Safeguarding Our Troops
By The IntelligencerThe Department of Defense's pledge to monitor the health of soldiers - including several from our area - exposed to a dangerous chemical is good news, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller point out last week.
But we agree with Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who pointed out that the government's decision does not answer troubling, important questions.
As we have reported, several Ohio Valley residents are among West Virginia National Guard members who filed a lawsuit over their exposure to the carcinogenic chemical sodium dichromate. They were among hundreds of troops exposed to the chemical while guarding a water plant in Iraq during 2003.
Rockefeller has demanded answers from the Pentagon concerning why the soldiers were exposed and why the Army waited so long to help them.
During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs last week, a Moundsville Guardsman, Russell Powell, testified about his exposure to sodium dichromate while in Iraq. "At no time were we offered any kind of protective clothing, masks or respirators to protect us," Powell testified.
Rockefeller, a member of the committee, noted that he had received a letter from Gen. Eric Shinseki, who is secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, on the issue. Shinseki promised that veterans exposed to the chemical will receive medical monitoring to determine whether they are suffering ill-effects.
While Rockefeller praised Shinseki for the decision, he pointed out that it is "a national disgrace" that action has been delayed for so long.
We agree. It is not as if the government was not aware of the dangers of sodium dichromate, a chemical that was the focus of the "Erin Brockovich" film in 2000. That movie chronicled Brockovich's fight against a company over sodium dichromate pollution.
Why were hundreds of American troops exposed to the chemical without warnings or protection? Why has it taken the government years to admit that something needs to be done about those mistakes? Rockefeller is right: More needs to be known about what happened at the water plant in Iraq - and Congress needs to receive believable assurances from the government that steps are being taken to avoid similar errors in the future.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
beanranch
|
|
|---|---|
|
10-12-09 11:36 PM
|
Let's not forget depleted uranium exposure, also.
|
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|
10-12-09 9:30 AM
|
Supervisors of KBR (which was a subsidiary of Halliburton) told the workers that the 'orange' substance at the Qarmat Alia plant was merely a mild irritant. KBR is citing the Defense Base Act as grounds to reject the workers' request for damages. footnote: Same contractor who avoided payroll taxes for its employees by hiring its workers thru two subsidiaries registered in the Cayman Islands. That strategy let KBR dodge hundreds of millions in Social Security and Medicare taxes. "mistakes"?.."errors"?...only now it seems.
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
10-12-09 8:30 AM
|
"Why were hundreds of American troops exposed to the chemical without warnings or protection?" Can you say because the media let it happen? There were signs of problems. Why has it taken the government years to admit that something needs to be done about those mistakes? Again if you look, dems (not repubs) in DC were having hearings about those mistakes and some in the media took it as an opportunity to play politics instead of standing up for the troops.
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
10-12-09 8:28 AM
|
During the last administration when Democrats were having hearings in DC concerning the treatment of troops by KBR and other contractors, didn't this paper write an editorial criticizing those dems for the hearings and called the hearings a waste of time? At the time, our troops were being electrocuted in showers, built by contractors.
|
|
EllisWyatt
|
|
|
10-12-09 6:14 AM
|
Why were thousands of Wheeling area residents exposed to the chemicals in the city's water? Will the city pay for medical monitoring for those who might be affected? The people were not told until after the fact, and then only to comply with a law.
|