnosed category as you have no diagnosis”. which is a contradiction in itself. Clearly, this is the rater’s personal feeling getting in the way, how else can the VA explain this outright mistake.



I worked with over 50 veterans this past month that, either have a diagnosis of CFS, FM, and/or IBS and the RO still denied the claim. Their reason you ask? The documented decision states that if it is diagnosed there must be signs of it in the veteran’s service record. The RO’s need to learn how to read the laws on these claims and follow the law. It is simple; if you have FM, CFS, and/or IBS and it meets the 10% rating level, the law states it is presumed to be from the veteran’s service in the gulf and that the veteran is to be given a service connected rating for the illness. The GWI claims are not hard to do if the VA would get the raters to follow the laws right and to get past their own personal feelings that “ if you can not diagnosed they we will not compensate for it”. There is a part in the VA law that states that cases can be reopened due to this with clear and unmistakable evidence (CUE).



If the VA really desires to lower the numbers of backed logged claims, one way to accomplish this is with better training and attitude adjustment. Why do I have the attitude adjustment? It goes to a few things over the years. One was when the VA placed members on a gulf war board that were to look into problems we had with our claims. The chairman remarked during a meeting I was at, that Congress over stepped their boundary in even passing the GWI law. This person was a former high-ranking VBA employee that worked at the VBAHQ. There are also many newspaper articles where past VBA employees have stated things like, GWI and PTSD claims are wrong; veterans should not be given money for these types of claims.



How do we change things? The VA needs to start by taking every Friday, for the next year, and using it as a training day. They will have to make sure everyone is there, since many do not go to the little bit of training done now. Each training day should cover a different part the M21-1MR and how to apply it to claims correctly. The best trainers for this are those sitting on the Board of veterans’ appeals and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (COA). There needs to be time for Q&A so that the raters can get things off their mind. With the video links the VA has, this can be done for very little money via teleconference.



The VA and VBA might think this would be a waste of time and that sending out training letters will work better. What they forget about is how they have placed a quota on the raters to increase output. This does two things; one is that it makes the rater work so fast that he can miss data in the veteran’s file and ask the veteran for information to put the claim in a holding pattern, two the raters are so over worked with claims, many do not have time to read the letters that come out. I know that many of the VSOs I have worked with all around the nation say they do not have the time either.



The RO's might not like this training idea either. They have many claims that they need to do. Some are new claims and many are claims where the veterans are disagreeing with the decision sent to them. What they, as well as the VA Central Office (CO), needs to understand is that the poor training and attitudes are a big part of why there is such a backlog of claims.



The VA has a tracking system for claims that will let the VA and the CO know how well they are doing claims. I would like to point out that this system is rigged. When claims go before the Board of Veterans Appeals and are remanded to fix an error, the RO after fixing it, will call it a claim done right. If they approve a claim, but clearly rated the claim too low and fixed it later, they call it a claim done right. The only time this does not happen is when the VA, VBA, or COA rules for the veteran and assigns the rating. The other fact veterans need to know is that 80% of claims that enter the appeal channel past the RO gets resolved in favor of the veteran.



This should tell one a lot about why we need the VA to do all day training classes. As the training and the attitudes improve with the VA's raters, the amount of notice of disagreements (NODs) will decrease. This will in turn help to decrease the backlog at the RO. In addition, dropping the NODs will decrease the workload on the VBA and COA while improving the appeals time line.

To James Bunker

Bottom line - would you want your kids inhaling DU Dust? How many of you have kids military age or in the military like me? People who decide this is an "acceptable risk" are seldom the ones that will be crawling over the rubbish on the training/target ranges or battlefield. You or your kids will. What is your threshold of "acceptable risk" in that case?

Ron,
I'm sorry to hear about your daughter!

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:
Bottom line - would you want your kids inhaling DU Dust? How many of you have kids military age or in the military like me? People who decide this is an "acceptable risk" are seldom the ones that will be crawling over the rubbish on the training/target ranges or battlefield. You or your kids will. What is your threshold of "acceptable risk" in that case?

Excellent point GWG! The reason for my Depleted Uranium articles is to get information to veterans and families of veterans who were exposed.

If you recall, for about three decades the 1960's to 1988, the government denied Agent Orange was harmful. I began busting that myth in 1977, in an open meeting at the Whitehall VFW Post 8794. At first my meetings met with resistance from the older members, but over time they finally agreed there was a problem.

In 1985 I was asked by Compuserve to contribute and moderate a forum on Agent Orange affects.

The Depleted Uranium issue reminds me of those days, comparing medical records of those exposed to those not exposed. I write my articles based on the information gleaned from the multiple hundreds of veterans seen by me over the years.

Any who desire to check me out, my access is open to all. I work for Ohio AMVETS 614 431 6990, stationed at the Chillicothe VAMC 740 773 1141. I am an AMVETS State Service Officer, not a doctor, but a well educated individual and with many years of experience.

From Colonel Dan

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 6:59 AM
To: Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan
Subject: [VeteranIssues] Rokke, Is NOT on the Agenda

Written by Anthony Hardie, a Totally and Permanently Disabled Gulf War Veteran who has been serving fellow Gulf War veterans since 1995

A small controversy has erupted involving the National Gulf War Resource Center’s conference and reunion in Dallas this August related to a previously discredited, self-proclaimed “expert” and whether or not he is slated to speak.

Stories circulating on the Internet, including in an article this week at the web-based “American Free Press,” state that former Army officer Douglas Lind Rokke and so-called Depleted Uranium (DU) “expert” is scheduled to speak. For Gulf War veterans who know Rokke and his storied past, the rumors stirred up anger and emotion.

However, NGWRC President Jim Bunker, quoted in Anderson’s article, disputes these reports. In an email today, Bunker said unequivocally about Rokke attending the NGWRC conference, "He is not on the Agenda.”

About Doug Rokke: “He is not on the Agenda.” -Jim Bunker, President, National Gulf War Resource Center, in a July 16, 2010 email.

The NGWRC’s conference agenda, available online on the NGWRC website, also shows that Rokke is not slated to speak.

Failing to fact check, Mark Anderson at American Free Press’s falsely claims, in an article falsely entitled, “Thousands [emphasis added] of Vets to Meet in Dallas,”:

AMERICAN FREE PRESS has also learned that Doug Rokke (U.S. Army, retired) will speak on the Saturday portion of the event. He’s a well-known critic of the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. This radioactive metal, a byproduct of uranium processing, is used as both a munitions component for penetrating hardened targets and as armor against enemy fire. But when it’s fragmented or aerosolized during conflict, it gets into food, water and wounds and respiratory systems of soldiers and civilians. It causes cancer, birth defects and other serious health problems.

Rokke also is a critic of America’s interventionist foreign policy, arguing that a string of unjustified wars has produced massive casualties that U.S. authorities barely acknowledge, let alone seek to remedy. This outspoken Vietnam and Desert Storm vet has accused those whose duty it is to help veterans of a constant “delay and deny” stance. The result is a war of attrition against vets who fight to get financial benefits and healthcare, but end up dying or deteriorating beyond help.

Citing Gulf War Veterans Information Systems data, Rokke also points out that war-death statistics commonly reported to the American people are dramatically lower than the real, complete figures. This is because deaths that more or less immediately take place (killed in action) comprise most of the fatalities reported, whereas those soldiers who die later from injuries, illnesses and suicides stemming from their military service are not included in those fatality reports. This, he says, enables the government to hide the real “blood cost” of the current wars.

The Gulf War veterans community generally discredited former Illinois National Guardsman and U.S. Army Reservist Doug Rokke years ago when Rokke’s sharply exaggerated claims and outright falsehoods published about his military service, expertise, and credentials were exposed.

Doug Rokke, self-purported DU “expert,” spoke at a 2008 conference of neo-Nazi’s. Dave Von Kleist, then husband of Joyce Riley, was the Master of Ceremonies and introduced both Rokke and keynote speaker and neo-Nazi “Nordwave"” leader Alec Hassinger at the conference. The American Free Press co-hosted the conference, later publishing Mark Anderson’s false article about Rokke’s participation cited above.

Doug Rokke was preceded in his speech at the 2008 conference of neo-Nazi’s by Alec Hassinger, chairman of the neo-Nazi, “racialist”, anti-Semitic, white Supremacist organization “Nordwave.” The flag of Nazi Germany -- a sworn enemy of the United States, was defeated during WWII by the U.S. and the Allies at a cost of millions of lives -- hung in the background at left.



======================

Meanwhile, Depleted Uranium has very real health effects, though they bear little resemblance to the wild and terrifying claims made by Rokke over the years. See 91outcomes.com’s “Health Effects of Depleted Uranium (DU): A review of recent research” for a review of recent scientific studies showing the very real health outcomes associated with DU, particularly ingested or inhaled DU.

In 2008, a consensus scientific report of the VA Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses (RACGWVI) has this to say about Gulf War causation and depleted uranium, based on available studies and consistent with the likelihood that only some Gulf War veterans were exposed to DU but not even a majority of the 250,000 (according to the Institute of Medicine) who remain ill with chronic multisymptom illness, popularly known as Gulf War Illness:

Evidence strongly and consistently indicates that two Gulf War neurotoxic exposures are causally associated with Gulf War illness: 1) use of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents, and 2) pesticide use during deployment. Evidence includes the consistent association of Gulf War illness with PB and pesticides across studies of Gulf War veterans, identified dose-response effects, and research findings in other populations and in animal models.

For several Gulf War exposures, an association with Gulf War illness cannot be ruled out. These include low-level exposure to nerve agents, close proximity to oil well fires, receipt of multiple vaccines, and effects of combinations of Gulf War exposures. There is some evidence supporting a possible association between these exposures and Gulf War illness, but that evidence is inconsistent or limited in important ways.

Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC).

Even still, the RAC’s scientists and Gulf War veteran members note that few studies have been conducted on inhaled or ingested DU particulate matter, though one was funded in recent years by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program’s Gulf War Illness Research Program.

In the 1990’s, other opportunists also took advantage of Gulf War veterans. Former military nurse Joyce Riley, whose own Gulf War military service has come under question, called Gulf War Syndrome government genocide and linked to items as farfetched as black helicopters and a conspiratorial international governments and the New World Order somehow using Gulf War troops as guinea pigs for evil plans for citizenry of the entire world.

Riley found her way onto numerous television and radio talk shows, and even founded an organization called “American Gulf War Veterans Association”.

Still in existence, AGWVA’s current events revolve not around helping Gulf War veterans, but predictably around publicizing Riley’s public talks – which can be attended, for a price, of course. In fact, Riley’s current events (donations unfailingly encouraged) can go as high as $40 per event to attend, according to her webpage as of the writing of this article, including to view Riley and Rokke’s co-produced, conspiratorial, sensationalist film.

Riley and Rokke have generally avoided legitimate participating in the many dozens of public meetings held by federal government agencies and panels, which in recent years have finally been solidly focused on finding solutions to improve Gulf War veterans’ health and lives. In Riley’s case, however, she has translated her fear-mongering into a lucrative radio talk show, replete with a mall selling DVD’s and other items for profit.

Any reasonable person who opposes Riley or Rokke or asks meaningful questions about their credibility has frequently become part of the conspiracy, and subject to coordinated attacks by Riley, Rokke, and like-minded cohorts.

One of the items hawked by Riley and Rokke are their co-produced DVD, “Beyond Treason,” which purports to discuss the truth about Gulf War Syndrome.

However, the falsehoods, distortions, and breathless, fear-instilling hype begin even in the DVD’s write-up. “The VA has determined that 250,000 troops are now permanently disabled, 15,000 troops are dead and over 425,000 are ill,” proclaims Riley’s and Rokke’s film summary of this 2005 film on Riley’s webpage.

In actuality, only just this year did the Institute of Medicine – not the VA – determine that 250,000 veterans of the 1991 Gulf War suffer from chronic multi-symptom illness. The claim that 250,000 troops are now (in 2005) “permanently disabled” was not factual in 2005, and the claims that of the 696,842 service members who deployed to the Gulf in 1991 that, “over 425,000 are ill,” is another fabrication.

Indeed, the April 2010 Institute of Medicine report was the largest number of ill Gulf War veterans yet cited by science: “There are sufficient numbers of veterans to conduct meaningful comparisons given that nearly 700,000 U.S. personnel were deployed to the region and more than 250,000 of them suffer from persistant, unexplained symptoms.”

Since 2008, the VA’s Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses -- a panel composed of pro-veteran scientists and ill Gulf War veterans – had stated that between 175,000 and 210,000 veterans were ill.

Indeed, demagogues like Riley and Rokke did much in the earlier years of Gulf War Illness to damage the credibility of genuinely ill Gulf War veterans, and soon many policymakers and politicians stopped believing there was a real problem and instead succumbing to the Pentagon’s equally misguided assertions that nothing was wrong with Gulf War veterans, or if there was it was only “stress”, the “same as after every war.”

This year, instead of playing host to self-serving charlatans like Riley and Rokke, the National Gulf War Resource Center (ngwrc.org) instead has a meaningful, thought-provoking agenda filled with speakers who have impeccable credibility as leaders in their fields and advocacy for Gulf War veterans, and clearly have the interests of ill Gulf War veterans at heart.

While attendance is highly unlikely to be in the “thousands” as Anderson inflates, or probably even in the many hundreds, it will surely be of great value to all those Gulf War veterans, families, and advocates who do choose to attend.

Speakers include:

Dr. Lea Steele, past Scientific Director of the advocacy oriented, Congressionally chartered Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, past Chair of the integration panel of the Gulf War Illness Research Program, part of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program conducted at the direction of Congress and housed in the Department of Defense with ill Gulf War veteran consumer advocates and top-notch scientists.

Dr. Robert Haley, director of a formerly Congressionally funded research project on Gulf War illnesses.

VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich, who is personally leading efforts inside VA to “Change the Culture” to improve Gulf War veterans’ health and lives.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

30 Dead or 0 Dead: Military Spokesman Contradicts Fatalities Claim by Doug Rokke
Australian Member of Parliament Exposes False Information from Doug Rokke
RAC 2008 Report, Chapter on DU:
Summary. The health of Gulf War veterans in relation to depleted uranium. The 1990-1991 Gulf War was the first conflict in which munitions containing DU were widely used, and the possible role of DU in causing or contributing to Gulf War-related multisymptom illness has long been the subject of debate and controversy. About 320 tons of DU were used during the Gulf War and a substantial number of Gulf War personnel were potentially exposed to DU at lower levels, particularly troops who came into contact with vehicles damaged by DU munitions. The Department of Defense has indicated that at least 900 U.S. personnel were involved in incidents or activities associated with higher-level DU exposures. Health risk assessments indicate that DU exposures at levels encountered by the majority of Gulf War veterans are not likely to result in increased rates of kidney disease or lung cancer, but have not provided insights directly related to questions concerning persistent symptomatic illness.

Recent animal studies indicate that DU exposure, particularly longer term exposure to soluble forms of DU, can have adverse effects on the brain and behavior. Research in animal models has also demonstrated mutagenic and tumorigenic effects of DU that raise concerns, particularly in connection with sustained DU exposures. Studies of Gulf War veterans have provided limited information concerning associations between DU and multisymptom illness and other health outcomes of interest. The extensive use of DU in current Middle East conflicts, in the absence of a widespread “Gulf War illness”-type problem in returning veterans, suggests that DU is not likely a primary cause of Gulf War illness for most Gulf War veterans. Questions remain, however, concerning long-term effects of DU in relation to other health outcomes, particularly among individuals with higher level DU exposures. These questions indicate the need for epidemiologic research to more comprehensively assess effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans.

----------------------------------

Editor’s note: Bunker should be praised for holding out against those unlearned few inside his own organization who still, after years of experience, try to push to have discredited, self-serving demagogues like Riley and Rokke be given a platform from which to spin and spew more inflammatory, exaggeration and lie-filled, fear mongering garbage.

Preying on fears and suspicion hurts the veterans and their loved ones, and lines the pocketbooks of charlatans like these.

Meanwhile, the real work seeking publicly funded, science-based answers
to help improve the health and lives of the 250,000 veterans left ill from the 1991 Gulf War remains in great need of clear-minded, rational advocates to help their fellow Gulf War veterans. If you’re science-minded and want to help be part of real solutions, post your comments here, or email at admin @91outcomes.com.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

-A.H.
================================================

DU): A review of Recent Research
Written by Anthony Hardie

(91outcomes.com) - The following is a review of select new scientific studies (2009, 2010) related to the health effects of Depleted Uranium (DU). This review is based on the abstracts of published studies publicly available on PubMed.gov, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. This review is by no means intended to be perceived as comprehensive, nor does it take into account every single study published on DU during this time period. However, every attempt has been made to provide a balanced and careful review of each of the studies below.

The studies examine the health effects associated with DU that has been embedded/implanted (such as shrapnel) in the body, ingested/swallowed and absorbed into the body, and inhaled into the upper and/or lower respiratory tracts/lungs. One study examines the health effects associated with DU exposure through wounds. None of the studies examines health effects related to skin contact with DU, DU particulate matter, or DU crystalline residue.

Taken together, these studies suggest that there are a number of negative health effects associated with exposure to DU. The nature and severity of these health effects are dependent upon the type, duration, and magnitude of DU exposure, and, for aeresolized DU particulates, the size, composition, and timing of the DU particles inhaled.

First, some terms we’ll be using…

Depleted Uranium (DU). Uranium (U) is a naturally occurring heavy metal that has both radioactive properties caused by the decay of the uranium atom’s nucleus, and chemical properties as a heavy metal. DU is the by-product of the enrichment process, which extracts portions of naturally occurring uranium for nuclear fuel and weapons. DU is what’s left over after enrichment: a form of uranium that 40 percent less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium, but is chemically identical to naturally occurring uranium and other forms of uranium. In addition to a less radioactive form of uranium, the DU used in the U.S. military’s armor plates and munitions also contains trace levels of more radioactive transuranics (neptunium, plutonium, and americium) and fission products (technetium-99). DoD says the levels of these more radioactive transuranics and fission products are in minute quantities and result in” less than a one percent increase in the internal radiation dose. “ More detailed information on DU’s characteristics is available from DoD.

Oxidative Stress (OS). The human body is a careful balancing act. Too much or too little of one thing or another can lead to disastrous consequences. One of these countless balancing acts is with reactive oxygen species (ROS), chemically reactive oxygen-containing molecules most often created by the body as by-products of normal and essential metabolic reaction, and which are needed by the body for immune function and cell signaling. However, an imbalance causing too many ROS can be caused by many factors as results in an inability by the body to detoxify or to repair damage caused by excessive ROS. This resulting condition is called Oxidative Stress (OS), an imbalance that results in damage to one or more cells, tissues, or organs. OS has been found to play a key role in many disease processes.

…And now, on to the studies themselves.

U versus DU. An Italian government study found cytotoxic (cell-killing) and genetic effects at quite low concentrations of uranium (U). The impact was higher with exposures to natural uranium (U) than to DU. (A. Giovanetti et al, 2010)

A study from the University of Nebraska-Kearney (W. Briner et al, 2010) notes, “while depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, it still retains all the chemical toxicity associated with the original element. In large doses the kidney is the target organ for the acute chemical toxicity of this metal, producing potentially lethal tubular necrosis. In contrast, chronic low dose exposure to depleted uranium may not produce a clear and defined set of symptoms. Chronic low-dose, or subacute, exposure to depleted uranium alters the appearance of milestones in developing organisms. Adult animals that were exposed to depleted uranium during development display persistent alterations in behavior, even after cessation of depleted uranium exposure. Adult animals exposed to depleted uranium demonstrate altered behaviors and a variety of alterations to brain chemistry. Despite its reduced level of radioactivity evidence continues to accumulate that depleted uranium, if ingested, may pose a radiologic hazard.”

The results of a French government study, conducted by France’s Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute, “illustrate that oxidative stress plays a key role in the mechanism of uranium neurotoxicity. They showed that chronic exposure to DU, but not enriched uranium, seems to induce an increase of several antioxidant agents in order to counteract,” the OS in the brain. According to the study authors, “these results demonstrate the importance of the double toxicity, chemical and radiological, of uranium.” (Lestaevel et al, 2009)

DU Genotoxity. Some substances have genotoxic properties – properties that make them harmful to the genetic information (DNA, RNA, chromosomes, etc.) in living creatures. There are three types of genotoxins: 1) Carcinogens (cancer-causing); 2) Mutagens (cause mutations); and, 3) Teratogens (birth-defect causing).

A Chinese government study using rats fed levels of DU, ranging from none to high, found increased concentrations of uranium in the kidneys and ovaries and significant abnormalities in the sperm in those that had consumed the DU. Because these genotoxic changes to the DNA affected ovaries and sperm, the DNA changes were passed on to offspring, even for rats that had consumed only low doses of DU, with the most severe changes in the sperm found in the offspring of the rats exposed to DU, even at low levels. (Y. Hao, 2009)

Another French government study conducted by France’s Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute showed that while enriched uranium has a higher genotoxic ability than DU to cause mutagenic structural changes and breakage in the chromosomes, the genotoxic, mutagenic ability of DU to cause an abnormal number of chromosomes, “remains high.” (C. Darolles, 2010)

A University of Belgrade study conducted on local individuals exposed to DU, and a control group of those not exposed to DU, found that individuals exposed to DU contamination from the war had cell and chromosome damage associated with their DU exposure. (S. Milacic, 2009)

A French study discussed in more detail below found that inhaled DU caused damage to the chromosomes in the cells lining the airways after just 48 hours. (C. La Certe, 2010)

DU Dose-Response. In one Italian government study, the negative effects of DU were observed in greater levels with greater exposures, but the dose-effect relationship was found to be non-linear, meaning not only the negative effects themselves increased with greater doses, but also the rate of negative effects increased with larger doses of the concentration of uranium. (A. Giovanetti, 2010)

Effects of Ingested (Swallowed) DU. A Norwegian University of Life Sciences study examining DU in Kuwait and Kosovo found that a majority of DU is readily absorbed into the body (bioaccessible) when ingested (swallowed). (Lind et al, 2009)

As noted above, a Chinese government study using rats fed levels of DU, ranging from none to high, found increased concentrations of uranium in the kidneys and ovaries and significant abnormalities in the sperm in those that had consumed the DU, and that those changes were passed on to offspring who then exhibited even more dramatic changes In their own reproductive systems. (Hao et al, 2009)

A French government Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety study showed changes in rats in the liver’s modulation of cholesterol following ingestion (swallowing) of DU. The study’s authors noted that previous studies showed vitamin D and the brain’s cholesterol metabolisms were affected following chronic ingestion of DU. In this study, high, “chronic” (40 milligrams/liter every day for nine months) doses of DU were swallowed by the rats, and despite changes in the way cholesterol is metabolized, high cholesterol levels were still seen. Of particular note, one of the study’s results was a noted deficiency of a particular enzyme that breaks down cholesterol, leading to hypercholesterolaemia. (R. Racine et al, 2010) The enzyme found to be decreased by DU in this study normally, dramatically increases in the liver with age. (Norlin 2002)

Effects of Inhaled DU. A new study from the Wise Laboratory of Environmental and Genetic Toxicology in Maine found that DU caused cellular death in the cells lining the bronchial airways of human lungs, and caused damage to the chromosomes after just 48 hours. While the scope of the study wasn’t to determine whether DU causes lung cancer, the study results, indicate that if indeed DU does cause lung (specifically bronchial) cancer in humans, the DU, “is likely acting through a mechanism that involves DNA breaks after longer exposures.” (C. La Certe, 2010)

A second study published by the same group found even stronger evidence of the damage caused by DU to human lungs, showing that the cells lining the airways are “transformed by DU and exhibit significant chromosome instability consistent with” the growth of neoplasms -- abnormal growth of cells that, if large enough, are known as “tumors.” Neoplasms are of three types: non-malignant, pre-malignant, and malignant. (H. Xie et al, 2010)

A study by the Quebec-based Uranium Medical Research Center found that following exposure to inhaled DU, “biological samples show the presence of a synthetic mixture of natural uranium and DU.” . (M Valdes, 2009)

A Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute study, part of the U.S. government-led Capstone DU studies, found that inhaled aerosolized DU posed the greatest cancer risk to the lungs, with the lungs receiving nearly all (97%) of the risk posed by inhaled DU. However, even with a relatively long (two hour) exposure to the aerosolized DU, the cancer risk was found to be” 0.42%, low compared with the natural or background risk of 7.35%.” (Hahn et al, 2009)

Another Lovelace Capstone study modeled exposures for M1A1 Abrams tanks hit by DU rounds. The study estimated the greatest risk of inhaled DU exposures, at “a factor of 20” was shown in the case of a one minute exposure in an unventilated Abrams with a DU round perforating then tank’s DU armor, whereas the exposure was only “a factor of two” for a first-responder scenario. (Guilmette et al, 2009) Another Capstone study discussed the methods used to calculate the dose of the aerosolized DU exposures. (Miller et al, 2009)

Another Capstone study found that there was a substantial variability in how inhaled DU is absorbed, “which in part depended on the type of armor being impacted by the DU penetrator and the particle size fraction being tested.” The study further noted that, “although some trends were suggested, the variability noted leads to uncertainties in predicting the solubility of other DU-based aerosols.” (Guilmette and Cheng, 2009)

Variability of DU particle size, shape, solubility, and suspension in air. An earlier Capstone study analyzed the size and shape of DU after the impact of a DU penetrating round against an armored target. Notably, “A few samples seemed to contain small bits of nearly pure uranium metal, which were verified … to have a higher uranium content exceeding that expected for uranium oxides.” Different levels of solubility -- the ability of the DU to be absorbed into the body – were also found. (Krupka et al, 2009)

Another related Capstone study analyzed the size of DU particulate matter in relation to how long it stayed in the air after the impact of a DU round. The study found that the DU particulate matter ranged from “small” (between 0.2 and 1.2 micrometers) and “large” (between 2 and 15 micrometers), with the larger particles settling fairly quickly, while DU particulate matter 1 micrometer and smaller remaining suspended in the air two hours after impact. (Cheng et al, 2009). A related Capstone study found that the amount of uranium in the particulate matter varied with the size of the particulate, “typically with less uranium associated with the smaller particle sizes.” Furthermore, “the results demonstrate that the peak uranium concentration in the aerosol occurred in the first 10 s after perforation, and the concentration decreased in the Abrams tank shots to about 50% within one minute and to less than 2% after 30 minutes,” following impact of the DU penetrating round. (Parkhurst et al, 2009)

The USEPA classifies “inhalable coarse particles” as between 2.5 micrometers and 10 micrometers in diameter, while “Fine particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers and smaller (also known as PM2.5)(Source: USEPA)

Without regard for the radiologic or toxic properties of DU, according to the New York State Department of Health has this to say about microfine particulate matter in general:

Particles in the PM2.5 size range are able to travel deeply into the respiratory tract, reaching the lungs. Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease. Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5 exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, emergency department visits and deaths. Studies also suggest that long term exposure to fine particulate matter may be associated with increased rates of chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function and increased mortality from lung cancer and heart disease. People with breathing and heart problems, children and the elderly may be particularly sensitive to PM2.5. (Source: NY Dept. of Health)

Effects of Implanted/Embedded DU. Urine testing of approximately 1,7000 U.S. veterans found three with evidence of DU in their urine; all three had embedded DU fragments. (CD Dorsey et al, 2009)

Further testing involved, “35 members of a larger cohort of 77 Gulf War I veterans who were victims of depleted uranium (DU) "friendly fire" during combat underwent a 3-day clinical assessment at the Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC).” The study concluded that, “Sixteen years after first exposure, this cohort continues to excrete elevated concentrations of urine U as a function of DU shrapnel burden. Although subtle trends emerge in renal proximal tubular function and bone formation, the cohort exhibits few clinically significant U-related health effects.” (McDiarmid et al, 2009)

A Fudan University (China) study concluded that kidneys and bone are the primary reservoirs for uranium redistributed from DU fragments embedded in muscle, and “the accumulations in kidney, bone and many other tissues suggest the potential for unanticipated physiological consequences of chronic exposure to DU.” (G. Zhu et al, 2009)

The Fudan study also found that, “uranium concentrations increased with a close correlation to the implanted DU doses and duration of exposure, with a peak at 90 days post-implantation, after which followed by a decreasing period, but still maintained at a relatively high level even at 360 days post- implantation.” (G. Zhu et al, 2009)

Effects of Internally Injected DU. A Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences study found that high doses of DU in solution injected under the skin of rats acutely induced severe damage in the DU-injected sites and organs by chemical toxicity within a very short time after DU intake, including depositions of uranium in the liver, kidneys and femur just one hour after DU injection. Severe damage in the organs, including the kidney resulted. (***uda et al, 2009)

A second experiment conducted by the Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences sought to determine whether a chelating agent was useful in mitigating the damage caused by the high doses of injected DU in solution. The chelating agent worked well when it was administered shortly after the DU injections to cause the excretion of uranium in urine and feces and decreasing the concentrations of uranium in the kidneys and femur. (***uda et al, 2009)

Leukemia and DU. A U.S. Department of Defense, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFFRI) study of mice with leukemia induced by chronic internal exposure to DU found that non-genetic factors causing genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently are implicated in DU-induced leukemia. The study found evidence that a form of abnormal activity, called hypomethylation, in the DNA in the spleen was associated with both the chronic internal DU exposure and the onset of leukemia, a new link between DU and leukemia. (Miller et al, 2009)

According to the MIT’s Whitehead Institute for Biomedical research, hypomethylation is “a process that can cause chromosomes to become unstable,” by causing changes in the natural methylation process of the DNA. (Gaudet et al, 2003).


Hypercholesteraemia and DU. As noted above, one recent French study found that hypercholesteraemia as associated with ingested DU due to decreased levels of a key cholesterol-regulating enzyme. (R. Racine et al, 2010)

A major, multi-institutional study undertaken to determine the effects of a natural deficiency of the same enzyme in a particular kindred of Caucasian individuals of English and Celtic decent was found to be associated with a metabolic disorder, hyptertriglyceridemia (increased blood levels of triglycerides, a risk factor for coronary artery disease), and also appeared to be associated with increased risk of cholesterol gallstones. (Pullinger et al, 2002)

DU Exposure Testing. A study reporting the results of urine testing of approximately 1,700 U.S. veterans seeking DU urine testing, using a new and improved method, found only three with evidence of DU in their urine. All three had embedded DU fragments. Based on an underlying assumption that all DU in the body is continually excreted in small amounts in the urine, the study’s authors assert that, “these findings suggest that future DU-related health harm is unlikely in veterans without DU fragments.” (CD Dorsey et al, 2009)

A study by the Quebec-based Uranium Medical Research Center developed a linear model to estimate the lung burden of DU from measurements of DU in 24-h urine samples, years after inhalational exposure to aerosols of DU. This model takes into account the intracellular dissolution of the retained particles and the precipitation of a significant fraction of the dissolved DU as insoluble uranyl phosphates. (M Valdes, 2009)

A U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USA CHPPM) Capstone study discussed its development of a test that determines the approximate severity of effect on the kidneys following DU exposure with 85 percent accuracy. The study asserted that, “The primary target for uranium toxicity is the kidney.” (Roszell et al, 2009)

Possible Treatments and Preventions. A group of fungal compounds, one of which might be effective in treating the toxic effects of the OS caused by DU, is currently being used clinically in China and Japan as potent immunological activators and has been shown to be effective in treating diseases like cancer, a range of microbial infections, hypercholesterolaemia (high blood cholesterol), and diabetes (Chen et al, 2007). These fungal compounds are called non-cellulosic beta-glucans and a new Iranian study suggests that one, fungal beta-1-3-D-glucan, as well as silymarin, a compound extracted from the Blessed Milk Thistle plant found worldwide, are drug treatment candidates for preventing against and detoxifying from DU’s OS effects (J. Pourahmad et al, 2010).

A Vanderbilt University Medical Center study found that “DU causes toxicity in a dose-dependent manner,” meaning greater or less DU leads to greater or less toxicity. The study also found that metallothioneins (MTs), which are small proteins that have numerous functions such as metal sequestration, transport, and detoxification, are protective against DU exposure. (GC Jiang et al, 2009)

As noted in the Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences study, above, a particular chelating agent was useful in mitigating the damage caused by the high doses of injected DU in solution when it was administered shortly after the DU injections. (***uda et al, 2009)

quote:

A major, multi-institutional study undertaken to determine the effects of a natural deficiency of the same enzyme in a particular kindred of Caucasian individuals of English and Celtic decent was found to be associated with a metabolic disorder, hyptertriglyceridemia (increased blood levels of triglycerides, a risk factor for coronary artery disease), and also appeared to be associated with increased risk of cholesterol gallstones. (Pullinger et al, 2002)

Maybe an "I told ya so" about DU might be appropriate - but what good would it do - -?

By the way, I'm in the above mentioned genetic group, am 60, and had 7-bypass heart surgery followed by several stents 5 years ago... The above quote might have been nice to know 10 years ago!!

quote:

Maybe an "I told ya so" about DU might be appropriate - but what good would it do - -?

This is a discussion, so just say it! The issue needs to be discussed, not swept under a rug somewhere.

Over the past years it has been my objective to bring forth the issues that affect my clients. I have never been exposed to DU, so everything done by me has been reviewing veterans health records, interview those affected and comparing like issues.

We need discussion.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Washington, D.C. 20420

July 29, 2010


Director (00/21) Fast Letter 10-14 Revised
All VA Regional Offices and Centers

SUBJ: Procedural Change Regarding Routine Future Examinations

Revision

This fast letter is revised to comport with 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 3.344. We changed the information on handling the results of a routine future examination on page 2.

Purpose

At the recent VBA Leadership Workshop, a recommendation was made to modify compensation claims processing procedures to schedule routine future examinations at 5-year intervals instead of 2-year intervals. This fast letter implements this procedural change to aid in the reduction of the rating-related claims inventory.

Procedure

This procedural change applies to reexaminations under 38 CFR §3.327 and is effective immediately. Claims should be thoroughly analyzed to determine if a routine future examination is necessary. Once it is determined that a routine future examination is needed, schedule the examination 5 years from the date of the rating decision, with the following exceptions:

o Prestabilization rating decisions under 38 CFR §3.327(b)(1).
o Discharge from military service due to a mental disorder caused by traumatic stress under 38 CFR §4.129.
o Malignancies that require reevaluation 6 months following cessation of treatment for active disease.
o Any other future examination required under other sections of 38 CFR Part 3 and Part 4.



Page 2.

Director (00/21)


38 CFR §3.327 states that reexaminations, including periods of hospital observation, will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a disability. Reexaminations will be required if it is likely that a disability has improved, or if evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or the current rating may be incorrect.

Routine future examinations established prior to the date of this fast letter (excluding the exceptions listed above) will be automatically rescheduled for
5 years from the date of the rating decision through a software program. Regional offices will be notified when this has been completed. Until notified, all routine future examinations that mature should be advanced to a date 5 years from the date of the rating decision that established the need for the routine future examination.

Per 38 CFR §3.344(a), when the results of a routine future examination (set at
5 years out) show improvement of a disability that is subject to temporary or episodic improvement, a reduction in evaluation cannot be made based on only one examination, unless all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. The second examination should be scheduled for 18, 24, or 30 months from the date of the new rating decision per 38 CFR §3.344(b). Note that the provisions of 38 CFR §3.344(a) and (b) do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations showing improvement in these disabilities will warrant reduction in rating.

Adjudicate and promulgate all routine future examinations under end product 310 and 810 work items.

Point of Contact

Questions about this fast letter should be submitted to VAVBAWAS/CO/212A.



/S/
Thomas J. Murphy
Director
Compensation and Pension Service