NAS-IOM Reviews on Gulf War Illness Flawed
November 17, 2009 posted by Denise Nichols · 2 Comments
The Problem with NAS/IOM Reviews of Gulf War Illness
Spent the day deep in research and as we all know there is a problem in River City this time it is the Potomac River ie DC. Over and over again Gulf War Veterans have identified a central problem with the NAS/IOM studies that is Huge and Gaping! The NAS/IOM only is allowed to review published peer reviewed journal articles of research. As anyone knows a great deal of research is never published in peer reviewed journals! Below is a critique of the problem with DU studies and items missed.
"Curiously, McDiarmid does not mention a special and very prominent review of Department of Energy occupational epidemiological studies undertaken at the request of the President in July 1999. ( National Economic Council,Interagency Working Group No. 1, January, 2000). This review made a special effort to search out published and unpublished papers, which were not readily available in the literature. Over the years, several important papers sponsored by the DOE that reported significant risks associated with workplace exposures at U.S. nuclear weapons sites were not published and remained buried.
The IOM study apparently could not perform the kind of literature review relative to occupational epidemiologic studies of uranium process workers that was done for the White House in early 2000. Had they done so, perhaps they may have come to different conclusions. " Are the veterans of the Gulf War(1990-91) not entitled to have an agency that finds even the unpublished research studies and other government reports that might give answers to their health problems. This is what happens when you have the science, politics, hidden agendas of corporations, and the economics and cost factor interfere with the truth. Our Veterans deserve the very best regardless of interfering factors!
In her review of the risks of depleted uranium to occupational groups, Dr. Mc Diarmid concludes that "Fifty years’ study of occupational exposure provides little evidence of cancer." Curiously, McDiarmid does not mention a special and very prominent review of Department of Energy occupational epidemiological studies undertaken at the request of the President in July 1999. ( National Economic Council,Interagency Working Group No. 1, January, 2000). This review made a special effort to search out published and unpublished papers, which were not readily available in the literature. Over the years, several important papers sponsored by the DOE that reported significant risks associated with workplace exposures at U.S. nuclear weapons sites were not published and remained buried. The IOM study apparently could not perform the kind of literature review relative to occupational epidemiologic studies of uranium process workers that was done for the White House in early 2000. Had they done so, perhaps they may have come to different conclusions.
A careful review of the interagency report would have revealed significant findings relative to uranium-exposed workers. For instance:
Oak Ridge Y-12 weapons Plant, Tennessee. Total mortality was low as expected for this group, indicating a "healthy worker effect." The study also found elevated death rates for brain cancer, several lymphopoetic (immune system) cancers, as well as cancers of the prostate, kidney and pancreas. Excess death from breast cancer among women was found. The authors found excess lung cancer as their main finding and urged that this disease warrants continued surveillance An earlier study found similar risks, with a marginal dose-response trend for lung cancer only. (Dana P. Loomis and Susanne H. Wolfe, Mortality of Workers at a Nuclear Materials Production Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1947-1990, American Journal of Medicine, 1996, 29:131-141,Harvey Checkoway, Neil Pierce, Douglas J. Crawford-Brown, and Donna Cragle, Radiation Doses and Cause-Specific Mortality Among Workers at a Nuclear Materials Fabrication Plant, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998, 127:2:255-266.)
The K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Tennessee. Excess risks of dying from all causes were found for white males when compared to general population rates. Other statistically significant increases among white males were for cancers of the respiratory system, bone cancer, mental disorders and all respiratory diseases including pneumonia. Generally the excess deaths from diseases among females were similar to males. Upon further analysis, increased risks of dying from kidney cancer and chronic nephritis (kidney disease) was found. The latter condition was more than 600 percent higher when deaths from the last decade of followup was observed.(Elizabeth A. Dupree, Susan M. Wells, Janice P. Watkins, Phillip W. Wallace, Nancy C. Davis, Mortality Among Workers Employed between 1945 and 1984 at a Uranium Gaseous Diffusion Facility, Draft Report, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. ( no date))
Fernald Uranium Processing Plant, Ohio. Significant increased risks of dying from stomach cancer were found among salaried workers (261 percent higher than expected). For hourly workers statistically significant increased death risks were found for all cancers (21 percent higher) and lung cancer (26 percent higher). The authors concluded that there is evidence of a radiation-dose relationship for both nonmalignant respiratory diseases and lung cancer. (Donna L. Cragle, Janice P. Watkins, J. Nicholas Ingle, Kathryn Robertson-Demers, William G.. Tankersley, Charles M. West, Mortality Among a Cohort of White Male Workers at a Uranium Processing Plant: Fernald Feed Materials Production Center [FMPC], Radiation Research ( not sure if it is published))
Linde Air Products Co., NY. Statistically significant increased risks of dying from all causes (18 percent higher), laryngeal cancer (447 percent higher), all circulatory diseases (18 percent higher), arteriosclerotic heart disease (19 percent higher), all respiratory diseases (52 percent higher) and pneumonia (217 percent higher) were found among workers who processed uranium at this facility between 1943 and 1949. (Elizabeth A. DuPree, Donna Cragle, Richard, W. McLain, Douglas Crawford-Brown, M. Jane Teta, Mortality among workers at a uranium processing facility, the Linde Air Products Company Ceramics Plant, 1943- 49, Scandinavian Journal of Worker and Environmental Health, 1987, 13:100- 107.)
Mallinkrodt Chemical Works, Missouri. Workers who processed uranium between 1942 and 1966 were found to have a significant increased death rate from all cancers (10 percent higher). Respiratory diseases, chronic nephritis/kidney disease (218 percent higher) and lymphatic cancers were significantly elevated. In particular, significant increased risks were found for cancers of the esophagus (40 percent higher), rectum (45 percent higher), pancreas (31 percent higher), larynx (36 percent higher) kidney (34 percent higher) and multiple myeloma/bone marrow (33 percent higher). Kidney cancer showed a significant positive dose-response association with external radiation. (E. DuPree Ellis, J.P. Watkins, J.N. Ingle, J.A. Phillips, External Radiation Exposure and Mortality Among a Cohort of Uranium Processing Workers, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge TN, (unpublished report).
It is remarkable that this White House review was not mentioned by McDiarmid since it recieved widespread attention as it prompted the Department of Energy to officially concede on January 29, 2000 that it’s nuclear weapons workers were placed at risk of increased disease and death. This Presidential review also served as an underpinning for the recent creation of a major worker compensation entitlement program by the U.S. Congress — which specifically grants a non-rebuttable presumption for 22 listed cancer to uranium process workers exposed to recycled uranium,(contaminated with isotopes such as plutonium-239, neptunium-237, and Tectnicium 99) which now apparently has been measured in depleted uranium found on the battlefields of the Balkans and the Persian Gulf.
Robert Alvarez
i am a gulf war veteran . at age 53 i went into the gulf war healthy nothing wrong with me i have never smoked,take drugs,or smoked in my life. i spent a year in the gulf war,i hurt my shoulder and my right hand started shaking. when i came home i took another physical . i was a type two dibac,high blood presser nerve cond on my right side. i have sezures,type diabetic,ptsd. i am now 72 years of age. the the war on our minds wasn’t the iraq war,gulf war,or the vietman war.it is about the second war ,the one thst starts when vets return home it’s what a soldier faces when she or he has to prove that she or he hasn’t invented mystery illness ‘it’s what national guardsman faces when some acquaintance at work ask him how many rag-heads he wasted.
First of all, kudos to Robert Alvarez for your very in-depth and well-researched article. When people talk about government conspiracies and the like (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily referring to your article when I say this), we think of these large groups of sinister people working behind the scenes, hell-bent on discrediting any evidence that contradicts the official government position on DU, or any other controversial subject.
In reality, what I believe goes on is that this “government conspiracy” is nothing more than a long line of individual bean-counters working hard to ensure that their government jobs are safe, especially in the case of political appointees. After all, many governmental employees, and many more employees of defense contractors would be instantaneously out of work if it were ever officially acknowledged that DU is a known contributor or cause of cancers or chronic illness. Nevermind the enormous financial liabilities to all of the victims, worldwide.
In other words, sadly, human beings are very often willing to sacrifice their personal morals if by doing so they can earn a good secure living for their families. On a larger scale, let’s face it, defense contractors are in business to turn a profit by manufacturing weapons and other military equipment used in combat. With any product, military or otherwise, there is a risk management assessment that is performed by the manufacturer, and sometimes even the end user (e.g., the government) to determine the profit potential of the product, taking into consideration all possible hazards. No product is perfect. I’m sure you could be killed by a hula hoop if you use it the wrong way.
Automobiles are a classic example. Auto manufacturers are willing to turn a blind eye to known safety defects in their cars, and willing to pay off wrongful death lawsuits, to a pre-calculated point. When the lawsuit payouts reach a certain threshold that triggers a safety recall aimed at fixing the problem. Or, depending on the cost of the fix, it could result in the product being discontinued altogether. In other words, a certain number of injuries and fatalities are not only expected, they are considered acceptable. I have no doubt that our government operates in the same manner.
Translation – As far as our government is concerned, in the case of Depleted Uranium we have not yet reached the point where a recall or discontinuance of the product is considered necessary. A certain number of chronic illnesses and deaths in the Veteran population are considered acceptable. That is, unless the Veteran community and others are able to convince the government to revise their risk/benefit formula. I think the best we can hope for is that DU is recalled, or better yet, discontinued sometime in the near future so that our sons and daughters will not find themselves in similar straights if they have to go to war.
Duane, I’m sorry to tell you this, but for you and me and thousands of other Veterans, it is likely too late for a cure. The damage is done. We are considered expendable. If it’s any consolation, they’ll call us heroes as they lower us into our graves.
Whatever we do about this, we do it for our kids and grandkids. If anyone calls me a hero when I’m gone, I’d rather it be them.
Semper Fi,
Dave