WSU to Study Iraq Toxins' Effect
Spokesman-Review
by Bert Caldwell
Research to examine how exposure might damage offspring of soldiers
Washington State University scientists will use a $1.7 million grant to study what multi-generation genetic damage might be done by toxins U.S. troops could encounter in Iraq.
The research using laboratory rats, not humans, will be the first for the military to examine the epigenetic effects of pesticides, herbicides and other compounds, said lead scientist Michael Skinner, director of the university's Center for Reproductive Biology.
Previous studies have looked at the health effects of other substances, notably the Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles in Vietnam, on the soldiers directly exposed, he said, not on their children or grandchildren.
"The science really had not caught up with the trans-generational stuff," said Skinner, one of several WSU pioneers in the field of epigenetic, or multi-generational, inheritance.
Besides herbicides and pesticides – which and in what combinations has not been determined – the study also will look at the effects of explosives residues, he said.
The four-year study will allow researchers to see how any changes in genetic chemistry that develop are passed along through two subsequent generations of rats, he said, noting that only the first two years of research have been funded.
Among the problems that might develop are kidney disease, or changes in the male and female reproductive organs, he said.
If any genetic markers are identified in rats, Skinner said, follow-up research could look at whether they might show up among members of the military as well.
That would be of particular interest to Dave Holmes, interim chief operating officer of the Institute for Systems Medicine, which was awarded the U.S. Department of Defense grant passed through to Skinner.
Holmes' son, Tim Hammond, did two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps.
"They sprayed all kinds of stuff on them," Holmes said.
Although the grant money, the first awarded ISM, will fund work in Pullman, he said the organization's supporters hope any subsequent clinical studies will be done in Spokane.
"There's a lot of excitement about making it happen," he said.
"Fighting for Our Veterans-Supporting Our Troops"
Proudly Serving All Branches & All Eras Since 1999
Search Our Site Below
Entire web
Mojave Cross replaced, then removed
06:30 AM PDT on Friday, May 21, 2010
By BEN GOAD and DUG BEGLEY
The Mojave Cross saga took yet another unexpected turn Thursday, when the contested symbol that vanished last week reappeared briefly before being taken down by federal officials.
National Park Service officials learned Thursday morning that a cross again was on top of Sunrise Rock, about 10 miles south of Interstate 15 near Cima Road, a sparsely traveled route into the Mojave National Preserve. It's about 30 miles east of Baker.
Some version of the cross has stood there for 75 years as a tribute to fallen World War I soldiers. Vandals made off with the cross May 9, 10 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it could remain pending the outcome of a decade-long court battle over whether it should be permitted on public land.
Once federal officials discovered Thursday that it was a replica of the stolen cross, the Justice Department said it had to be taken down.
"It just gets crazier and crazier," said Wanda Sandoz, who together with her husband, Henry, has acted as a caretaker for the cross for more than 25 years.
The employees removed the replica because a court injunction is in place that prevents any cross from being displayed at the site, Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the National Park Service, said in a phone interview.
To verify the authenticity of the cross, the Park Service turned to their expert. On Thursday afternoon, the maintenance man tasked with replacing the plywood box when it is ripped away or covered with graffiti examined the new cross.
After determining that it had had none of the scratches and nicks the previous one had, he determined that it was a replica.
"We're still under a court injunction," Slater said. "We have to take it down."
Replica appears
The person or persons who put up the replica came prepared. Two protruding bolts left from the old cross -- rusted and jagged from being cut -- were encased in a concrete pad upon which the new cross was placed. Four new bolts stood atop a metal plate to keep the replacement cross in place.
But by late Thursday afternoon, all that remained was the new, neatly constructed concrete pad, the four bolts, and a pile of nuts and washers likely removed when the replica was toppled by park rangers.
Two older pieces of the original cross were also scattered about the top, said Aaron Frizzell, the Sandozes' grandson.
"They're just disappointed about the whole thing," Frizzell said of his grandparents. "They've worked so long, and it's just been a long couple months."
Frizzell, 23, rushed to the rock after work Thursday at the request of his grandparents. He said his family remains optimistic that a cross, whether the original or a new one, again will stand on Sunrise Rock.
If it takes longer than his grandparents can wait, Frizzell said he's ready to do his part.
"If the time comes, I'm going to take up the cause," he said. "Grandpa has told me, he won't be here forever, but I'm ready."
Court ruling
The cross' theft, replacement and removal come on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed it to stand while a lower court revisited its legality.
At issue in the case is the American Civil Liberty Union's contention that the cross, the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity, violates the constitutional provision barring the government from endorsing any religion.
Proponents of the cross, including the Sandoz family and several national veterans groups, say the memorial is meant not as a religious symbol, but was erected in 1934 by a group of veterans who wanted to honor their fallen brethren.
Henry Sandoz has twice replaced vandalized versions of the memorial since the mid-1980s, when he promised the last surviving man who built the original cross that he would preserve it.
Meanwhile, federal courts have twice ordered it down, siding with the ACLU. But late last month, a divided Supreme Court handed down a victory for the cross' supporters. The court concluded that the federal district court in Riverside failed to give proper weight to a land swap meant to solve the constitutional problem.
Under the swap, engineered by Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, and approved by Congress in 2003, the acre beneath and surrounding the cross would move into the possession of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In exchange the Sandoz family agreed to give five acres of their land within the preserve's outer boundary to the government.
With the legal battle unresolved, the cross was allowed to remain. But in accordance with the earlier rulings, it was covered in plywood pending the final outcome.
Disappearance
But before the lower court had a chance to revisit the case, the seven-foot cross -- which was made from iron pipes filled with concrete and bolted to the rock and welded there for good measure -- disappeared.
The National Park Service launched an investigation, which led them to a High Desert newspaper that received an e-mail containing an explanation for the theft, purportedly written by the person who carried it out. Citing an agreement made with the e-mail's sender, the newspaper declined to hand over the e-mail itself or share the address of the sender with authorities.
However, the paper published the e-mail's text, which said the cross was taken in response to the Supreme Court decision. Taking it down was not intended as an affront to Christians or veterans, but rather as anti-discrimination gesture, according to its author, who claimed to be a veteran.
Veterans groups are offering a reward for information leading to a conviction of whoever removed the cross, and the National Park Service law enforcement officers set up a tip hot line.
But they haven't yet received any information leading to a suspect, Slater said. She declined to say whether authorities would seek a subpoena for the e-mail.
