Today's Hawaii Tribune-Herald front page DU article

Aloha peace Ohana,
Please check out yesterday's and today's front page DU articles by Bret Yager.  It's good it's getting exposure.  Below are a few questions I have about the info in today's article that I would hope get clarified and answered by the DOH and the Army?
Jim Albertini
Malu `Aina Center For Non-violent Education & Action
P.O. Box AB
`Ola`a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760
Phone 808-966-7622
email ja@interpac.net
www.malu-aina.org
1.  Is it true that the Army has not surveyed the whole bombing and impact area for DU, only the areas of Davy Crockett impact?  It appears the Army and DOH don't want to look beyond the Davy Crockett DU problem to a possible wider DU contamination problem 
2.  Is the kind of air monitoring proposed by the Army/DOH  "airborne wide-area gamma detection spectrometer" air monitors the right kind of testing for DU oxides?  What kind of testing is best to detect if DU penetrator rounds were used at PTA?
3.  Did the Jan. helicopter surveys only checked the 4 suspected areas for the Davy Crockett and not look outside that area? 
4.  Do you understand that the "full characterization survey" that kicks off in June will cover the entire PTA bombing/impact and training area or just the areas of the Davy Crockett?  I suspect, the entire bombing range and impact area may contain DU from 35 plus years of bombing/shelling. 
In the Trib article, Col. Killian said  at PTA  "the environment hasn't degraded the DU like it has at other locations.  It hasn't oxidized because there's no moisture."  What other locations in Hawaii and elsewhere has DU been used in training?  What areas is Col. Killian talking about? 
A list of all DU training sites in Hawaii and elsewhere needs to be provided.
5.  Since the Trib article states that the military has no record of many of the projectiles fired at PTA and the Army prohibited training with DU since 1996, it appears reasonable to believe, various branches of the military may have used DU penetrators prior to 96, especially in training for the First gulf war where it was used heavily.  Does this sound like a reasonable assumption or am I missing something?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home