https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_A._Colehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rutgers_University_faculty
Is military research hazardous to veterans' health? : lessons from World War II, the Persian Gulf, and today : hearing before
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United States Senate,
One Hundred Third Congress, second session, May 6, 1994
"Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Let the record reflect that each of the
witnesses replied in the affirmative.
Dr. Cole, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD COLE, PH.D., PROFESSOR,
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, RIDGEWOOD, NJ
Dr. Cole. Thank you. My name is Leonard Cole and I teach at
Rutgers University in Newark, NJ. I have written a good deal 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 are agents that are intended to mimic more lethal
bacteria and chemicals that might be used in an actual warfare
attack.
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, simulant agents were
released over hundreds of populated areas around the country,
including many of our major cities — New York, San Francisco,
portions of Hawaii, Alaska, and some areas of Washington, DC. The
entire country in effect was being used as an experimental laboratory
and millions of people had become unsuspecting guinea pigs.
Vulnerability testing continues at Dugway Proving Ground, 70
miles from Salt Lake City. The stated purpose of those tests is to
evaluate biological detector systems and protective gear. A July 1993
news release by the Dugway public affairs office indicates that no
specific safety controls are required for testing with simulants. The
statement implies erroneously that the simulants are harmless.
In fact, during the past 45 years of open air testing, from time to
time the Army has stopped using certain simulants for reasons of
safety. This was true in the 1950's with a fungus named Aspergillus
fumigatus, and later on in the 1960's with a chemical containing
cadmium, a known carcinogen. In the 1970's, a bacterium called
Serratia marcescens was taken out of service after almost 30 years of
use as a simulant because it was known to cause infection and
sometimes death. In the 1980's, as you heard from Earl Davenport
who was exposed to dimethyl methylphosphonate, this chemical was
removed because it also was suspected of being a possible cancer
cause, as well as having other toxic effects.
The truth is that 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 in particular. The elderly, the very
21
young, people with AIDS, and others who have weakened immune
systems are more susceptible to life-threatening infections.
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 this past
November raises important questions in this regard. The test was
intended to assess the ability of chemical agents to penetrate
protective clothing. Yet, the consent form that the subjects —
Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Dr. Cole, it might be useful for the
audience if you could explain the Dugway operation and what it is
meant to be doing.
Dr. Cole. Yes. There is open air testing at Dugway that involves
the spraying of chemicals and biological agents outdoors. Some
individuals will be dressed in protective clothing to see whether there
can be penetration of this clothing or other shelter-type materials.
The object, of course, would be to see whether these would be effective
against simulants, which are less lethal bacteria or chemicals, so that
in a real warfare situation we could have some confidence that the
people wearing this clothing would be protected.
Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Thank you.
Dr. Cole. The consent form that these individuals signed in
November, however, was signed in advance of the test and nothing
had been said about any of the chemicals on that consent form.
In addition, several physicians at the University of Utah Medical
School in Salt Lake City said they do not feel they have sufficient
information that would enable them optimally to handle infections
and complications that might be caused by the tests.
Finally, I will just summarize what I think would be appropriate
policy suggestions in this regard.
The first would be to inform people in an area before each test that
they may be exposed to the Army's biological and chemical agents.
For a substantial period after each test, these people should be
monitored for their health. In fact, the entire population that might
be exposed should be monitored for health. Comprehensive
information should be provided 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. Finally, and above all, strive for
safety, candor, and openness. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cole appears on page 96.]
Chairman RoCKEF'ELLER. Thank you. Dr. Cole, very much.
(...)
Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I would like to start the questioning with
you, Dr. Cole. The Department of Defense claims that the biological
agents that they use are perfectly safe. Some of them are found, in
fact, they say, in common garden soil. Yet, in your testimony, you say
that the Department of Defense officials have sometimes claimed that
a biological agent might be safe, but later admit that might not be the
case. What evidence is there that they are wrong about the safety of
some of the biological simulants that they are using and we are
discussing today?
Dr. Cole. Clearly, by removing some of the biological simulants
from service, which I alluded to in my testimony, the Army implicitly
recognizes that they were not safe. Every one of the microorganisms
that the Army has used and removed from service had long been
known, years and years before they were removed from service, to be
capable of causing disease. This was in the medical literature. There
are articles written about it. Even now, one of the simulants that the
Army is using called Bacillus subtilis, which is fairly harmless in
many natural conditions, is recognized as a potential source of
infection and can cause serious illness in some people when they are
exposed to it in large numbers and they inhale large numbers of those
microorganisms. This is in the medical literature.
Chairman ROCKEFELLER. The Department of Defense needs to
classify some information for national security reasons. But we also
need public disclosure in order to help individuals who are ill and, as
you indicated, to protect society as a whole. How do both of these
needs get met?
Dr. Cole. Well, Senator, I think the answer is fairly simple in
terms of large-scale spraying of bacteria or chemicals. Since the Army
suggests that these are not very, very harmful materials, it should
have no compunction about letting a community know when
individuals in that community, including at Dugway, might be
exposed. So I don't see there would be a conflict between those two
important items that you suggest.
I think the average citizen who might be wandering 10 or 20 or 30
miles from the border of Dugway should have the right to know that
26
he or she might be exposed to some of these so-called harmless
simulants, which in fact are not harmless.
nnSIESSIS STATEMENT OF LEONARD COLE, PH D
PROFESSOR, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY. RIDGEWOOD NJ
THE STATE UNIVEf?SITY OF-NEW JERSEY
RUTGERS
Camous at Newark
Faculty of Arts and Sciences • Department o( Fblitical Science
Unrversity Heights • Hill Hall. 7th Floor • Newark • New Jersey 07102 ■ \JSA. • 201/648-5105
Contact Address: 381 Crest Road
Ridgewood, NJ 074 50
Phone: 201-427-2385
Fax: 201-652-4323
Testimony before the Conunittee on Veterans' Affairs
United States Senate, May 6, 1994
Open Air Testing with Simulated Biological and
Chemical Warfare Agents
Leonard A. Cole, Ph.D.
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 progrcim.
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
97
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 clear 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 DMMP, 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 lifethreatening
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
98
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 outergarments 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."
https://archive.org/stream/ismilitaryresear00unit/ismilitaryresear00unit_djvu.txtLeonard A Cole
Clouds of secrecy : the army's germ warfare tests over populated areas
Totowa, N.J. : Rowman & Littlefield, 1988.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/15791698Table of content:
http://www.gbv.de/dms/bowker/toc/9780847675791.pdf
