Vieques studies: FRAUD!!!

[El_Jibaro]

VIEQUES HEALTH RISKS QUESTIONED
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 16, 2001


A series of studies this year cast doubt on charges that the Navy's practice bombing on Vieques island causes health problems for residents. Top Stories

The studies concluded that the Puerto Rican island's water supply was not contaminated by the live-fire exercises, nor were there ill-health effects from the use of depleted uranium ammunition in 1999. Meanwhile, the U.S. Public Health Service continues to study cancer rates on Vieques, after a limited analysis found a slightly higher rate among the island's 9,000 residents compared with Puerto Rico's 3.8 million citizens.

Congressional proponents of keeping the range open are citing the studies to refute Democratic Party claims that the 60-year-old range poses a health hazard to the residents of Vieques.

On the other hand, range opponents cite homegrown studies in Puerto Rico that concluded the bombing practices cause a variety of health problems.

President Bush last month overruled the Navy brass and handed a victory to protesters by deciding that the Navy must leave the island by May 2003. His policy shift leaves in limbo a federal law that mandates a Nov. 6 referendum that would allow Vieques' 6,400 registered voters to decide whether to keep or evict the Navy.

Mr. Bush wants the law repealed, but range backers such as Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, vow to retain the legislation. Mr. Inhofe and Navy admirals view Vieques as a crucial training ground for Atlantic Fleet carrier battle groups before they leave on dangerous deployments to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Liberal Democrats have led the protests to kick the Navy out. Despite Mr. Bush's compromise, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement last week linking the range to health problems.

"Many experts believe that the military exercises that take place on Vieques may be the reason that the island's residents suffer from higher illness and mortality rates than the rest of Puerto Rico," Mr. McAuliffe said. "The bombing of Vieques has gone on too long and done too much damage. The time for it to end is now, and the Democratic Party will not stop until it does."

Studies to date have looked at four issues:

1. Water contamination. The U.S. Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) tested the island's public drinking water supply and private wells.

"The public drinking water supply is not being impacted by the bombing range activities and is safe to drink," the agency reported.

The agency also found that water from virtually all wells was safe. The small exception was one private well that contained high levels of nitrates. The contamination, the report said, "is probably a result of agricultural or septic systems in the area," and not from the bombing range.

2. Radiation. Some protesters claim that the Navy's one-time use of depleted uranium anti-armor rounds from an attack jet resulted in higher than normal levels of radiation.

But a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) investigation found that "the levels of radiation detected in soil, vegetation and water by the NRC investigators are consistent with normal radiation background levels and do not represent a public health hazard."

3. Heart disease. Range critics claimed the noise from periodic bombings caused thickening of the heart muscle, or vibroacoustic disease. A local Puerto Rican medical school did a study that backed that claim.

But a follow-up study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health and School of Medicine rebutted those findings.

"Within the constraints of the data available, no inference can be made as to the role of noise from naval gunfire in producing echocardiographic abnormalities," the university concluded.

4. Cancer rates. Based only on raw data complied by the Puerto Rican government's cancer registry, Vieques has a slightly higher rate of the disease per 100,000 people per year than Puerto Rico's average.

But Bill Johnson, legislative director for Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican, says no conclusion can be drawn from that fact. He said the data compare the cancer rate of a 9,000-person island with rates for the entire 3.8 million-person territory, a process that can produce skewed numbers.

The raw data also show that both the Puerto Rican and Vieques cancer rates are well below the U.S. average.

The U.S. Public Health Service is now reviewing the information and will file a report later this summer.

[i]El_Jíbaro notes:

Some QUACKS in Puerto Rico are going to lose their licenses to practice and teach Medicene in the USA over this PERPETRATED FRAUD, and those residents in Puerto Rico who have depended up 'til now on these "SNAKE OIL MERCHANTS" for their medical treatment should be seriously looking into suing the GOONS for [b]MALPRACTICE...

[Edited by El_Jibaro on 16th July 2001 at 23:06]

[EL_BORICUA]

These government agencies?No way
they are funded by congress and
will do their bidding,why isnt it
an independent source.

[El_Jibaro]

Originally posted by El_Jibaro

VIEQUES HEALTH RISKS QUESTIONED
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 16, 2001


A series of studies this year cast doubt on charges that the Navy's practice bombing on Vieques island causes health problems for residents. Top Stories

The studies concluded that the Puerto Rican island's water supply was not contaminated by the live-fire exercises, nor were there ill-health effects from the use of depleted uranium ammunition in 1999. Meanwhile, the U.S. Public Health Service continues to study cancer rates on Vieques, after a limited analysis found a slightly higher rate among the island's 9,000 residents compared with Puerto Rico's 3.8 million citizens.

Congressional proponents of keeping the range open are citing the studies to refute Democratic Party claims that the 60-year-old range poses a health hazard to the residents of Vieques.

On the other hand, range opponents cite homegrown studies in Puerto Rico that concluded the bombing practices cause a variety of health problems.

President Bush last month overruled the Navy brass and handed a victory to protesters by deciding that the Navy must leave the island by May 2003. His policy shift leaves in limbo a federal law that mandates a Nov. 6 referendum that would allow Vieques' 6,400 registered voters to decide whether to keep or evict the Navy.

Mr. Bush wants the law repealed, but range backers such as Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, vow to retain the legislation. Mr. Inhofe and Navy admirals view Vieques as a crucial training ground for Atlantic Fleet carrier battle groups before they leave on dangerous deployments to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Liberal Democrats have led the protests to kick the Navy out. Despite Mr. Bush's compromise, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement last week linking the range to health problems.

"Many experts believe that the military exercises that take place on Vieques may be the reason that the island's residents suffer from higher illness and mortality rates than the rest of Puerto Rico," Mr. McAuliffe said. "The bombing of Vieques has gone on too long and done too much damage. The time for it to end is now, and the Democratic Party will not stop until it does."

Studies to date have looked at four issues:

1. Water contamination. The U.S. Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) tested the island's public drinking water supply and private wells.

"The public drinking water supply is not being impacted by the bombing range activities and is safe to drink," the agency reported.

The agency also found that water from virtually all wells was safe. The small exception was one private well that contained high levels of nitrates. The contamination, the report said, "is probably a result of agricultural or septic systems in the area," and not from the bombing range.

2. Radiation. Some protesters claim that the Navy's one-time use of depleted uranium anti-armor rounds from an attack jet resulted in higher than normal levels of radiation.

But a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) investigation found that "the levels of radiation detected in soil, vegetation and water by the NRC investigators are consistent with normal radiation background levels and do not represent a public health hazard."

3. Heart disease. Range critics claimed the noise from periodic bombings caused thickening of the heart muscle, or vibroacoustic disease. A local Puerto Rican medical school did a study that backed that claim.

But a follow-up study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health and School of Medicine rebutted those findings.

"Within the constraints of the data available, no inference can be made as to the role of noise from naval gunfire in producing echocardiographic abnormalities," the university concluded.

4. Cancer rates. Based only on raw data complied by the Puerto Rican government's cancer registry, Vieques has a slightly higher rate of the disease per 100,000 people per year than Puerto Rico's average.

But Bill Johnson, legislative director for Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican, says no conclusion can be drawn from that fact. He said the data compare the cancer rate of a 9,000-person island with rates for the entire 3.8 million-person territory, a process that can produce skewed numbers.

The raw data also show that both the Puerto Rican and Vieques cancer rates are well below the U.S. average.

The U.S. Public Health Service is now reviewing the information and will file a report later this summer.

El_Jíbaro notes:

Some QUACKS in Puerto Rico are going to lose their licenses to practice and teach Medicene in the USA over this PERPETRATED FRAUD, and those residents in Puerto Rico who have depended up 'til now on these "SNAKE OIL MERCHANTS" for their medical treatment should be seriously looking into suing the GOONS for MALPRACTICE...

OK, let me get it straight el_boricua:

You rather believe the homegrown studies ordered by a Clown Governor and made by local QUACKS over the RIGOROUS EXAMINATION made by WORLD RENOWNED Institutions with THOUSANDS of Qualified and Certified Scientists ?

Your paranoid prejudice towards the RIGOROUS EXAMINATION of the Vieques "studies" is much the same as believing Fidel Castro's own words on Communism and Human Rights over those of John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill .[b][i]

[EL_BORICUA]

OH,I see made in the U.S.A.
is much better,yea right
I do not believe any U.S.
govt. agency I do not
follow them blindly such
as yourself,but you are
blinded with your fanatical
attitude.

[Patria_y_LaPava]

THOUSANDS, thousands of scientists? It was basically a one man study with a couple of student helpers, who never went to Vieques, never talked to the people there. Just rounded up some information from the Navy, which funded this project, forcing one of the participants to quit after being payed THOUSANDS of dollars and they came to a conclusion under heat, money, no resources whatsoever that there were no link to the Navy even though the Navy payed them the big bucks, lol! ha! That is what you call a qualified study? I think not.....

It is true the Ponce School of Medicine might of been under the same pressure, but not for the world renowned doctors in Portugual who has been studying this for years and even got resources of effects from sonic booms from the Portuguese military. They came to the conclusion even though more resources were needed to get an exact link to the Navy, that there were something strange going on Vieques that was not going on on other nearby islands. I guess it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out whose responsible, and when you have toxic material, and 17 taxic waste dumps in your backyard, I guess you can blame the people who put them there, the NAVY.

P.S Either way, they are still going to leave, words from the Commander in Chief!

[Ronald]

So let me get this straight, If money was no object and your child had gotten very ill you would rather send him/her to Portugal or Centro Medico than to johns Hopskins.
I don't think so.

I get very tired of the same old reteric of utopia where nobody has to work and the government takes care of them.
It hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.

The only way independance will work for Puerto Rico or any other Nation is for everyone to do their fair share. I can't understand why people always think that there is an easy way out you sound like my daughter when she was ten.
Nothing is for free and freedom is the most costly of them all. Haven't you noticed that socialistic governments are ones with back breaking taxes or comunism.

I have read your document for indedance and don't see how you plan to pay for it. How are you going to pay the professors let alone take care of the buildings, granted you won't need much of a police force with no prohiitian laws, but you will need to build lots more hospitals to care for the sick from sexual and drug related illnesses.

What kind of industry does PR have to support all of this
they have little to no agriculture and one good hurricain will shut it down for at least a season maybe longer, are all you fruit trees producing fully after Georges. I know you bring more pharmacuticals here with thee lure of no taxes gtreat that means that yhe working class will have to pay for all these benifits unless of course PR jut happends to discover a large diposit of oil or gold or other presious natural resourse.

If you want to talk about independance talk with some sence, I have even heard someone talk about about having a civil war for what it is the people of PR who can't get off the pot they like daddy paying the bills if not why would they opt year after year to keep the staus quo.

Remember the USA will not deliver the mail build your roads, schools or subsidise your sociall programs so I ask again who will pay for it.

Ronald

[triptico]

Jibaro..
Bueno entonces los estudios de todas esas fuentes muestran que el bombardeo constante de decadas, no le hace ningun dano al publico ni al la naturaleza.
Contra, segun lo estas pintando los bombardeos han deser hasta saludables para la gente.
Y si son tan inofensivos por que no bombardean a Long Island?
Contra caballero un poquito de sentido comun, a quien se le ocurre que semejante abuso no va ha tener efectos degradantes en la salud del publico.
Te la voy a poner asi, si comes cerdo y mucha grasa que te pasa te mueres de un infarto. Ahora esto ocurre atravez de tal vez...50 anos.
Entonces,chico como es posible decadas de bombardeos no van ha tener un efecto noscivo en la salud. No si lo mas seguro es hasta saludable. Esto es sentido comun. Discute lo que quieras, el estatus, como mantener la independencia,los beneficios o desventajas de una u otra cosa, pero por favor no me vengas con una bobada de estas. Estas hablando de la misma gente que "disque explicaron cientificamente como una bala traspazo a tres personas dando curvas y retrocediendo mato a J.F.K." oh nome digas que tu eres de los que piensa que Lee Harvey lo hizo solito? si por que con esas pruebas que estas trayendo me suena que tu te creeiste "the magic bullet theory".
Asi que, pienso que si vaz a discutir el bombardeo usa otra perspectiva, por que eso que estas diciendo te hace ver inhumano y un poco iluso.
Leonel Uribe