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
Why Don’t We Take The Government To Court?
Thomas D. Segel
Harlingen, Texas, June 4, 2010: Having never been a lawyer or even playing one on television may place me at a disadvantage. But, I do read the English language quite well. From everything I have seen in print, the American people have every right to take the entire United States Government into court.
According to legal definition, every elected federal government official is a “Fiduciary” of the American people. The fiduciary is “someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter of circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.”
Using this definition, the President of the United States, the Vice President and all members of Congress have a fiduciary duty to every citizen of the United States. That duty demands the highest standard of care at either equity or law. Protecting the United States borders against all illegal entry would fall well within that scope of responsibility.
It can be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility when actions are not taken on behalf of those placed in positions of trust. Since all elected federal officials have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and it is a constitutional duty to defend the borders of the country. That defense of the border and the laws of immigration become a fiduciary responsibility of all elected federal officials. The daily violations of those borders and the millions of illegal aliens now in the United States are clear proof that all of these officials have failed in that duty.
To bring suit against these government officials, citizens must understand that the federal government, like another entity that causes harm to innocent people can be charged with violations of law that damage citizens. There may be a question as to the nature of such charges, be they criminal or civil. A case could be argued on behalf of either.
It could also be argued that failure to enforce secure borders leads to property damage, the killing of livestock, theft, and as we now see in Arizona, even murder. That would mean those officials who through their inaction or inattention have brought about these violations of our borders have even participated or have been party to criminal acts.
If we were to look at the failure to secure our borders from a civil framework, all costs brought about by individual citizens seeking to protect themselves and their property, all property losses, all business losses, etc. could be claimed and sought as damages from those officials who failed in their fiduciary responsibility.
The federal government has, by its own politically motivated actions and inactions placed itself in opposition to the American people. Maybe it is time that we all hold them accountable for their conduct and their failure to respond to the will of the people. We should do that utilizing every tool at our disposal.
Semper Fidelis
Thomas D. Segel
tomsegel@sbcglobal.net
