International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan

 

QUESTION 11. WHAT DOES THE U.S. GOVT. KNOW ABOUT DU?

November 25, 2003

By Leuren Moret <leurenmoret@yahoo.com>

 

 

11. The US government flatly denies risk of DU officially. World Health Organization published a similar report recently. Please tell us what you think the US government really knows.

1943 – MANHATTAN PROJECT: Memo to General Leslie R. Groves October 30, 1943 -

Blueprint for Depleted Uranium weapons

 

Recommendation from Manhattan Project physicists (Compton, Urey, Connant) to develop radioactive battlefield weapons “which would behave like a radioactive gas” using nuclear trash from the atomic bomb program in order to beat the Germans who might do it first. Depleted uranium was specifically mentioned in other communications.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm

Source of document: Major Doug Rokke, U.S. Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after1991 Gulf War.

 

 

1946 – OPEN LITERATURE

 

ACTIONS OF RADIATIONS ON LIVING CELLS by D.E. Lea, Cambridge University Press (1946) (includes early research beginning in 1927 by H.J. Muller on genetic mutations in Drosophila from ionizing radiation); through collaboration with the Radiological Society of North America, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, and the Royal Society.

 

 

1950 – U.S. ARMY Pamphlet: THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC WEAPONS

 

9.40   “…The uranium and plutonium which may have escaped fission in the nuclear weapon represent a further possible source of residual nuclear radiation….”

9.41   “The alpha particles from uranium and plutonium… are completely absorbed in an inch or two of air…. indicates that uranium and plutonium deposited on the earth do not represent a serous external hazard.”

9.42   “Although there is negligible danger from uranium and plutonium outside the body, it is possible for dangerous amounts of these elements to enter the body through the lungs, the digestive system, or breaks in the skin. Plutonium, for example, tends to concentrate in bone and lungs, where the prolonged action of the alpha particles can cause serious harm.”

THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC WEAPONS (1950), U.S. Army republished 1957, 1962, 1964 as THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Dept. of the Army Pamphlet No. 50-3, Headquarters, Dept. of the Army (March 1977).

 

 

1974-99 – U.S. MILITARY: Research Report Summaries on Depleted Uranium

 

Major research on military use of depleted uranium, 1974-1999, Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses – “GulfLINK” http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm

These summaries represent extensive research to test and characterize depleted uranium as a military weapon. The summaries confirm everything that was known in 1943 in the Groves Memo.

 

 

1976   - U.S. AIR FORCE: “INTERNATIONAL LAW - - THE CONDUCT OF ARMED

CONFLICT AND AIR OPERATIONS - November 19, 1976

Judge Advocate General Activities Air Force Pamphlet AFP 110-31

 

The U.S. Department of the Air Force manual, “International Law: The conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations,” AFP 110-31, November 19, 1976 (hereinafter “USAF manual”), governs the actions of all U.S. Air Force pilots including operators of the A-10 Thunderbolts. This Air Force manual acknowledges that the Department of the Air Force must adhere to international and U.S. military law regarding bombardment and air operations.

 

“It is especially important that treaties, having the force of law equal to laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, be scrupulously adhered to by the United States armed forces.“ This is the legal policy of the U.S. Department of Defense. (USAF manual, p. 1-7)

 

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States says: “…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.“

 

“The following are relevant examples of treaties to which the U.S. is a party: Hague Conventions IV of October 18, 1907 (USAF manual, p. 1-7); Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 1925 [the Geneva Gas Protocol, June 17, 1925] (USAF manual, p. 1-7); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, August 12, 1949.“ (USAF manual, p. 1-8)

 

Even without a formal declaration of war, the United States Department of Defense is legally obligated under the U.S. Constitution to obey the laws of war. “The law of armed conflict applies to an international armed conflict regardless of whether a declared ‘war’ exists.“ (USAF manual, p. 1-10) “The Armed Forces of the United States will comply with the law of war in the conduct of military operations and related activities in armed conflict however such conflicts are characterized.“ (USAF manual, p. 1-8)

 

Although uranium weapons are not banned by name in an existent treaty, they are illegal under binding Air Force law and international conventions. “Any weapon may be put to an unlawful use.“ (USAF manual, p. 6-1) “A weapon may be illegal per se if either international custom or treaty has forbidden its use under all circumstances. An example is poison to kill or injure a person.“ (USAF manual, p. 6-1) The International Court of Justice recognizes this rule in its Advisory Opinion, “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” (International Court of Justice Reports, 1996). In paragraph 87 of that Opinion, the Court found that the principles and rules of humanitarian law apply to all weapons, including nuclear ones. In other parts of the Opinion the Court stresses the duty to evaluate legality or illegality prior to use in military operations.

 

The Geneva Gas Protocol prohibits, “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices.“ (USAF manual, p.6-3, 6-4) The Geneva Conventions now include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Protocol Additional I, and Protocol Additional II. [The two protocols strongly set out prohibitions of military operations that would unleash hazardous forces (such as an attack on a nuclear power facility or a dam) or would damage the natural environment or water supply. ]

 

The 1907 Hague Convention IV, at Section II, Article 23, absolutely forbids any use of poison. It states: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden ¾ a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons; b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation army; e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.“ (USAF manual, p.5-1)

 

Poison is defined in the Air Force manual in a way that clearly describes uranium munitions: “Poisons are biological or chemical substances causing death or disability with permanent effects when, in even small quantities, they are ingested, enter the lungs or bloodstream, or through the skin. The longstanding customary prohibition against poison is based on their uncontrolled character and the inevitability of death or permanent disability as well as on a traditional belief that it is treacherous to use poison.“ (USAF manual, p. 6-5)

U.S. Air Force Pamphlet [Manual] AFP 110-31

U.S. Air Force and International Law Forbid the Use of Uranium

Weapons” by Karen Parker, J.D., Diplome (Strasbourg) and Piotr Bein, PhD.

Source: John LaForge, Nukewatch http://www.nukewatch.com/

 

 

1978   - 95th CONGRESS AND U.S. PRESIDENT – Speech by Senator Bob Dole

 

Making Bullets Out of Depleted Uranium - Mr. Dole: “Mr. President, an article appeared in the Washington Star on March 14 [1978], reporting that the Pentagon is about to start using depleted-uranium to produce bullets. They seem to have chosen this material for bullets because uranium metal is dense, and because depleted uranium is cheap. Needless to say, I find this proposal shocking. On the one hand this shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the general fear of using radioactive materials. On the other hand, only a strange set of policy decisions could have made this material so cheap that anybody would consider using it for bullets.”

Opening paragraph of 140-line long statement by Senator Bob Dole at the 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 124 (part 29) March 17, 1978, page 7416.

 

 

1979 - U.S. ARMY: Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command

 

The U.S. Army Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command, March 7, 1979,

states: “Not only the people in the immediate vicinity (emergency and fire fighting personnel)

but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to

air borne uranium dust.”

 

 

1984 – U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - Testing Problems from DU Contamination

 

“Prototype Firing Range Air Cleaning System” by J.A. Glissmeyer, J. Mishima and J.A. Bamberger, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, Proceedings of the 18th DOE Nuclear Airborne Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, August 12-16, 1984. Published March 1985, Editor M.W. First, U.S. Dept. of Energy and The Harvard Air Cleaning Laboratory; CONF-840806 Vol. 2.

 

“The Ballistics Research Laboratory, a component of the U.S. Army Research and Development Command, contracted with Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) to provide a prototype air cleaning system for a new large caliber firing range where depleted uranium munitions are testfired. …too costly to operate… rapid particle loading results in short filter life necessitating frequent replacement and disposal as low-level radioactive waste. The rapid particle loading also results in decreased airflow causing an excessive waiting period before personnel can reenter the target area.”

 

“The U.S. Army Material Test Directorate (MTD) and the Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) both operate two firing ranges (Ranges A, B, and C, D respectively) for the testing of large caliber depleted uranium (DU) penetrators. The targets are housed in enclosures which contain DU aerosols and fragments produced by the test firings. One of the drawbacks of using a target enclosure is that the airborne DU must be removed by ventilation and air cleaning before personnel can enter the enclosure without respiratory protection.”

 

 

1989   - U.S. NAVY - Changes from Depleted Uranium to Tungsten Alloys

 

“ The interesting aspect in the history of this application is that after deciding in 1978 to use a uranium alloy, the U.S. Navy decided in 1989 to change to tungsten alloys, ‘based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact’.”

B.Rostker, Development of DU Munitions, in Environmental Exposure Report, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II), (2000). http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabe.htm

 

 

1990   - Office of the ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, A. H. Passarella, Dir. Freedom of Information and Security Review, February 11, 1990 letter to Mr. Dan Fahey

 

“Depleted uranium (DU) material can constitute a heavy metal poisoning and radiation poisoning hazard in the pulverized (powder) state only if it is either ingested or inhaled.“

Dan Fahey, Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures, 2nd Edition, July 2, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, pp. 197-198.

 

 

1990 – SAIC: Government Contractor

 

“Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer.”

 

“Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects.”

From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM’s Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategic Study, Danesi, July 1990. This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.

 

 

1990 - U.S. ARMY - Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command [AMCCOM]

 

“…reported in July 1990, that depleted uranium is a “low level alpha radiation emitter

which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing

kidney damage.” (AMCCOM’s radiological task group has said that “long term effects of

low doses [of DU] have been implicated in cancer…there is no dose so low that the

probability of effect is zero.”

Dan Fahey, Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures, 2nd Edition, July 2,

1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., p. i)

 

 

1991LOS ALAMOS MEMO - Los Alamos Nuclear Weapns Laboratory

SUBJECT: The Effectiveness of Depleted Uranium Penetrators March 1, 1991

From: Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehm

To: Major Larson “Studies and Analysis Branch” (WR 13)

 

“There is a relatively small amount of lethality data for uranium penetrators, either the tank fired long version or the GAU-8 round fired from the A-10 close air support aircraft. The recent war has likely multiplied the number of du rounds fired at targets by orders of magnitude. It is believed that du penetrators were very effective against Iraqi armor; however, assessments of such will have to be made.

 

There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of du on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of du on the battlefield, du rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal.

 

If du penetrators proved their worth during our recent combat activities, then we should assure their future existence (until something better is developed) through Service/DoD proponency. If proponency is garnered, it is possible that we stand to lose a valuable combat capability.

 

I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at mind when after action reports are written.”

Los Alamos National Laboratory Memorandum March 1, 1991

Source of this document: Major Doug Rokke, Head of Depleted Uranium Cleanup Project for Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War 1991.

 

 

1992UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND log - following a major fire at a

depleted uranium ammunition storage facility in Doha

 

“EOD POC (point of contact) states that burning depleted uranium puts off alpha radiation. Uranium particles when breathed can be hazardous. 11ACR has been notified to treat the area as though it were a chemical hazard area; i.e. stay upwind and wear protective mask in the vicinity.”

United States Central Command log, “11ACR Fire in Doha: Updates from CENTCOM Forward,” July 12, 1991, entry 10.

 

 

1993 – U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO)

 

“Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due

to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk.”

Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp. 17-18.

 

 

1993 U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT, MUNITIONS, AND CHEMICAL COMMAND(AMCCOM)

 

“When a DU penetrator impacts a target surface, a large portion of the kinetic energy is dissipated as heat. The heat of the impact causes the DU to oxidize or burn momentarily. This results in smoke which contains high concentration of DU particles. These uranium particles can be ingested or inhaled and are toxic.”

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT, MUNITIONS, AND CHEMICAL COMMAND(AMCCOM)

“Depleted Uranium Facts,” photocopy in Bukowski, et. al, Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad, March 1993, p. 97.

 

 

1993 - U.S. ARMY: Colonel Robert G. Claypool, Medical Corps Director, Professional

Services of the Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, August 16,

1993 letter to U.S. Army Chemical School

 

“When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk. The

magnitude of that increase can be quantified (in terms of projected days of life lost) if the

DU intake is known (or can be estimated). Expected physiological effects from exposure to

DU dust include possible increased risk of cancer (lung or bone) and kidney damage.”

Dan Fahey, Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures, 2nd Edition,

July 2, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, pp. 263-264).

 

 

1993 - U.S. ARMY: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff For Operations and Plans,

Washington D.C. August 19, 1993: Memorandum Thru Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans – Director Army Staff – for Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installation Logistics & Environment)

Subject: Review of Draft Report to Congress – Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army – ACTION MEMORANDUM

 

[This was a response to a GAO report to Congress on DU issues]

 

c.        “In response to the GAO report, the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) issued a tasking memorandum on 8 June 1993. The memorandum directs the Secretary of the Army to:

(1)     Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with DU contaminated equipment.

(2)     Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War.

(3)     Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations.”

Signed - Brigadier General Eric K. Shinseki

[The rest of the memorandum is in regard to implementation of this order.]

 

[General Shinseki served four years as the Army Chief of Staff and retired in June 2003 after two years of tension between him and Donald Rumsfeld over resources needed for the Iraq war.]

 

Source of document: Major Doug Rokke, U.S. Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after1991 Gulf War.

 

 

1993 - U.S. ARMY: Operations Support Directorate – UNCLASSIFIED SECTION

Subject: Medical Management Of Unusual Depleted Uranium Exposures

October 2, 1993

 

4. “Unusual exposures to DU are also expected to cause no medical problems. But in the interest of documenting the expected minimal exposures, the exposures should be documented and specimens taken. Unusual exposures include situations which could result in ingestion/inhalation of DU dust; or the contamination of wounds by DU dust or fragments. These unusual exposures could result from:

A.      Being in the midst of the smoke from DU fires resulting from the burning of vehicles uploaded with DU munitions or depots in which DU munitions are being stored.

B.       Working within environments containing DU dust or residues from DU fires.

C.       Being within a structure or vehicle while it is struck by a DU munition.

5.        Safety guidance on appropriate soldier response to accidents involving DU is contained within reference A. and guidance on appropriate management of potentially DU-contaminated equipment is contained within reference B.

6.        In cases such as those in described in Paragraph 4, the following steps should be taken:

A.      A MED-16 report (RCS MED-15(R4)) should be submitted in accordance with Paragraph 5-10 of Reference B.

B.       Specimens should be collected and forwarded for analysis in conformance with the information provided in subsequent paragraphs and paragraph 9-6 of Reference A.

(1)      Nasal swipes could be collected… Nasal swipes can be useful if confirming exposure to DU dust environments…

(2)      Any filters used for respiratory protection (Protective mask canister, dust masks, field-expedient cloths placed over the nose etc.) should be sealed in plastic bags or other protective containers…

(3)      Twenty-four hour urine specimens should be collected…”

Source of document: Major Doug Rokke, U.S. Army Head of Depleted Uranium Project to clean up Iraq and Kuwait after1991 Gulf War.

 

 

1995 – U.S. ARMY - Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) Report to Congress

 

“If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate ‘significant medical consequences’. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. “

 

“The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk estimates can be determined”

 

“Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures.”

 

“Very few remediation technologies have actually been used to clean up DU-contaminated sites.”

 

“No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium.”

 

“The Army should determine the full life-cycle cost of DU weapon sytems. This analysis must take into account not only production costs, but also demilitarization, disposal and recycling costs; facility decontamination costs; test range remediation costs; and long-term health and environmental costs.”

 

“The only systematic DU contamination of Army land occurs during the research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) cycle for DU ammunition.”

 

“The Army needs to review particle data from Army studies and elsewhere to determine data gaps and conduct experiments to generate the requisite data to fill these gaps.”

 

“The Army needs to develop a better understanding of DU particles generated from impacts or burning.”

 

“The Army should be prepared to provide guidance to other governments on the health and safety risks associated with DU for affected battlefields. This guidance may include information on environmental measurement, monitoring, migration and remediation techniques.”

From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995

 

 

1997 - ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (AFRRI)

 

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) in Bethesda, Maryland has discovered in animal studies that embedded DU, unlike most metals, dissolves and spreads through the body depositing in organs like the spleen and the brain, and that a pregnant female rat will pass DU along to a developing fetus.

The Nation magazine, May 26, 1997, p. 17-18.

 

 

1998 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

 

According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for occupational exposure, the 186,000,000 grams of depleted uranium released during the Gulf War combat operations is enough to poison every American man, woman, and child 100 times.

Dan Fahey, Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures, 2nd Edition, July 2, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, p. 3.

 

 

1998 - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR/OSHA

Health Hazards Data, the Materials Safety Data Sheet from the U.S. Department of

Labor/OSHA, says this about depleted uranium: “Increased risk of lung carcinoma and

chemical toxicity to kidney. Hazardous decomposition products...”

Dan Fahey, Case Narrative: Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposures, 2nd Edition,

July 2, 1998, National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.

 

 

2000 - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

 

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has said, “One may normally expect that depleted uranium contains a trace amount of plutonium.“ In a January 20, 2000 letter, DOE Assistant Secretary David Michaels formally admits that, “As background, I would note that our historical information shows that recycled uranium, which came straight from one of our production sites, e.g., Hanford, would routinely contain transuranics [americium, neptunium, plutonium] at a very low level. … We have initiated a project to characterize the level of transuranics [americium, neptunium, plutonium] in the various depleted uranium inventories.”

David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, letter, Jan. 20, 2000.)

 

 

2003 - MEDIA: PENTAGON CONTROLLING THE NEWS - John Hanchette Former

Editor U.S.A. TODAY (National Daily Newspaper)

 

During a speaking tour in the Eastern United States in January 2003 with Gulf War Veteran Major Doug Rokke, I was introduced to John Hanchette who in Doug’s words is “one of the good guys on the depleted uranium issue”. Mr. Hanchette told me that from 1991 to 2001, as Editor of U.S.A. TODAY, he published news breaking stories on the effects of depleted uranium on Gulf War Veterans. Each time he was ready to publish a story about devastating illnesses in Gulf War soldiers, he got a phone call from the Pentagon pressuring him not to print the story. He has been replaced as Editor at U.S.A. TODAY and is now teaching journalism to college students.

Interview with former U.S.A. TODAY Editor John Hanchetter by Leuren Moret, Olean, New York, January 29, 2003.

 

 

2003 – PENTAGON – U.S. Army Colonel

 

Journalist: “What about the health risks that are associated with D.U.? Or do you deny there are any?”

 

U.S. Army Colonel: “You are determined to get me to make a statement about the health risks aren’t you?”

 

Journalist: “If you will, I want to see what the behind the scenes view of D.U. is in the Pentagon.”

 

U.S. Army Colonel: “Well…….(long pause, followed by heavy profanity)…. Okay, I’ll give you some dirt if that’s what you’re looking for. The Pentagon knows there are huge health risks associated with D.U. They know from years of monitoring our own test ranges and manufacturing facilities. There were parts of Iraq designated as high contamination areas before we ever placed any troops on the ground. The areas around Basra, Jalibah, Talil, most of the southern desert, and various other hot spots were all identified as contaminated before the war. Some of the areas in the southern desert region along the Kuwaiti border are especially radioactive on scans and tests. One of our test ranges in Saudi Arabia shows over 1000 times the normal background level for radiation. We have test ranges in the U.S. that are extremely contaminated, hell they have been since the 80’s and nothing is ever said publicly. Don’t ask don’t tell is not only applied to gays, it is applied to this matter heavily. I know that at one time the theory was developed that any soldier exposed to D.U. shells should have to wear full MOP gear (the chemical protective suit). But they realized that it just wouldn’t be practical and it was never openly discussed again.”

 

Journalist: “So the stories that they know D.U. is harmful are true?”

 

U.S. Army Colonel: “Yes, there is no doubt that most high level commanders who were around during the 80’s know about it.”

 

Interview by Jay Shaft, Editor Coalition for Free Thought in Media, “U.S. Colonel Admits That 500 Tons of D.U. Were Just Used in Iraq” May 5, 2003.

 

 

2003   - SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES - is a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Lab

Funding provided by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and Sandia’s Laboratory Directed Research and Development.

 

“Sandia nanolaser may help extend life-spans by rapidly analyzing possible neuroprotectant drugs by Neal Singer

 

Helping Gulf War victims” – Sandia has been doing research on the role of mitochondria malfunctions identified as the most immediate cause of Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, and Alzheimer’s. Loss of brain function is caused by neurons killed by malfunctions in the mitochondria. “Malfunctioning mitochondria have also been linked to battlefield aftereffects caused by radiation or by nerve agents like sarin.” Gulf War victims frequently develop Lou Gehrig’s disease or “ALS (the neuron disease amytrophic lateral sclerosis) which is a neurodegenerative disorder that kills motor neurons causing paralysis and death in three years.” It affects both Gulf War veterans and civilians.

Funding is now being requested from the U.S. Congress for research “to help Gulf War victims”.

 

SandiaLabNews Vol. 55, No. 19, September 19, 2003

http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN09-19-03/key09-19-03_stories.html#nano

 

[AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT U.S. GOVT. ADMISSION THAT CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS ARE NOT THE ONLY DISEASES CAUSED BY RADIATION EXPOSURE.]

 

 

2003 - MEDIA: WHITE HOUSE/PENTAGON CONTROLLING THE NEWS

TBRNews.com

 

During the middle of March, 2003, tbrnews received an email from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive with a major American television network. He stated in this, and subsequent, emails that he was in possession of “thousands” of pages of in-house memos sent from his corporate headquarters in New York City to the head of the network’s television news department. He went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of the network.

 

This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it… All are on corporate stationary, signed or initialed by the senders and again, signed or initialed by the recipients in the news division…

 

If these memos were true, they showed with a terrible clarity that at least one part of the American mass media was strictly controlled and that the news was so doctored and spun that it might as well be official news releases from the White House and Pentagon:

 

 

(Sept 28) There is to be nothing said about the high levels of radiation in Iraq. Depleted uranium is the culprit but if it becomes too widespread, it is to be blamed on Saddam’s “hidden A-bomb arsenal”! Our man in the Pentagon was moaning that when GIs start losing their hair and fingers in a few years, there will be more lawsuits. As they say in the military, “not on my watch, Charlie!”

 

(Nov 17) the Supreme Court is busting Bush’s balls now. They are going to take cases about the Gitmo [Guantanamo] gulag and the White House is shrieking with rage. I guess the Court doesn’t realize that Bush thinks he is the one to decide what is constitutional and not the Court. He has a rude surprise coming very soon as I understand…

 

To read more than 1400 memos since February 2003 with daily updates go to http://www.tbrnews.org/index.htm.