OHSA GUIDELINES ON DEPLETED URANIUM Depleted uranium comes from the waste of nuclear plants. For years the question has been raised what would we do with the waste from nuclear power plants. The half life of the uranium is four billion years and exposure to the depleted uranium is potentially as hazardous as exposure to the uranium itself. Apparently we have found a “solution” to the problem of waste from nuclear power plants. Depleted uranium can be added to weapons. This is not a new truth. A memo prepared October 30, 1943 by scientists working on the atomic bomb stated that the material used in the atomic bomb could be ground into dust and if inhaled as little as one millionth of a gram could cause death. The scientists obviously thought of it as a a weapon. They spoke of ways it could be more effective "as a weapon". 1) It could not be detected by the senses. 2) Its particles are so fine that they will penetrate a standard gas mask. CF. Memorandum to: Brigadier General L. R. Groves From: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey War Department United States Engineer Office Manhattan District Oak Ridge Tennessee October 30, 1943 Declassified June 5, 1974 OSHA GUIDELINES ON EXPOSURE TO HEAVY METALS OSHA provides two forms of remedies for exposure to uranium. The first is prevention. The second is treatment. In regard to prevention OSHA requires that no employer:shall possess, use, or transfer sources of ionizing radiation in such a manner as to cause any individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of one calendar quarter from sources in the employer's possession or control a dose in excess of the limits specified in Table G-18: TABLE G-18 Rems per calendar quarter Whole body: Head and trunk; active blood-forming organs; lens of eyes; or gonads 1 1/4 Hands and forearms; feet and ankles 18 3/4 Skin of whole body 7 1/2 1910.1096(b)(1) OSHA requires the employer to: Maintain adequate past and current exposure records which show that the addition of such a dose will not cause the individual to exceed the amount authorized in this subparagraph. As used in this subparagraph Dose to the whole body shall be deemed to include any dose to the whole body, gonad, active blood forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye. 1910.1096(b)(3) No employer shall possess, use or transport radioactive material in such a manner as to cause any employee, within a restricted area, to be exposed to airborne radioactive material in an average concentration in excess of the limits specified in Table 1 of appendix B to 10 CFR part 20. The limits given ys. In any such period where the number of hours of exposure is less than 40, the limits specified in the table may be increased proportionately. In any such period where the number of hours of exposure is greater than 40, the limits specified in the table shall be decreased proportionately. 1910.1096(c)(2) Every employer shall make such surveys as may be necessary for him to comply with the provisions in this section. Survey means an evaluation of radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions. When appropriate, such evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of materials and equipment, and measurements of levels of radiation or concentrations of radioactive material present. 1910.1096(d)(2) In addition to the prevention regulations OSHA prescribes certain medical monitoring of situations in which employees are placed. MEDICAL MONITORING Workers who may be exposed to chemical and radiation hazards should be monitored in a systematic program of medical surveillance that is intended to prevent occupational injury and disease. The program should include education of employers and workers about work-related hazards, placement of workers in jobs that do not jeopardize their safety or health, early detection of adverse health effects, and referral of workers for diagnosis and treatment. The occurrence of disease or other work-related adverse health effects should prompt immediate evaluation of primary preventive measures (e.g., industrial hygiene monitoring, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment). A medical monitoring program is intended to supplement, not replace, such measures. To place workers effectively and to detect and control work-related health effects, medical evaluations should be performed (1) before job placement, (2) periodically during the period of employment, and (3) at the time of job transfer or termination. Before a worker is placed in a job with a potential for exposure to uranium or an insoluble uranium compound, the examining physician should evaluate and document the worker's baseline health status with thorough medical, environmental, and occupational histories, a physical examination, and physiologic and laboratory tests appropriate for the anticipated occupational risks. These should concentrate on the function and integrity of the kidneys, respiratory system, blood, liver, bone marrow, skin, and lymphatics. Medical monitoring for respiratory disease should be conducted using the principles and methods recommended by NIOSH and the American Thoracic Society. A preplacement medical evaluation is recommended to assess an individual's suitability for employment at a specific job and to detect and assess medical conditions that may be aggravated or may result in increased risk when a worker is exposed to uranium or an insoluble uranium compound at or below the prescribed exposure limit. The examining physician should consider the probable frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure as well as the nature and degree of any applicable medical condition. Such conditions (which should not be regarded as absolute contraindications to job placement) include a history and other findings consistent with diseases of the kidneys, respiratory system, blood, liver, bone marrow, skin, or lymphatics. Occupational health interviews and physical examinations should be performed at regular intervals during the employment period, as mandated by any applicable Federal, State, or local standard. Where no standard exists and the hazard is minimal, evaluations should be conducted every 3 to 5 years or as frequently as recommended by an experienced occupational health physician. Additional examinations may be necessary if a worker develops symptoms attributable to uranium exposure. The interviews, examinations, and medical screening tests should focus on identifying the adverse effects of uranium on the kidneys, respiratory system, blood, liver, bone marrow, skin, or lymphatics. Current health status should be compared with the baseline health status of the individual worker or with expected values for a suitable reference population. Biological monitoring involves sampling and analyzing body tissues or fluids to provide an index of exposure to a toxic substance or metabolite. Urinary uranium concentrations correlate well with airborne uranium levels. Some sources report that urinary concen-trations of 50 þg uranium per liter of urine or 100 þg uranium per liter of urine correspond to constant daily exposures of approximately 0.05 mg/m(3) or 0.25 mg/m (3), respectively. Because there is great interindividual and intraindividual variability in urinary uranium concentrations, a pattern of urinary uranium excretion should be established for every exposed worker by sampling individuals at the same time on several different shifts and by sampling frequently. The medical, environmental, and occupational history interviews, the physical examination, and selected physiologic or laboratory tests that were conducted at the time of placement should be repeated at the time of job transfer or termination to determine the worker's medical status at the end of his or her employment. Any changes in the worker's health status should be compared with those expected for a suitable reference population. Because occupational exposure to uranium or an insoluble uranium compound may cause diseases with prolonged latent periods, the need for medical monitoring may extend well beyond the termination of employment. When you look at the OSHA requirements it is obvious the U.S. Military does not abide by these OSHA regulations. Four possible conclusions emerge: 1. The U. S.Military denies that any uranium or other heavy radioactive materials are being used by the military. But how can they make such a denial when over sixty years ago the developers of the first atomic bomb clearly outlined the problems inherent in the use of uranium as a weapon? 2. The U. S. Military does not consider itself an employer of the members of the U.S. armed forces. 3. The U.S. Military considers itself exempt from all rules and regulation of other government agencies. 4. The U.S. Military thinks they can get away with violating OSHA regulations because no one will dare question them. Military regulations also require that anyone exposed to uranium be “identified, assessed, treated (if needed) and assigned a potential exposure level.” The problem is the regulation has been set but has never be promulgated among the people who would carry it out. Despite warnings by many independent scientists like Leuren Moret, OSHA, and even the United Nations the U.S. Government has remained rigid in its policy of not admitting there is a problem. Still the U.S. Army is confronted with thousands of veterans of Gulf War 1 who are experiencing severe physical and emotional problems. A December 2003 study by the U.S. Army quoted in the issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found that: pproximately 16 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq are suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a psychologically debilitating condition causing intense nightmares, paranoia, and anxiety. In response to this unanticipated need for mental-healthcare, former VA secretary Anthony Principi established a task force to look into the contemporary condition of VA mental-health services. The task force found four major deficiencies in the VA mental-healthcare system: • Services were scattered • Substance abuse programs had been reduced • The VA’s mental health leadership hadn’t been diligent in overseeing the situation • There was no coherent mental health strategy Principi ordered VA brass to begin plugging the holes immediately. The VA’s Special Committee on PTSD delivered a report to Congress warning that with more soldiers with PTSD arriving home, services needed beefing up. The committee estimated it would take an additional $1.65 billion by 2008 to implement the necessary services. The Veterans Administration probably cannot be called upon to do the test called for under Act 69. If they do it at all, they will probably do no more than a urine analysis which will not really tell how much of a problem exists. However, The Veteran’s Administration does have an Ionizing Radiation Registry (IRR) program. Any veteran who suspects that (s)he has been subject to depleted uranium or was in a unit exposed to DU may apply at any local VA office and request a test or (s)he may apply directly to the nearest VA Hospital. European Consortium Trying to Silence Louisiana Residents over DU Louisiana Energy Services (LES) has asked the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a ruling that would bar the public from raising numerous relevant issues in public hearings related to the licensing of a uranium enrichment plant LES has proposed to build near Hartsville, Tennessee. The ruling sought by LES, and described as "unique" by one knowledgeable NRC staffer, would prohibit members of the public (including organizations and local and state government bodies) from addressing such issues as environmental justice, the financial qualifications of the LES consortium, the disposition of the thousands of tons of radioactive/hazardous waste the proposed plant would produce, the need for the plant, and others. Not coincidentally, a citizens group in northern Louisiana, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash, successfully stopped LES from building a similar plant there in the 1990s by successfully raising these exact issues before an NRC adjudicatory body. “Rather than clean up its act and play by the rules," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), "LES is attempting to change the rules so that local people cannot even raise the same type of issues that defeated its last effort to build a dangerous, unnecessary, uneconomic nuclear facility. This smacks of desperation before LES even has submitted a license application. How could the NRC deny the opportunity for people to raise such fundamental issues, when the NRC has not seen even one official word of LES' plans?" LES is a consortium dominated by the European firm Urenco, which is itself a consortium composed of British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd., the Dutch government, and a number of German firms. Urenco operates three uranium enrichment plants in Western Europe. Other, minority, members of the LES consortium include three major nuclear power utilities-the Exelon Corporation, Duke Power and the Entergy Corporation. Westinghouse Nuclear (a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels) and Cameco (a Canadian uranium mining and processing company) also are partners of LES. For more information please contact: Nuclear Information and Resource Service: tel 202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183; nirsnet@nirs.org, http://www. nirs.org/ From Campaign Against Depleted Uranium CADU NEWS 12 Autumn 2002 UPDATE The proposed plant in Hartsville was also rejected through efforts of local citizens with the help of WISE, a national group attempting to protect local communities. However, in the summer of 2006 approval has been given to build the enrichment plant near Eunice, New Mexico. The Governor of New Mexico has stated that the State of New Mexico has insisted on certain precautions to protect the environment and the citizens. Spokespersons for LES have been quoted as saying these conditions are "unenforceable" cf. http://www.wise-uranium.org/eples.html STORIES OF VETS WHO HAVE DU Dennis Kyne’s Story: Depleted Uranium Dennis Kyne served in the first Gulf War from August 1990 to April 1991 as a Specialist Four, Medic with the 24th Infantry Division. In 1991, I served with the 24th Infantry Division, the most criminally negligent division in Operation Desert Shield/Storm. As a medic, I watched as soldiers walked into the carnage that 45 days of bombing had left in the southern part of Iraq and in Kuwait. The signs and symptoms of the exposure to depleted uranium appeared quickly with countless troops vomiting and getting pale. Upon return I experienced joint pains, extreme itching that would have me shedding skin, and a feeling that resembled rubbing alcohol burning a cut in the bottom of my stomach. In 1995, four years after I filed my complaint about my recurring health problems with the Veterans Affairs, I was finally tested for ionizing radiation twice. Having never been able to get my hands on the results, I am not sure what my true uranium exposure was. However, since 1995 the VA has compensated me for “undiagnosed illnesses.” Funny, the VA will admit I am sick, but they will only diagnose me as undiagnosed. I am a VA statistic, which means I am on record as a casualty. My brother-in-law, who served farther forward than I did, is often called an AIDS patient or cancer victim; he is a casualty who is compensated at 100%. Sadly it took over a decade for the VA to recognize his disability. Even sadder, they say he is not a depleted uranium victim and will not test for ionizing radiation. Three of my family members are sick, from the same war, the same battlefield, and the same nuclear waste that is being hurled at Iraq and Afghanistan currently. IGNORING THE VETERAN HEALTHCARE CRISIS Charles Anderson’s Story: Coming Home: Mental Health Needs Charles Anderson was a hospital corpsman 3rd class, promoted to 2nd class and made platoon sergeant before he left. He was with a tank battalion and went in to Iraq on March 20th with the first wave of U.S. troops. He served in the Middle East from February 1, 2003 to May 28, 2003 I was medically retired from the Navy this year because of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I was having nightmares and was diving for cover whenever I heard a loud noise. When I spent New Years Eve hiding behind the couch because of the firecrackers, I realized I needed help. I did receive counseling while still on active duty, but I have not received treatment since my discharge because I have run into such a hassle trying to get it. I tried to get into a pilot program in which the Navy permits you to pre-register for services with the Veterans Administration instead of going through the typical months-long waiting period while your application is processed. I went in to the office and was told I could not see anyone that day. I went back the next day and, after a two-and-a-half hour wait, I was told that I was ineligible for the pre-registration program because they only accept people who are not medically discharged, which means that the people who need services the most have to wait the longest. I had been improving with counseling, but I’ve backslid since I was discharged and unable to continue with the active duty counseling program. Once you are out, no one comes around to offer help, which is a big problem because lots of people don’t know what to do and where to get help. FROM VIETNAM TO IRAQ Letter from Jason Thelen – Coming Home: Mental Health Needs To: Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) From: Jason Thelen, Dallas, Texas Dear Senator Cornyn, I have been a member of the U.S. military since I was 17 years old, both as an enlisted soldier and now as an officer. I deployed to Iraq with Army Civil Affairs from April 2003 to March 2004, where I served in the Sadr City. Since my return to Dallas, I have concluded that the health care systems for the military and veterans are utterly broken. Additionally, our leadership is ignoring the psychological and physical problems faced by returning veterans. …The VA system is struggling with the influx of mentally and physically injured soldiers returning from Iraq. The VA has promised two years of health care coverage for combat veterans, but the soldiers are unable to obtain treatment due to long wait times, abhorrent hospital conditions, and incompetent doctors. The VA system and military doctors refuse to recognize the damage that the war in Iraq is causing. The problem is not abstract. Real people are involved. For example: Arthur V. was an Army officer that I served with in Sadr City. A police officer in civilian life, he was decorated with the Bronze Star for his acts in Iraq. Upon his return, he faced serious problems dealing with the readjustment to civilian life. Alcohol, PTSD, and family problems worsened, and nothing helped. In the summer of 2004, he donned his formal Army uniform, placed a noose around his neck, and stepped from a bridge, killing himself. He left behind a wife and a legacy of faithful service to his country. Allen V. is another soldier that I served with in Iraq. On December 17, 2003, we were riding beside each other in the open back of an unarmored humvee. As we passed, the enemy detonated 20 pounds of plastic explosive that had been buried in a puddle of sewage beside the road, followed by automatic weapons fire from both sides. Allen’s back was broken by the blast and shrapnel. Army doctors refused to believe him when he complained of back pain, and they completely missed the diagnosis for six weeks. He is now confronted with the Texas VA health care system, which refused to send him to a specialist for his injury. A recipient of the Purple Heart, and he got to see a pediatrician. For psychological problems and PTSD, he was told by a military psychologist that he should “try a few spoonfuls of apple cider vinegar before bedtime.” Brandon M. is an enlisted soldier that was transferred from Fallujah to my team in Sadr City. In addition to the normal attacks, he endured two roadside bombs in unarmored vehicles and an AK-47 round directly to the back of his body armor. Understandably upset, he asked for psychological help. None was available. One morning, he confronted our unit commander while naked and wielding a cinderblock. He stated that he was not going on any more missions then dropped the block on his foot. She reduced him in rank, got him a prescription for medication (but no counseling) and sent him to Sadr City as punishment. (At the time, Sadr City was more dangerous than Fallujah.) Brandon is now unemployed in Abilene, but the Army is looking for him to volunteer for another deployment to Iraq. IGNORING THE VETERAN HEALTHCARE CRISIS Ralph Baldwin’s Story Waiting Lists: The Line Gets Longer Ralph Baldwin, served in the infantry in Vietnam from December 31, 1969 through November 17, 1970 as a Sergeant E-5. It took two years to get into the VA to even get my disability evaluated in order to receive a disability check and access to the medical treatment I needed. During those two years, I got sicker and sicker. I had to try and survive without a disability check while attempting to pay my own healthcare bills. I had to file for bankruptcy, lost my house, my cars, and almost died because I couldn’t get into the VA. It took me 15 months to get examined the first time. When I finally was examined, the doctor never touched me and took about five minutes evaluating me. They said all my conditions were pre-existing, so my disabilities were not service- connected. Without service-connection, you are too low a priority for the VA to do anything but the most minimal emergency treatment. I was finally approved for a hernia operation by showing up on their doorstep and telling them “you have to help me. I spent my last dollar getting here.” I still had to wait a couple months for the surgery. I am also affected by exposure to Agent Orange. My muscles are ‘snapping.’ I’m in chronic pain and have severe arthritis. Agent Orange causes deterioration of joints and connective tissue but the VA just told me that I’m just getting old. I have trouble walking and use a cane and I’ve gotten progressively worse in the last few years. It’s pain management. And that’s what life is, I guess. Instead of providing and funding a quality healthcare system for veterans, the government is attempting to save money by denying services or demanding higher co-payments from veterans whose income is above a certain level. Veterans used to be able to expect completely free medical care at the VA, regardless of their income. Complex rules about co-payments and premiums for veterans whose income is above a certain (fairly modest) threshold will reduce veterans’ access to medical care. What has emerged is a system that charges $250 annual enrollment fees, with doubled prescription costs and increased co-payments. Estimates suggested that this restructuring of the benefit criteria will likely more than triple the number of veterans denied healthcare by FY 2005, to more than half a million. By the VA’s own estimates, 55 percent of the somewhat higher-income veterans who already participate in the VA healthcare plan (numbering 1.25 million) may be unable to continue participation due to the new $250 enrollment fee. Not only will access be reduced because of veterans’ inability to meet enrollment fees, but in early 2003 former VA secretary Principi announced his decision to cut off enrollment for VA healthcare to the highest- income veterans who have not already enrolled in the system. This was estimated to affect 164,000 veterans for the remainder of the fiscal year. Continuation of this suspension of enrollment was estimated to affect 360,000 veterans by the end of FY 2004 and 522,000 veterans by the end of FY 2005, based on demand expectations from this enrollee group. “This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic healthcare appointments with VA. Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug co-payment. This is inexcusable…” said VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas, Sr. in February 2004. Since 1980, part of the VA’s mission had included outreach to locate and serve veterans with service-related needs. Using VA data, the Knight Ridder newspaper group conducted an analysis of the number of veterans potentially missing out on disability payments and services in July 2004. The results estimated that 572,000 veterans were eligible but were not accessing services. If a third of those eligible were actually served, the cost would approximate $1.5 billion. In July 2002, Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Undersecretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller issued a memorandum to all VA network directors, instructing them to “ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your net.” Congressman Ted Strickland, April 2003, Conclusion Current veterans and soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan face a healthcare system that is systematically undermined by politicians who claim to “support our troops,” but treat quality medical care for veterans as a waste of government resources. The question of why the government is so willing to send our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers to war and not willing to offer timely medical care for the wounds and illnesses resulting from their service is a question that should resound very seriously with the American public. This is not the time or the place for politicians to play a numbers game with people’s lives. It is not only disrespectful but puts them in mortal danger. VVAW and IVAW work with veterans every day who must deal with the painful realities of a healthcare system that rejects them because it is underfunded, understaffed and most importantly because it is being broken down and torn apart by a government who seems to value their death more than their lives. There are policy-makers and advocates who recognize the important contribution and sacrifice that America’ s soldiers have made. The public must support these individuals and organizations if America’s veterans are to have access to quality medical care. In conclusion, VVAW and IVAW recommend: 1. Iraqi veterans have been exposed to dangerous of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. The United States must immediately cease production of depleted-uranium weapons and stop their use in overseas military efforts. Like Agent Orange—a herbicide used by the military during the Vietnam War which caused serious physical damage to U.S. soldiers—the short-term military gains made with depleted uranium can cause long- term and possibly life-threatening mental and physical repercussions. 2. Budget allocation for VA healthcare must change from annual discretionary funding to mandatory funding. The budget should account for rising costs in healthcare and the increasing number of veterans dependent on the VA healthcare system for quality medical care. 3. The VA must expand current services and improve access to quality medical care, to meet the actual needs of the millions of veterans across the country in a timely manner. SUMMARY OF “FROM VIETNAM TO IRAQ” Coming Home: Mental Health Needs Birth Defect Research for Children,Inc. Fact Sheets The Gulf War & Birth Defects During the Gulf War, over 1,000,000 veterans served in the Persian Gulf. Since their return, thousands of these men and women have reported a pattern of health problems called Gulf War Syndrome: Symptoms include: Fatigue Skin rashes/sores/dryness Memory loss Joint pain Headaches Personality changes Stomach problems (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, pain) Muscle pain, weakness, spasms Visual problems Shortness of breath Sleep disturbance Hair loss Numbness of hands, fingers, feet Dental problems/bleeding gums Chest pain Fever Dizziness/balance problems Sinus problems Sensitivity to light, smell, noise Children born with birth defects and/or chronic illness Partners with reproductive problems Birth Defect Research for Children (BDRC) sponsors a project called the National Birth Defect Registry that is collecting data to help Gulf War families find out if their children’s birth defects are linked to exposures in the Gulf. An advisory board of seven national scientific experts has helped ABDC design a special section on Gulf War exposures. According to a report by the General Accounting Office, a number of substances present in the war environment may cause reproductive dysfunction. These include: Pesticides Carbaryl Diazinon Dichlorvos Ethanol Lindane Warfarin Oil Fires and Soil Samples Arsenic Benzene Benzo (a) pyrene Cadmium Di-n-butyl phthalate Hexachlorbenzene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Lead Mercury Nickel Pentachlorophenol Toulene Xylene Decontaminating Agents Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether Other exposures of concern include insect repellants like DEET, pyridostigmine bromide (anti-nerve gas pills) vaccinations for anthrax and botulism and possible exposure to chemical and biological warfare agents. GULF WAR BABIES -THE LEGACY OF WAR? Their mothers and fathers came back from the Gulf War to a hero’s welcome. The war was over quickly and with minimal casualties or so it seemed. Soon the reports of the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome began surfacing. The symptoms were very much like those of Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS): severe fatigue, aching joints, recurrent rashes, headaches, infections, nose bleeds, multiple allergies including chemical sensitivity, chronic ringing in the ears. And nine months after the end of the war, Birth Defect Research for Children began to receive calls from Gulf War veterans who had children with birth defects. Babies born with Goldenhar Syndrome, babies with missing limbs, babies with chronic infections and failure to thrive, babies born with cancer, heart problems and immune problems. Their parents had questions. Did something they were exposed to in the Gulf cause their babies to be born with these problems? BDRC followed the investigations of Gulf War Syndrome by the offices of Senators Rockefeller and Reagle and started to gather research on some of the Gulf War exposures that could have an effect on an unborn child. In a computer search on three of these exposures, BDRC was able to find some troubling reports. DEET used by the veterans as an insect repellent has been associated with sperm abnormalities and heart defects in animal studies. Chronic usage of DEET can result in high levels in the body. In a study of Everglades Park employees, personnel used a cumulative dose of 100 grams per week. Another exposure of concern is the anti-nerve gas agent pyridostigmine bromide. This agent affects neurotransmitters that are believed to be important in the development of some organ systems. There is concern that alterations in neurotransmitter function during fetal development may disrupt the organization of the central nervous system. It has also been reported that Gulf uniforms and gear were treated with an insecticide called Permethrin.</ |