Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1210.024 2006-2008 Page I o C 9 Hoffmann, Pete From: David L. Bigelow [up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:06 AM v To: Pete Hoffmann Subject: Fw: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii fir, c Pete, rv Here is the email thread we discussed via phone. Our community plan Rth]5 point is to put out the information first to the members of the horggbwners''.- association who paid for the testing, and then share it with the Big-Islam community at large. We are making no comment at this time - the results speak for themselves. Regards, Dave Bigelow Waiki'i Ranch Homeowners' Association From: Parrish, Randy Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:24 AM To: David L. Bigelow Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Hello David, We've done your sample today. I will send you a report with a proper data table, description of the method and interpretive comments probably next week (along with a bill!) but I wanted to let you know that the sample is returning a natural uranium isotope value and a concentration that is entirely consistent with wind blown rock type concentrations of uranium. In other words, no DU is found and if it is there it represents less than 1% of the uranium in the sample and is below our detection limit. About 80 mg of dust was processed by leaching with nitric acid and my guess is that about 15-20mg of it was actually dissolved with the rest representing silicate rock material that did not dissolve in the leaching acid. Any DU would have dissolved in this treatment if it were a metal or metal oxide composition. Anyway I wanted to put your mind at rest over this and let you know I will provide the data properly shortly. Randy Parrish From: Parrish, Randy Sent: 30 June 2008 15:42 To: 'David L. Bigelow' Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Hello David, The dust samples and a number of other soils samples were processed chemically last week. The analysis will not likely be done this week, but there is a chance of it. Next week after much more likely barring any problems. C!lm% Ref. Tos a' 7/2/2008 Ref. Dote JUL_2 Page 2 of 9 Randy From: David L. Bigelow [mailto:up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: 29 June 2008 18:38 To: Parrish, Randy Subject: Fw: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Professor Parrish, Just checking on the progress of our testing. Our County Council is hearing a resolution this week by local activists that assumes DU particles are airborne from army training activity at the local firing ranges. Since we are the closest inhabitants to the range, there is considerable interest in the results of the dust sample tests. Our position is, that we are interested only in knowing the facts - not participating in a response based on possibility. Council members would like to know the results before taking any action. Any chance of getting the results early this week? Thanks, Dave Bigelow Waiki'i Ranch, Hawaii From: David L. Bigelow Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:43 PM To: Parrish, Randy Subject: Re: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii No problem here - hope you are feeling better. Take it easy, even when you start feeling strong again. That one takes some time to heal, and it is easy to re-injure before fully healed. Regards, Dave Bigelow From: Parrish, Randy Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:02 PM To: David L._ Bigelow Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii I am delayed a bit but we do have an analytical push over the next few weeks, and so doing your sample will be during June. Hope this is OK. Sorry for any inconvenience - I was off work with a hernia surgery last month and it set me back a bit. Randy Parrish From: David L. Bigelow [mailto:up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: 09 June 2008 22:27 To: Parrish, Randy Subject: Re: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii 7/2/2008 Page 3 of 9 Importance: High Professor Parrish, Haven't heard anything back from you regarding the test results. Are we close to having some answers? We are ready to send funds in payment as soon as we know the amount and specifics. Thanks, Dave Bigelow Waiki'i Ranch, Hawaii From: Parrish, Randy Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:58 AM To: David L. Bigelow Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Just letting you know that the package has arrived. Randy From: David L. Bigelow [mailto:up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: 15 April 2008 01:40 To: Parrish, Randy Cc: Katherine Augustine; Lucky Puhi; Jim Warson; Richard C Cornuelle; Alyce Payton; David Higgins; Frank Atherton; Steve Grasso; T.J. McAniff Subject: Re: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Professor Parrish, I sent the dust samples your way today via international first class mail. They were gathered from the rain sheltered eaves of a building that has been in place for a little over 20 years. There is some organic material such as bird droppings, insect parts, etc. with the dust. I didn't make any attempt to separate the components of the sample, assuming that you are better equipped to do that than I am. The implications of whether or not the local community has had any exposure to DU are a sensitive issue, so the gathering of the sample was a two man process. The Ranch Manager and I jointly gathered the sample, and took some photos of our efforts. I split the sample into two portions, one to be sent to you, and the other to be kept in the custody of the Ranch Manager, and not available to me. This is probably overkill, but does assure a level of integrity of the process in case any doubt arises. I remember from my university organic chemistry days how much more involved quantitative analysis is than qualitative analysis. I'm not sure if that type of testing even applies here, but it would be useful to us if any level of DU 7/2/2008 Page 4 of 9 is found, to have some discussion of the amount (i.e. trace versus a whole bunch). Also, a notation of your ability to distinguish between natural levels of uranium isotopes versus DU would be useful too. Your report will be mostly read by lay persons, so besides the technical results, a simple summary in language they can understand will be helpful. You can email a PDF copy of the report followed with the hard copy by mail to save time. Thanks for your help. David L. Bigelow 67-1158 Pakila Road Kamuela, HI 96743-5607 Phone: 808 885-9004 Original Message From: Parrish, Randy To: David L. Bigelow Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:41 PM Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii David, Answers below and thanks. From: David L. Bigelow [mailto:up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: 30 March 2008 23:59 To: Parrish, Randy Subject: Re: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Professor Parrish, Thanks for the reply. Our Board of Directors has authorized me to go ahead with the testing. Would you let me know some specifics, and I will proceed with gathering the samples? 1. How would you recommend I package the sample? Bottle, plastic baggie in an envelope, etc? Double or triple small zip lock plastic lugs are fine. 2. Shipping details? Air Mail post or courier are fine. Address; Prof R Parrish NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory British Geological Survey Keyworth, Notts, NG12 SGG United Kingdom 7/2/2008 Page 5 of 9 tel: country code 44 115 9363427 fax: country code 44 115 936 3302 3. How should I pay you? we can invoice one the work is done. 4. We have several older buildings on the Ranch where I plan to collect samples. Does it really matter at this point if I co-mingle the samples into one batch? considering the distance from the DU source, I doubt it. Since you are keen to document, yes or no, the presence of DU then amalgamated samples should tell you that initially; if you got a high DU signal, then you might want to do some more work. The more you put together in the initial phase, the fewer samples and the lower the cost to you. 5. We've had some concern expressed regarding our water supply. We pump water from 4,000 feet below ground level, so it seems doubtful that any, contamination from a surface source is present. I could send you a water sample also. Is there any protocol for collection and storage of water samples, and how much would testing a sample add to the price you quoted? I suspect you are right to be doubtful and my advice is not to spend your money on testing. deep groudwater unecessarily. If there is afot of DU on'the surface, it is more likely to* have surface water contamination, but this in itself is not necessarily a hazard. What we recommend here is get a clean 1 L Nalgene bottle (new) and to pre- clean it with reagent grade nitric or hydrochloric acid, and then`rince several times with deionized water. If it comes down to it, we can prepare and supply bottles for you. The NY report is good science, and well done. I could detect no bias or agenda in the report. I'm very interested in any follow-up health studies that take u. place. It's actually quite encouraging that these people, who have probably had the highest level of exposure and contamination of anyone, are still alive; " 20 years later. s Thanks, three prestigious journals refused to"even review it, so it was a struggle to get that work published, though I don't know why. The health`s ,~<3 situation in NY is still up in the air; I rather think there are a number of.peo that have had problems from the hazard, but there is as yet no decent pG i etiw v a . . health study, amazing but true. , Looking forward to hearing from you, David L. Bigelow` ` ay Waiki'i Ranch Homeowners' Association Original Message ry 7/2/2008 Page 6 of 9 From: Parrish, Randy To: David L. Bigelow Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:35 PM Subject: RE: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Thanks David for getting contact. What you are proposing - collecting accumulated 'dry' dust that may preserve evidence of DU dust deposition - is exactly the kind of thing you should do in order to get some idea of the extent of DU accumulation, if any, by the wind. By sampling in sheltered areas, away from the elements (i.e. rain), that have been undisturbed, you will find a DU signal if it is present. We did this in our study of the Colonie NY area (see attached recent paper that I am sure you will find of interest) and it has proved a treasure trove of the DU aerosols, with us finding abundant tiny grains of DU oxides that we have analysed. Being much farther from the source this might be alot less likely, but the dusts are the place to look. This might seem like an ad hoc method, but it will be useful - if you put up air filters now, you may find nothing if there is no active DU dust production in the firing range. If you collected soil, you could find DU but due to rainfall, erosion, and biological activity, that signal could be considerably modified and in any case there will be variation from place to place due to rain and erosion that will make the interpretation of the results no less difficult to interpret than the 'sheltered dry' dusts you propose to sample. We do this sort of analysis commonly and would be happy to do this for you as well. Considering the differential between the dollar and the UK pound, you will find our method expensive at approximately £300 or around $600 to you. If you had relatively high concentrations of DU (a few parts per million or more) then you could probably get a less expensive isotope test done more locally or at least by someone else in the US (if you could persuade them to do so). But if the concentration is not so high, then less expensive tests may not find the DU that is there. Our test is the best available, very sensitive, and will provide a confident isotope composition (the definitive indicator of presence of DU) and concentration. (see attached paper) You could start your investigation by collecting perhaps only a few samples and sending us aliquots or portions of each, and we could proceed with analysis. Depending on what we find, you may realise there is not an issue, or alternatively you may want to set up some more elaborate study involving air filters. The analysis of air filters is more challenging since the quantity of dust available on them needs to be sufficient to allow a good analysis to take place. In the soils or dusts, we would probably process 100 mg of dust. 100mg of stuff on an air filter is something you would get only with a very dusty place on a fairly sizeable filter for a considerable collection period. I doubt that 'pristine' Hawaiian ecology is anything like that dusty. Anyway happy to provide you with a proper quotation and to undertake some work, or, I am happy to help discuss the issue with you to help you understand the issue or go about designing how most effiently to get at the solution to your problem. Best regards, Randy Parrish Our website: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/nigl/ From: David L. Bigelow (mailto:up_country@hotmail.com] Sent: 20 March 2008 05:13 To: Parrish, Randy 7/2/2008 Page 7 of 9 Subject: Fw: Testing DU Munitions Dust in Hawaii Dear Professor Parrish, I represent Waiki'i Ranch, a ranch community on the Big Island of Hawaii. The Army has recently admitted using DU munitions in the 1960's at the Pohakuloa Military Training Area. PTA borders our community, and the area where the munitions were fired is 8 - 10 miles away. The prevailing winds blow directly towards us from PTA over 12 hours per day. The Army has put in two air sampling stations next to our border, but has resisted our attempts to set up a joint access and joint custody arrangement for the samples. Without a high level of integrity of the sampling process, we believe any results are suspect. We are considering gathering dust samples from the eaves areas (protected from washing by rain) of older building on the ranch and having them analyzed by a reliable and independent lab to check for uranium isotopes. If contamination is found, then we plan putting in an air sampling station. You were recommended (see email thread below) as a source for testing. If this is feasible, would you send particulars on how you recommend we proceed? Thanks, David L. Bigelow 67-1158 Pakila Road Kamuela, HI 96743-5607 808 885-9004 Original Message From: Anne Rabe To: anne@besafenet.com ; David L Bigelow ; Anne Rabe Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:45 AM Subject: Re: Testing DU munitions dust in Hawaii David, Here is the response from geology Prof. Arnason on your request. "Based on our experience in Colonie, it may be difficult to detect the presence of any depleted uranium at 8-10 miles from the source. The ability to detect will depend on how much DU was deposited on Waiki'i Ranch and on the concentration of natural uranium in the soil. The more DU deposited and the smaller the natural U concentration, the easier it will be to detect. Dust samples from protected eaves are the best bet for finding DU. Another place to look would be in soils below roof driplines, as these would concentrate atmospherically deposited DU. Uranium isotope analysis would be the best indicator of DU contamination. I think it would be best to contact Randy and Nick about what minimum concentration would be needed to detect DU and where is the best lab to have this done. Uranium Isotopic analysis of soil and dust will be much cheaper than the urine analysis. " 7/2/2008 Page 8 of 9 You can contact Professor Randy Parrish at NERC Isotope Laboratory, Univ of Leicester to ask questions about testing at rrp@nig_l.nerc._ac.uk Anne Rabe, CCNL Original Message From: Anne Rabe To: anne@besafenet.com ; David L. Bigelow Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:49 PM Subject: Testing DU munitions dust in Hawaii Dear David, Attached is information about the scientist's findings of DU internal contamination in people, as well as household dust contamination. I am copying this email to Professor John Arnason at SUNY Albany (geology) to see if he can provide you with the requested recommendation on where to have adequate sampling done on dust. (John, please see email below about DU munitions contamination.) The highly sensitive sampling of our household dust was largely done by Nick Lloyd and Professor Parrish at the NERC Isotope Laboratory in England. It could be expensive. If Prof. Arnason thinks your sampling should also be done with the high sensitivity testing equipment, we can provide the British laboratory contact information. Thanks. Anne Rabe CCNL Original Message From: David L. Bigelow To: anne@besafenet.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 5:19 PM Subject: DU in Hawaii Anne, I represent Waiki'i Ranch, a ranch community on the Big Island of Hawaii. The Army has recently admitted using DU munitions in the 1960's at the Pohakuloa Military Training Area. PTA borders our community, and the area where the munitions were fired is 8 - 10 miles away. The prevailing winds blow directly towards us from PTA over 12 hours per day. The Army has put in two air sampling stations next to our border, but has resisted our attempts to set up a joint access and joint custody arrangement for the samples. Without a high level of integrity of the sampling process, we believe any results are suspect. We are considering gathering dust samples from the eaves areas (protected from washing by rain) of older building on the ranch and having them analyzed by a reliable and independent lab to check for uranium isotopes. If contamination is found, then we plan putting in an air sampling station. 7/2/2008 . Page 9 of 9 Would you recommend a lab that can do qualitative analysis of dust samples? It's important that the lab is independent. We have no agenda, other than finding out if we are being (and have been) exposed to DU particles. Also, any info you have on the New York findings will be appreciated. Thanks, David L. Bigelow 67-1158 Pakila Road Kamuela, HI 96743-5607 808 885-9004 his message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the ontents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material upplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. 7/2/2008