Some think Jet Fuel is a GWS exposure

[Margaret Diann]

Maybe because of the additives in JP-5 & certain other jet fuels, they are right! http://www.valdezlink.com/gw_jetfuel.htm

It's already been discussed on this forum

Jet Fuel Sometimes contains a Pesticide http://www.valdezlink.com/jet_fuel.htm

JP-5 and JP-8 Potential for Human Exposure (17 pdf pages)
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp121-c5.pdf

Thanks, Bob M. for bringing this up.

If so, it may be a cause of some families not having children, too.

[Hardball]

Anyone who has served aboard an aircraft carrier knows the intensity of the amounts of burning JP-5 flowing through the air.

Flight operations vary in duration, mainly as a function of how many aircraft the carrier is trying to get airborne or back aboard during each event.

Most flight deck personnel have the ability to maneuver themselves into positions on the deck where the jet exhaust is less intense, and where over-deck winds provide fresh air. Obviously, there are personnel whose duties force them into locations on the deck where the exhaust can become pretty thick.

In my case, as a Naval Aircrewman in the backseat of the S-3 Viking aircraft, many times the intensity of JP-5 exhaust was probably one of the worst locations on the flight deck.

Other aircraft, at least aboard my boat, were in a different situation. Tomcat and Intruder aircrew sat relatively high above the deck, and usually away from the direct exhaust flow.

Aboard the USS Ranger , standard ops was to place two Vikings nose to tail, parallel to the superstructure(in the "gut").

Not only were there at least 6 aircraft directly forward of the gut, but SOP was to have a row of A-6 Intruders parked side to side, on our port side. (so we were in the direct line of fire of multiple A-6 exhaust pipes.

The Viking is a different bird... its crew entrance is on the starboard side of the fuselage, and is near ground level.
During flight ops, the crew entry hatch was usually left open for the entire start-up evolution, and left open until the last minute while Aviation Electronic Technicians jumped in and out to troubleshoot any problems we might have in the massive computer system aboard the Viking.

On a regular basis, the exhaust from both the birds parked forward of us, and to the port of us, poured into our cabin; so bad at times that tears were running down my face from my watering eyes. Add extreme humitiy, high ambient temprature during operations near the equator, and minimal wind-over deck speeds, and you've got a recipe for chewable JP-5.

But that was SOP too. O2 Masks were part of our flight gear, but were usually only used during high altitude flight; they provided a welcomed relief when the exhaust got heavy during flight-ops.

Again, I know there are many flight deck personnel who probably have stories of swallowing their share of JP-5 exhaust, but I am merely explaining my experiences during my 3 year Fleet duties, which included 14 months of at-sea time, and hundreds of carrier launches.

We don't want to forget that EVERYONE who has served aboard a carrier will agree that the common refrain was, the water served aboard ship "tasted like JP-5"

My question is, (very unscientific) that if JP-5 is a culprit in GWS, then why have hundreds of thousands of men (women just recently) who served in Flight Operations at sea and on land since the Jet-Age began, have not shown symptoms mentioned in the above argument?

HB

[Margaret Diann]

"...if JP-5 is a culprit in GWS, then why have hundreds of thousands of men (women just recently) who served in Flight Operations at sea and on land since the Jet-Age began, have not shown symptoms mentioned in the above argument?

I believe there are many, many more who do have.

Some exposure is tolerable - Just not the levels received by the gulf war troops - What were the known exposures? & I can give you a couple more besides that that they probably aren't aware of.

The question is, how much exposure in this source, and others? I feel the reason the GW vets as a group had such a dramatic 'showing' of harm is that they didn't know what chemicals to monitor exposure to ... and they were exposed OVER and OVER and OVER ...

So, how much exposure to solvents in weapon cleaning;
how much exposure to solvents in cleaning/degreasers?
ETC
ETC
ETC

[Hardball]

At least from your "Profile", I gather that you are not a veteran, ergo, you have no experience or first-hand knowledge of the subject to which you speak. But I may be wrong. You may be just one of those vets that don't want anyone to know that you served.

Either way, the guys I served with aboard the USS Ranger, and in other situations were constantly covered with solvents, degreasers, oil and other "toxic" chemicals at the very same time they were gulping down JP-5 exhaust fumes. Many of them with 10-20 years of service under their belts.

Shipboard environment is considered one of the most dangerous jobs on earth.

The photo you are using in this thread to bolster your point is a red herring. It makes me believe you are showing how troops out in the field would use JP-5 to fuel campfires, and somehow the fumes leads to GWS.

What if the real culprit is the chemicals in the trash they were burning?

I'll never speak for my fellow service members who had to live in the desert during DS, but I would bet there are some in this forum, (such as David) who could enlighten us as to the amount of:
"exposure to solvents in weapon cleaning;
how much exposure to solvents in cleaning/degreasers?"
To quote you.

I'm just praying that any chemical exposure I may have incurred during my service creates a cancer that will combat my potential liver cancer from drinking to much, my lung cancer from smoking, and my intestinal cancer from eating too many burritos and not enough fiber.

HB

[Margaret Diann]

The photo was given to me by a gulf war vet. He had the 'leathery skin' on his upper thighs where he put his weapon cleaning rag. He said he had the duty of using jet fuel to burn the 'out house' stuff.

Though I believe these solvents have been around hurting people everywhere for the past 50 years ...

I also believe that after 1989, a bad experimental compound called Corexit got into the military - maybe added to many things it had already been in before - This compound was 38% 2-butoxyethanol & maybe some ethylene oxide, too.

What went wrong during the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup was
2-butoxyethanol (aka ethylene glycol monobutyl ether)
TOO strong in Inipol EAP 22.

... TOO strong in Corexit

AND the young men in the experiment had TOO much time exposure

AND they had no APPROPRIATE protective gear.
(Sometimes housekeepers tried to wash off these solvents with other solvents - they are an injured group, too - So is the US Coast Guard who monitored the 'bioremediation' experiment; and the US Navy who handled the Corexit. Find them and you can do your own study!)

Read the MSDS for CLP and you will see that for repetitive use, you are not protected without goggles and chemical retardant gloves (I suspect this same chemical - but nowhere can I find what the solvent is. The co. should not 'get off' by claiming 'proprietary.)

Who I am

Find this Corexit 9527 & you will do the military and the USA a favor

All these cancers you mention ... just possibly ... may not be from the things you mention. They could all be caused from such a chemical over-exposure. Are you agitated over nothing ... a lot? Are you fatigued? A quick way to rule this chemical in or out is to have the "Retic Ratio" done next time you get a physical. AND ask the lab tech to comment on the size and shape of the red blood cells.

AND do you have any of these symptoms of approaching hemolytic anemia?
Chills
Fatigue
Pale color
Shortness of breath
Rapid heart rate
Yellow skin color (jaundice)
Dark urine (indicative of blood in urine - never dismiss this! Stop exposure immediately!)
Enlarged spleen

AND, then it targets the kidneys and liver and there is
Central Nervous System damage showing up sometimes as
Loose your temper easily?
Short term memory loss
Difficulty concentrating
Personality changes to 'grumpy' - Extreme Irritability
All the time Depression
Suicidal Tendencies

Maybe doctors should start asking more of these questions

Endocrine Disruption; I wonder whether Attorney General John Ashcroft might be a victim as well?

See an endocrinologist and hematologist BEFORE the neurologist

[Hawk]

Maggie, I think you are missing the main point of Hardballs post,
or you are just chosing to ignore the point he is raising.

wouldn't this lead to more vets having the symptoms you are targeting. Would'nt there be more vets that are sick?
if this toxic exposure is so severe why are'nt more no desert storm vets sick? Would'nt this have become an issue before
the Gulf War or the current conflicts?

You have a unique angle on the cause for GWS, but you still haven't accounted/discounted the multitude of other possible causes.

[Margaret Diann]

I thought there were a lot of vets with symptoms

It will be the medical evidence that tells the tale.

So far - the indepth look at red blood cells has not been done.

[Hawk]

margaret, your doing it again taking something out of context, or perhaps misunderstanding what was posted. to clarify,

yes, there are many vets with GWS symptoms, that were on active duty during the gulf war both those that were deployed and those that were not deployed.

again, to quote my earlier post;
"I think you are missing the main point of Hardballs post,
or you are just chosing to ignore the point he is raising."

I am refering to a sum total of all veterans, to include those on active duty and those from before the Gulf War, if the use of corexit was so wide spread through out the military it would stand to reason there would be a large number of veterans with similar symptoms.

As this debate has gone on long enough, and it has shown your
singleminded goal to the exclusion of all other possible causes, :re:
(although you did finally admit there maybe other causes of GWS)

the debate has served it purpose. I will trouble you no longer.

Hawk :cl:

[Margaret Diann]

... and I thank you for your input over several months and several discussion forums

Thanks, Hawk

If I start my own discussion forum, you will be the first one invited!

What domain name would be appropriate - for someone like me who wants to address the harm of this chemical to many people over many different times - including today ... ?