Chemtrails - United States Senate Testimony before the Committee on Veterans

[Guest guest]

" 121 " <121

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:12:25 -0800

Chemtrails - United States Senate

Testimony before the Committee on Veterans

 

 

United States Senate Testimony before the Committee on Veterans'

Affairs May 6, 1994

 

 

Open Air Testing with Simulated Biological and Chemical

Warfare Agents

By Leonard A. Cole, Ph.D.

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kknowlto/openair.htm

 

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.