Fw: Reso 639-06, DU

From: "Lorrin Pang" <panghi@hawaii.rr.com>
To: "Jim Albertini" <jva1238@yahoo.com>,
<jc.king@us.army.mil>,
"Jim Albertini" <ja@interpac.net>
Cc: <holter@maui.net>,
"Mele Stokesberry" <holamaui@earthlink.net>,
"Cha Smith" <kahea-alliance@hawaii.rr.com>,
"Doug Rokke" <Dlind49@aol.com>,
"Rosalie Bertell" <rosaliebertell@greynun.org>,
"Jay Scharf" <jaysimonscharf@yahoo.com>,
"Levin, Andy" <alevin@co.hawaii.hi.us>,
"Lindafaye Kroll" <tenfingers10toes@protecthawaii.ws>,
<megan@vacationhilo.com>
Subject: DU presentation at State Leg
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:19:20 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C85A84.C6467BB0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Unsent: 1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C85A84.C6467BB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Aloha Jim,

As promised here is my review - but it is hard to understand without =
access to their brochure which is out but you probably don't have yet. =
Please help me forward by E-mail a copy of this response which I =
PROMISED to Josh Green, Larry Lau and Kyle Kajihiro. Jim, also feel =
free to forward to all others concerned who attended meetings and "ten =
fingers/toes" plays - my computer and E-mail is really messed up now but =
I have CC'd to some at least. Spell check in this mode has always been =
non-existent, sorry. Linda/Megan I have not forgotten about the tumor =
registry investigation - which came up at the Senate hearing. Mr King - =
please forward a copy to Sec Davis. I owe him this much for his initial =
invite to the investigation team. =20

Thnx,

Lorrin


I have offered to constructively contribute to this effort by joining =
the investigative committee but this was denied by the Gov. I can now =
only criticize what has transpired but will try to remain constructive.

It has repeatedly been the community request that a survey be done which =
will detect markers for all forms of uranium weaponry, both Davey =
Crocketts( ballast) and penetrators (ballistic, as Army defines). It =
has always been pointed out that the ballistic type are far more =
dangerous - releasing far traveling plumes of oxides and nano-particles, =
which become inhaled then very slowly cleared from the body with a =
distinct type of distribution (macrophage/lymphatic system). Nano =
toxicity remains unknown. In contrast the ballast forms released =
metallic U shrapnel of limited migration, risk of inhalation, with rapid =
clearance (unless permanently imbedded shrapnel) and more of a blood =
borne distribution in the body. =20

Initially the Army said they knew of AT LEAST ballast weaponry but now =
their latest brochure (Information Booklet - Depleted Uranium in Hawaii, =
no date but distributed at the JUan 2008 Hawaii legislative meeting) =
implies that they ONLY address ballast, page 12.. I am rather =
disappointed that the Army is not willing to address the more dangerous =
from of U radiation based on the "best of their knowledge" which =
initially proved incorrect with even ballast usage. A good =
(epidemiologic and statistically sound) survey for ballistic markers =
(oxides) at ballistic distances would go a long way to appease the =
critics. Is this intended in the final report (item 4 page 10)? Many =
of the brochure's claims about minimal migration of U contamination, =
heavier non migrating particles, claims of safety based on extrapolation =
from other U experiences, detection at points far from the target zones, =
etc. etc seem erroneous until it is pointed out near the end of the =
brochure they only address ballast weaponry (page 12 last item). That =
only ballast weaponry is addressed should be in the title of the =
brochure. The justification for this limited search should be on page 2 =
- as it is contrary to Army policy for procedures to survey for =
contamination (which is based on survey rather than the more fallible =
historical knowledge). =20

Even IF only ballast weaponry was used - the decades' subsequent =
conventional explosives used on the target sites could have rendered the =
initially ballast forms of U airborne with conversion to the more =
dangerous plumes and oxides. =20

The public should only be satisfied with comprehensive surveys which =
will include the search for U Oxides contamination and at distances =
beyond conventional ballast scattering. The dust samples form the =
particulate survey could be used for that. If oxides or evidence of =
extensive migration of ANY U compounds are found, regardless of the =
pruported source, one must set the objective of the survey as one of =
contamination (comparison to control sites, IAW Army regulation) rather =
than health threshold set by the NRC (since these may not be =
extrapolable to nano U or U oxide toxicity).

Some to the responses to public concerns are misleading and unscientific =
- for example page 10 item 5: If there is a questions of the high =
reading one should question the specificity (possibility of false =
positive) instead the Army makes the argument that the detectors are =
insensitive (false negatives). For a high reading the correct response =
should have been to see if the reading could be repeated at the same =
site with more sensitive equipment and greater statistical sensitivity. =
Community volunteers perfomed this at the Kona site with tens of =
thousands of air samples (counts or decays per minute, CPM readings) =
using the best detectors available to them. At my own expense and as a =
private citizen I presented on the Big Island a written analysis with =
statistical interpretation to the public, Sen Inouye's representative =
and the media (Army and DOH were invited, though not personally by me, =
but did not attend). Most importantly I answered questions from the =
public on the spot (in contrast to the recent legislative hearing). The =
results were reassuring. There is an Army/DOH claim that repeated =
sampling was done with sophisticated equipment. We have repeatedly =
asked for details to examine analysis (for example, means vs frequencies =
of CPM data), statistical power and scheme to insure sensitive (for =
example wind/dust conditions) sampling sites. To date this has not been =
made availabe to the public, hopefully it will be presented in the final =
report. We seem to always be arguing that it would be wrong to only run =
the analysis on means. As cited above this would base the risk on the =
NRC recommendations for health risks based largely on non oxide U forms =
from other situations. But of course if one chooses to ignore the U =
oxides based on the presumption that only ballast forms were used then =
we have a self fulfilling "confirmation" of safety. The argument that =
General Lee was so concerned seems a bit odd. No one from the Army =
attended my presentation of the community survey which I presented in =
Hilo. He would have been happy with my conclusions and could have =
presented his survey methods and results at the same time. Maybe we =
might have disagreed on how to proceed, maybe not. =20

To me it seems very strange that all the collaborators (especially the =
CDC and NRC) would not have raised the above concerns with the brochure. =
=20

Again I offered to collaborate up front but was denied this. As I =
understand it Sec Davis was willing but not Gov Lingle thought there was =
enough expertise elsewhere. Allow me at least this constructive =
criticism before the final report, as I too am a land owner (small =
vacant plot) on the Big Island. Finally, I am a stakeholder with no =
conflict of interest who is trying to uphold federal regulations of =
safety. I have been warned by colleagues to "watch my back" that I am =
a "marked" man but have told them that whistle blower laws protect me =
against retaliation. I have confidence in Sec Davis on this point. =20

=20

Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH
(as private citizen)
Retired Army Medical Corp
Best Doctors of America list 2006-8
Consultant WHO (since 1985)
Consultant Glaxo Smith Kline
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C85A84.C6467BB0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Aloha Jim,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As promised here is my review - but it =
is hard to=20
understand without&nbsp;access to their brochure which is out but you =
probably=20
don't have yet.&nbsp;&nbsp; Please help me forward&nbsp;by E-mail&nbsp;a =
copy of=20
this response which I PROMISED to&nbsp;Josh Green, Larry Lau and Kyle=20
Kajihiro.&nbsp; Jim, also feel free to forward to all others concerned=20
who&nbsp;attended meetings and "ten fingers/toes" plays - my computer =
and E-mail=20
is really messed up now but I have CC'd to some at =
least.&nbsp;&nbsp;Spell check=20
in this mode has always been non-existent, sorry.&nbsp; Linda/Megan I =
have not=20
forgotten about the tumor registry investigation - which came up at the =
Senate=20
hearing.&nbsp; Mr King - please forward a copy to Sec Davis.&nbsp; I owe =
him=20
this much for his initial invite to the investigation team.&nbsp; =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thnx,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lorrin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have offered to constructively =
contribute to this=20
effort&nbsp;by joining the&nbsp;investigative&nbsp;committee&nbsp;but =
this was=20
denied by the Gov.&nbsp; I can now only criticize what has transpired =
but will=20
try to remain constructive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It has repeatedly&nbsp;been the =
community request=20
that a survey be done which will detect markers for all forms of uranium =

weaponry, both Davey Crocketts( ballast) and penetrators (ballistic, as =
Army=20
defines).&nbsp; It has always been pointed out that the ballistic type =
are far=20
more dangerous - releasing far traveling plumes of oxides and =
nano-particles,=20
which become inhaled then very slowly cleared from the body with a =
distinct type=20
of distribution (macrophage/lymphatic system).&nbsp; Nano toxicity =
remains=20
unknown.&nbsp;In contrast the ballast forms released metallic U shrapnel =
of=20
limited migration, risk of inhalation, with&nbsp;rapid clearance (unless =

permanently imbedded shrapnel)&nbsp;and more of a blood borne =
distribution in=20
the body.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Initially the Army said they knew of AT =
LEAST=20
ballast&nbsp;weaponry but now their latest brochure (Information Booklet =
-=20
Depleted&nbsp;Uranium in Hawaii, no date but distributed at the JUan =
2008 Hawaii=20
legislative meeting)&nbsp;implies&nbsp;that they ONLY&nbsp;address =
ballast, page=20
12..&nbsp; I am&nbsp;rather disappointed that the Army is not willing to =
address=20
the more dangerous from of U radiation based on&nbsp;the "best of their=20
knowledge" which initially proved incorrect with even ballast =
usage.&nbsp; A=20
good (epidemiologic and&nbsp;statistically sound) survey for ballistic =
markers=20
(oxides) at ballistic distances would go a long way to appease the=20
critics.&nbsp; Is this intended in the final report (item 4 page=20
10)?&nbsp;&nbsp;Many of the&nbsp;brochure's claims&nbsp;about minimal=20
migration&nbsp;of U contamination, heavier non migrating&nbsp;particles, =
claims=20
of&nbsp;safety based on&nbsp;extrapolation from other U experiences, =
detection=20
at points far from the target zones,&nbsp; etc. etc seem =
erroneous&nbsp;until it=20
is&nbsp;pointed&nbsp; out near the end of the brochure&nbsp;they only =
address=20
ballast weaponry (page 12 last item).&nbsp;&nbsp; That only ballast =
weaponry is=20
addressed should be in the&nbsp;title of the brochure.&nbsp; The =
justification=20
for this limited search should be on page 2 - as it is contrary to Army =
policy=20
for procedures to survey for contamination (which is based on survey =
rather than=20
the more fallible historical knowledge).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Even IF only ballast weaponry was used =
- the=20
decades'&nbsp;subsequent conventional explosives used on the target=20
sites&nbsp;could have rendered the initially ballast forms=20
of&nbsp;U&nbsp;airborne with conversion to&nbsp;the more dangerous =
plumes and=20
oxides.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The public should&nbsp;only be =
satisfied with=20
comprehensive surveys which will include the search for U Oxides =
contamination=20
and at&nbsp;distances beyond conventional ballast scattering.&nbsp; The =
dust=20
samples form the particulate survey could&nbsp;be used for=20
that.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;oxides or evidence of extensive migration of =
ANY U=20
compounds are&nbsp;found, regardless of the pruported source,&nbsp;one =
must set=20
the objective of the survey as one of contamination&nbsp;(comparison to =
control=20
sites, IAW Army regulation) rather than health threshold set by the NRC =
(since=20
these may not be&nbsp;extrapolable to&nbsp;nano U&nbsp;or U oxide=20
toxicity).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Some to the responses to public =
concerns are=20
misleading and unscientific - for example page 10 item 5: If there is a=20
questions&nbsp;of the high reading one should question =
the&nbsp;specificity=20
(possibility of false positive) instead the Army makes the argument=20
that&nbsp;the detectors are insensitive (false =
negatives).&nbsp;&nbsp;For a high=20
reading the&nbsp;correct response should have been to see if the reading =
could=20
be repeated at the same site with more sensitive equipment and greater=20
statistical&nbsp;sensitivity.&nbsp;&nbsp;Community =
volunteers&nbsp;perfomed this=20
at the Kona site with tens of thousands of air samples (counts or decays =
per=20
minute,&nbsp;CPM readings) using the&nbsp;best detectors available to=20
them.&nbsp;&nbsp;At my own expense and as a private citizen =
I&nbsp;presented on=20
the Big Island a written&nbsp;analysis with statistical interpretation =
to the=20
public, Sen Inouye's representative&nbsp;and the media (Army and DOH =
were=20
invited, though not personally by me,&nbsp;but did not attend).&nbsp; =
Most=20
importantly I answered&nbsp;questions from the public on the spot (in =
contrast=20
to the recent legislative hearing). The results were =
reassuring.&nbsp;There is=20
an Army/DOH&nbsp;claim that repeated sampling was done with=20
sophisticated&nbsp;equipment.&nbsp; We have repeatedly&nbsp;asked for =
details to=20
examine analysis (for example, means vs frequencies of&nbsp;CPM data),=20
statistical power and scheme to insure sensitive (for example wind/dust=20
conditions)&nbsp;sampling&nbsp;sites. To date this has not been made =
availabe to=20
the public, hopefully&nbsp;it will be presented in the final=20
report.&nbsp;&nbsp;We seem to always be&nbsp;arguing that it&nbsp;would =
be=20
wrong&nbsp;to only run the analysis on means.&nbsp; As cited above this =
would=20
base the risk on the&nbsp;NRC recommendations for health&nbsp;risks=20
based&nbsp;largely on non oxide U forms from other situations.&nbsp; But =
of=20
course if one chooses to ignore the U oxides based on the =
presumption&nbsp;that=20
only ballast forms were used then we have a self fulfilling =
"confirmation" of=20
safety.&nbsp;&nbsp;The argument&nbsp;that General Lee was so concerned =
seems a=20
bit odd. No one from the Army&nbsp;attended my presentation of the=20
community&nbsp;survey which I presented in Hilo.&nbsp; He would have =
been happy=20
with my conclusions and could have presented his survey methods and =
results at=20
the same time.&nbsp; Maybe we might have disagreed on how to proceed, =
maybe=20
not.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To me it seems&nbsp;very strange that =
all the=20
collaborators (especially the CDC and NRC) would not have raised the=20
above&nbsp;concerns with the brochure.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Again I offered to collaborate up front =
but was=20
denied this. As I understand it Sec Davis was willing but not Gov Lingle =
thought=20
there was enough expertise elsewhere.&nbsp; Allow me at least this =
constructive=20
criticism before the final report, as I too am a&nbsp;land owner (small =
vacant=20
plot)&nbsp;on the Big Island.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, I am a =
stakeholder with=20
no conflict of interest who is trying to uphold federal regulations=20
of&nbsp;safety.&nbsp; I have been warned by colleagues to "watch my =
back"&nbsp;=20
that I am a "marked" man but have told them that whistle blower laws =
protect me=20
against retaliation.&nbsp; I have confidence in Sec Davis on this=20
point.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(as private citizen)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Retired Army Medical Corp</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Doctors of America list =
2006-8</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Consultant WHO (since =
1985)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Consultant Glaxo Smith Kline=20
</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C85A84.C6467BB0--

FYI  Important information on DU from Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:05 PM
Subject: Reso 639-06, DU

Dear Big Island Council Members,
 
A few years ago I bought a small lot on the BIg Island so I speak as a fellow Big Islander and ask you to support:
 
RESOLUTION 639-08 URGING THE UNITED STATES MILITARY TO ADDRESS THE HAZARDS OF DEPLETED URANIUM AT THE POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA
 
Over the past year I have made a several trips to the Big Island (more to Honolulu) on my own time and expense to talk to community and law makers regarding this issue.  I heard that the Big Island decision was postponed until the military has a chance for input.  I am rather surprised that their claims of "transparency" on this issue leaves the council with insufficient information to have made a decision.  On the other hand as a scientist I am still confused by their objectives, activities, and conclusions.  The rising number and cost of visits is unfairly biasing the influence of those who do have their trips covered by State and Federal funds.  I submitted my testimony for Jim Albertini to present - but due to a mix up he only read part of it during your hearing.  I enclose all of it below for your consideration.   Thanks for this opportunity to testify - perhaps I can make my case in person if you reopen the hearings for the military.
 

My testimony will be very close to what I sent to Dr Josh Green (at his request) after hearing the Army and DOH present before our Senators in Jan 2008.  I want to give an analogy that helps clarify this situation.  Like cigarettes, DU is safe until it is burned in the form of armor penetrating weaponry.  Just as smoking affects the primary user as well as those inhaling second hand smoke, the airborne products of DU burning remain suspended for long periods and travel great distances in the atmosphere.  We do not know all the toxicity of the airborne DU products (nano-toxicity) but some forms (DU oxides) we do know can persist in the body for decades.  When internalized DU emits the most dangerous type of radiation, alpha radiation.  Animals with implanted alpha emitters have shown high cancer rates and birth defects – which can pass on to subsequent, UNEXPOSED generations.

 We have asked that a site survey be done to look for evidence that DU penetrators were used at Hawaii target sites.  Although there are no records to show use (NRC license requirement?) it is prudent that a survey be done to put to rest our uncertainty of record keeping.  Continuing with the cigarette analogy, this would be like looking for ashes as evidence of past smoking.  The ashes themselves may pose little health risk but they are used as a marker of smoking.  Similarly the DU survey should not focus on the risk of what is NOW found on the ground (unless there is gross qualitative/quantitative contamination – which might re-aerosolize if the ranges are bombed).  The survey should look for evidence (quality, quantity and geographic distribution) that DU penetrators were ever used.  We are looking for a marker.  Thus the DOH reference to health threshold levels of current environmental samples is a rather mute point (50% of the DU aerosolizes on burning).  I am not sure if the objectives of the survey were ever agreed upon. Perhaps the survey is comprehensive enough to cover all aspects.  But not having been invited to the planning stages I am afraid that we might only look at the present risk and ignore evidence of much more dangerous past risks.  Again the cigarette, smoke and ashes are a good analogy to follow.

 Attached is my testimony to Dr Josh Green.  From my statement there, I now want to say the since Army Sec Davis failed to address this issue during his subsequent visit – I am no longer confident that this DU issue might be fully resolved. 

 

Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH

(as private citizen)

Retired Army Medical Corp

Best Doctors of America list 2006-8

Consultant WHO (since 1985)

Consultant Glaxo Smith Kline

 

166 River Road

Wailuku, HI 96793

Ph 808-8701637

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

   

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home