Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

Ask Your VA   Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read Disability Claims Articles
 Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Project 112 And Shad Vets

Rate this question


Berta

Question

email From Colonel Dan and also Army Times:

Vets blast SHAD study

Survey left out many sailors involved in chemical weapons tests, group says

By Chris Amos - Staff writer

Posted : Thursday Jul 5, 2007 6:29:56 EDT

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/07/navy...dtests_070704w/

A group of Navy veterans says that findings from a study of the health effects of at-sea biological and chemical weapons testing on thousands of sailors 40 years ago are flawed because the study ignored those with the highest levels of exposure.

The $3 million study, paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs but conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy, took four years to complete. It was commissioned after years of complaints from veterans that the tests made them sick.

The Institute of Medicine is a private organization created by the federal government to perform medical tests.

Findings from a medical records survey and questionnaire mailed to more than 6,000 sailors who were aboard 22 Navy ships and Army tugs during the tests cast doubt on claims that exposure to the tests led to severe medical problems in ensuing years.

The findings, released last month, found that participants had higher death rates from cardiovascular disease and had higher self-reported rates of memory loss, attention problems and neurodegenerative disorders than a group of sailors who did not participate in Project SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense. But scientists were unable to point to medical links between these problems and the real and simulated chemical and biological weapons used during the tests.

Moreover, since participants also reported higher rates of medically insignificant symptoms such as earlobe pain, scientists questioned whether some of the discrepancies were caused by participants’ belief that something was wrong with them.

But retired Cmdr. John Alderson, who served as a commanding officer of the five Army light tugs — numbered 2080, 2081, 2085, 2086 and 2087 — that were a central part of the tests, said the study was incomplete because it failed to include many of the sailors who served on the tugs, at a test laboratory on Johnston Island — a small island about 700 miles west of Pearl Harbor — and at a base near Pearl Harbor where the weapons were mixed.

The study’s director confirmed Alderson’s claims but said he could not be sure what effect the omission had on the findings because he did not know how many people were excluded or the severity of the illnesses they reported.

“We got as many people on the light tugs as possible from the Defense Department,” study director William Page said. “They didn’t have complete rosters. We would have loved to have included the light tug personnel, but we just couldn’t find [all of] them.”

Alderson estimated that more than 500 sailors served on the tugs during the experiments. Neither he nor Page could say how many were included in the study, but Page admitted that the majority of tug sailors were never contacted.

Extended exposure

John Olsen, who served on the tugs as an electronics technician second class in 1965, said the ships’ 13-man crews — and sometimes three monkeys kept above deck — were exposed to a variety of chemical and biological agents on a daily basis over three-month periods, while sailors on larger Navy ships included in the study had much less frequent levels of exposure, sometimes only once or twice overall, and were exposed to simulated chemical and biological agents.

The IOM report says tug crew members were exposed to a nerve agent, staph bacteria and bacterial agents that could cause rabbit fever and Q fever.

Alderson said tug crew members were exposed to at least four other biological weapons not mentioned in the findings, but he said he could not name them because they are still classified.

A second veteran confirmed Alderson’s account, but asked not to be identified.

Although the tugs’ crews were required to stay inside during the tests, and state-of-the-art paper filters and specially designed air conditioning systems were used to protect the crews, the filters sometimes failed after they were soaked with sea water. Sensors in the boats’ interior spaces periodically detected trace amounts of biological and chemical agents, Olsen said.

After each test, the crews sprayed the tugs’ exterior surfaces with a decontaminant, that, while thought to be safe at the time, has since been found to be toxic, he said.

Another veteran said the study was flawed even among the crews of larger Navy ships such as the destroyer Herbert J. Thomas and the dock landing ship Fort Snelling.

Retired Cmdr. Norm LaChappelle, who served as technical project director for Project SHAD, said the study failed to do aggressive outreach to participants. He also said it did not distinguish between exposures to crew members who were at different places on the ship.

“They didn’t differentiate between whether you were a deck hand or in an engine room,” he said. “If you were on a ship, you were a participant,” he said.

SHAD background

The SHAD tests, which were classified until a few years ago, were conducted between 1962 and 1973 to determine whether Navy crews could be protected from chemical or biological attacks, Navy officials have said. Alderson said he thinks the study had a more nefarious purpose: to determine how effective American chemical and biological weapons could be against enemy navies.

The five tugs were sent to sail in a line formation that could be as long as 100 miles. Two Marine A-4 Skyhawks would then drop substances close to the first ship. Scientists would measure readings on each ship to determine how far weapons clouds would travel before they dispersed to levels that were ineffective.

The larger ships had simulants blown aft from their bows by giant fans or had them dropped from passing aircraft.

But even these simulants, such as E. coli and bacillus globigii, were later found to be toxic.

Participants aboard the light tugs say they had clandestine meetings with officers in San Francisco restaurants, were given hotel suites isolated from other sailors, wore civilian clothes, served on tugs with no Navy markings and were threatened with imprisonment if they talked about the tests with anyone after they were completed.

That is one reason they say it took so long to notice problems, they said.

“Most of my skippers are dead from cancer or respiratory illnesses,” Alderson said, before adding that since no study has been done on illness and mortality rates of the group, he can only offer anecdotal evidence of medical problems caused by the program. But he said that he developed severe allergies within days after the first test. Since then, he said he has suffered from prostate cancer and several skin cancers.

Olsen said he has also had health problems.

“I am one of the few survivors of something called massive malignant hypertension,” Olsen said. “It is extremely rare. For white males, it is 1 in 10 million. My blood pressure went up over 300, top and bottom. I was in my early 40s.”

LaChappelle says he has no health problems that he believes are directly traceable to the experiment, but he says he has received many phone calls from participants who say the project ruined their health.

Bernard Edelman, deputy director for policy and government affairs for the Vietnam Veterans of America, said sailors were given inoculations but that they were not entered on the sailor’s medical records, meaning the sailors don’t know what they received.

“We’re still trying to uncover the facts,” Edelman said. “As Yogi Berra said, ‘It ain’t over ’til it’s over.’”

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

From: jack alderson [mailto:aldy@frontiernet.net]

Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:03 PM

To: Jack Alderson

Subject: Navy Times

I understand the article on SHAD came out this week. I have no idea what it says. I any one can e-mail me a copy it would be appreciated. Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

WHen I say here something I post is email from Col. Dan, Mike Harris,VA media release etc-

I really mean I have copied my email from them and then pasted it here-

The hyperlinks in this email can then be highlighted 'copy' in blue with your mouse and then pasted into your browser, then click on, and they should work.

the copy and paste of email with hyperlinks is only a copy of the way the link looks and cannot generate the hyperspace connection----

Edited by Berta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Berta I sent this to the VVA and CDR Alderson

Sir, Why is DR William Pages name involved in every shady long term health study the Department of Defense in the past 20 years. All of the studies that I am aware of his involvement in have resulted in no long term health problems being found that have caused damage to the veterans or have very limited ramifications. He has found problems that no other medical studies on the same subject has ever found? He ignores previous health studies on narrowly focused subjects like chemical weapon exposure or drugs.

He even ignores the Veterans Administrations own health initiative documents, he seems to be an amazing man. His studies always seem to remain within the DOD constraints of the contracts, yet the veterans never are found to be harmed by known chemical weapons, drugs, and other hazardous substances, how is this possible?

I know he has worked with the nations experts on chemical weapons research DR Frederick Siddell and DR Van Sim, should he really be the person that would be doing an evaluation on the damage caused by their experiments from more than 30 years ago? He is more than just an innocent 3rd party.

I have 2 studies from SIPRI and the NIH that show the March 2003 Sarin report was far from a complete long term health study on medical problems caused by chemical weapons exposure, there are two major problems with his study that was used to deny GW1 veterans compensation, they ignored the mustard agents present at Kamisayah Iraq in March 1991 and they ignored the complete medical problems caused by Sarin exposure.

I am in a unique position I am a Gulf War veteran and I am also a veteran of the human experimentation the IOM used as the control group, I am veteran 6778A of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments from 1955 thru 1975.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/1994/102-1/munro-full.html Jan 1994 NIH chemical weapon study

http://www1.va.gov/vhi/docs/CBR_www.pdf Oct 2003 VA Health Manual Edgewood experiments are covered on pages 16-24

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/5/844/0.pdf March 2003 Sarin report

http://www.sipri.org/contents/cbwarfare/Pu.../cw-delayed.pdf pages 40 and 45 show the long term health problems from low level chemical weapon exposure. The March 2003 IOM study by DR Page found none of the problems that either this study or the NIH Jan 1994 study found why? Why did he and DOD ignore these 2 previous works that both showed identical results 20 years apart?

Mike Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEAH! Good for you!

Mike -what gets me is that William Page has a Phd- Doctorate in Philosophy-

Lots of the "Docs" at IOM have Phds-

They are NOT all MDs- medical doctors-

so how the heck can they possibly opine or even comprehend or assess medical info as to the affects of sarin, DU, AO,

SHAD materiale , etc------

have you ever tied in with Charles Kelley and his IOM research?

He focuses on the AO issue and his book "Vietnam's Rain Agents" is excellent

and is the same premise-

multiple toxins and chems etc were used by our military-and caused disability to service personnel-

I havent read his email I just got from him on IOM-

When I say vets should see "real doctors" of course the VA doctors are certainly real ones-

I just mean getting a doctor out of the VA system for a second opinion or IMO-

PHds are not medical doctors at all-

I have a very good friend, a psychologist- he has a Phd.

There is no way he can possible opine on anyones physical medical condition.

He can assess their psychiatric condition.

He cannot prescribe medication.

He can write very complete assessments- I used to work for him part time-typing his reports and he can administer some shrink tests-

but still he is not a Medical doctor-

gee maybe the IOM would hire my friend-

since they are allowing non- mecical doctors to control this whole issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

I exchange e mail with Kelley occasionally he mainly deals with the color agents used in SE Asia but we both seem to have the same opinion of the IOM they perform shitty analysis on almost everything they do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

You know the VA and the government will hire a bunch of prostitutes to crank out reports to support their positions which usually are that we need more studies and the evidence is not strong enough to pay vets for their injuries or illnesses. They are waiting for us to die. If they can keep delaying things for another 20-30 years most of us will be dead. They have already delayed for 40 years so what is a few more decades. There are many doctors out there who gladly sell their opinions and science to the highest bidder. Some never even do any treatments at all but just write opinions for whoever will pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use