Journal js7a's Journal: military uranyl nitrate inhalation 3
5 November 2004
Ms. Toby Litovitz, M.D.
Director
National Capital Poison Center
Washington, D.C.
by email....
URANYL NITRATE INHALATION BY MILITARY PERSONNEL
Dear Dr. Litovitz:
We share the goal of preventing poisonings, saving lives, and decreasing health care costs. I am writing concerning an unusual hazard affecting hundreds of thousands of former and current military personnel. I believe there is an enormous opportunity for health care cost reduction. An emergency is occurring due to inhalation of toxic [1] uranyl nitrate(s) from the use of depleted uranium shells and rounds by the United States military. This may be the largest scale emergency that either of us has ever encountered.
I understand that uranyl nitrate is "very toxic by inhalation" with a "danger of cumulative effects" [2], and forms easily when burned in air by nitrogen-based explosive compounds. Uranium "is a natural pyrophoric material which enhances
"Four soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving in Iraq are contaminated with radiation likely caused by dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops, a Daily News investigation has found." [4] The use of uranium shells has become common in the U.S. military [5].
"Observed health effects include decreased litter size in mice born to DU-implanted females and neurocognitive problems. In vitro studies found DU induces mutagenicity and cellular changes that may lead to cancer. US military researchers attribute depleted uranium's short-term effects to its heavy metal toxicity, and its long-term effects to a combination of toxicity and alpha radiation. Based on their findings, US military researchers have called for further studies of depleted uranium's carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and male and female reproductive effects." [6] However, research on this subject is apparently being blocked [7], apparently in violation of multiple laws, regulations, and treaty obligations [8]. The attempted rebuttals to these hypotheses are inconclusive [9] and have been inaccurately summarized by the government [10].
Symptoms of Gulf War syndrome/illness are identical to those of uranium pyrolite inhalation [11]. This fact has also been deliberately suppressed. "UMRC's Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.... UMRC found artificial uranium in bomb craters, surrounding watercourses and the bodies of civilians exposed to US Coalition bombing in Afghanistan. Civilians surveyed presented with the classical symptoms of internal contamination by uranium, which began after exposure to the bombing. The presence of artificial uranium in environmental and biological samples indicates that the bunker buster warheads used in Afghanistan are made of uranium. Uranium is a chemically and radiologically toxic element, clinically proven to be a cause of various types of cancer and congenital malformations (birth defects). Internal contamination of uranium is responsible for variety of systemic and organ system problems, which has never been considered or studied by the Defense Department or Veterans health programs as possible cause of Gulf War Illness. The symptoms of internal contamination by uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan civilians are identical to the symptoms of US and Coalition veterans complaining of Gulf War Illness."
Testing for uranium contamination is difficult [12] but can be done easily with modern equipment. I wish you the best of luck.
If you concur with this assessment, would you please forward this information to the state poison control centers, alphabetically from Colorado through Wyoming, and please let me know your decision?
I will send more information at a later date.
REFERENCES
[1] http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001331/tr2001331.html
-- please see also: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/veterans/7_2.htm
[2] http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/UR/uranium_nitrate.html
-- key: http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/risk_phrases.html
[3] http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm
-- please see also: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
[4] http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156685c.html
-- please see also: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/veterans/7_1.htm
[5] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030818a7.htm
-- revised: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=577
[6] http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/Policy.htm
-- please see also: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/reports/monk.htm
[7] http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/Shays.htm -- please see also: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/ensign.htm
[excerpt from book: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm ]
[8] http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/ware.htm
-- please see also: http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm
[9] http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du/mr1018.7.chap3.html
-- please compare and contrast to [10]:
[10] http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
-- "INDICATES NO EVIDENCE" should be "INDICATES EVIDENCE"; background:
-- http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/t04191999_t0415gwi.htm
[11] http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.html
-- please see also: www.umrc.net
[12] http://www.umrc.net/uranium_analysis.aspx
For more information, please see:
http://www.miltoxproj.org/assesment.htm
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/danjuly99.html
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Titlepage/chrisfoia.html
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/list.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/du4497.htm
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/wsold123.xml
http://www.iacenter.org/du-warcrime.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/du_banconf.htm
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
Suggestion (Score:2)
Actually, if they're that contaminated, they maybe shouldn't be allowed around other people (eg: newborns?), as their metabolic waste products (shedding skin, bodily fluids, etc). could also be a long-term concern.
Re:Suggestion (Score:2)
Re:Suggestion (Score:2)