BIO-CHEMICAL WARFARE TESTING
Open Air
Testing with Simulated Biological and Chemical Warfare Agents
Dr. Leonard A. Cole gave the following
testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on May
6, 1994:
My name is Leonard A. Cole, and I
teach science and public policy at Rutgers University in Newark. My
research interests include biological and chemical warfare policies, and I have
written in particular about testing done in the U.S Army's biological defense
program.
I appreciate your invitation, Senator
Rockefeller, to testify about experiments involving simulated biological and
chemical warfare agents. These agents, which the army calls simulants, are
intended to mimic more lethal bacteria and chemicals that might be used in
actual warfare.
As described in my book, Clouds of
Secrecy, the army began a program in 1949 to assess the nation's vulnerability
to attack with biological weapons. During the next 20 years, the army
released simulant agents over hundreds of populated areas around the country.
Targets included portions of
Hawaii and
Alaska, San Francisco, St. Louis,
Minneapolis, New York
City, Washington,
D.C., Key West, and many other cities. The purpose was to see how the
bacteria spread and survived as people went about their normal activities.
Evidence suggested that the tests may
have been causing illness to exposed citizens. Nevertheless, as army
spokesmen subsequently testified, the health of the millions of people exposed
was never monitored because the army assumed that the bacteria and chemicals
were harmless.
Vulnerability testing continues at
Dugway Proving Ground, 70 miles from Salt Lake City. Several smaller
communities are closer to the base, and Dugway itself is home to hundreds of
civilians and military personnel and their families. The stated purpose of
the tests is to evaluate biological detector systems and protective gear.
Since tests involve spraying simulants
outdoors, it is important to understand how much risk they pose to humans who
are exposed. Official statements have not always been dear on this matter.
A July 1993 news release by the Dugway Public Affairs Office indicates that "no
specific safety controls or protection are required for testing with simulants."
The statement implies, erroneously, that the simulants are harmless.
In fact, during 45 years of open air
testing, from time to time the army has stopped using certain simulants for
reasons of safety. In each instance the army belatedly recognized they
could be causing disease and death, although such information had long been
available in the medical literature. This was the case in the 1950s when
it ceased using the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus as a simulant. The fungus
had long been known to cause aspergillosis, a disease that can be fatal.
Similarly, in the 1960s the army stopped using zinc cadmium sulfide, a chemical
that had been known for years to cause cancer.
In the 1970s, the bacterium Serratia
marcescens, a source of infections that can lead to death, was taken out of
service as a simulant. And in the 1980s, dimethyl methylphosphonate, a
chemical known as DPP, was removed from use as a simulant because of its
carcinogenic and other toxic potential. I understand that one of today's
witnesses, Earl Davenport, was exposed to DMMP at Dugway in 1984 and may still
be suffering health problems as a result.
Indeed, simulants now used at Dugway
continue to pose risks. The chemical ethylene oxide, which is present in
some of the mixtures used in outdoor spraying, is a known carcinogen. The
bacterium Bacillus subtilis, while not generally seen as dangerous, is cited in
medical textbooks as able to cause serious infections. In truth any
microorganism that seems harmless under some circumstances may cause illness
under others.
Exposure to high concentrations of any
microorganism can be critically dangerous to people in weakened conditions.
The elderly, the very young, people with AIDS and others who have weakened
immune systems are more susceptible to life threatening infections.
Nevertheless, the army has not monitored the health of citizens who may have
been exposed during its tests while maintaining that its bacterial agents cause
no harm.
In addition to people who are
unwittingly exposed to the army's bacteria and chemicals, human research
subjects may not be receiving appropriate information. A test at Dugway in
November 1993, for example, raises important questions in this regard. The
test was intended to assess the ability of chemical agents to penetrate
protective clothing.
Test subjects wore special outer
garments and were then sprayed with chemicals in simulated battle conditions.
An army Environmental Assessment before the test indicated that some of the
chemicals could be toxic. Yet the consent form that the subjects signed in
advance of the test said nothing about any of the chemicals.
Subsequently, two of the test subjects
said they were asked to sign another consent form sometime after the test had
been completed. The second form described the chemicals. But having
the subjects sign a consent form after an experiment, rather than before, makes
little ethical sense. The procedure renders meaningless the notion of
informed consent.
Finally, several physicians at the
University of Utah Medical School in Salt Lake City continue to express concern
about the tests at Dugway. They do not feel they have information that
would enable them optimally to handle infections and complications that might be
caused by the tests. Dugway officials have thus far not satisfied their
concerns either about field tests involving simulants or indoor tests with
highly pathogenic agents.
These are a few of the disconcerting
issues associated with testing at Dugway. If such tests must continue,
several policy suggestions seem appropriate:
Inform people in the area before each
test that they may be exposed to the army's biological and chemical agents.
For a substantial period after each
test, monitor the health of the exposed population.
Provide comprehensive information in
understandable language to human subjects before they participate in any test.
Fully inform the neighboring medical
community about the nature of each test and its possible medical complications.
Above all, strive for safety, candor,
and openness.
http://www.HealthFreedom.info
[The SHFN Newsletter subscriber
list is not sold or shared with anyone. The current newsletter and
newsletter archive links are at the bottom of
The Truth About Essiac page.]
No comments:
Post a Comment