• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF Bud Man: Sappers Exposed to Bad Stuff in Kuwait Post-Gulf I

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,949
Points
1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

MSM media article, Minister's response follows....

Ombudsman Finds that the Health Concerns of Canadian Forces Veterans were Ignored
Ombudsman office news release, 1 Nov 06
http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mediaRoom/newsReleases/2006/11-01_e.asp

Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Yves Côté, today released a special report, entitled Heroism Exposed: An Investigation into the Treatment of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment Kuwait Veterans (1991), regarding the treatment received by Canadian Forces members exposed to toxic environmental substances more than a decade and a half ago.

The Ombudsman’s report follows a comprehensive, three-year investigation into concerns raised by Major (Ret’d) Fred Kaustinen, former Deputy Commanding Officer of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment, that members of his Regiment were exposed to harmful substances throughout their deployment to Kuwait in 1991, and that their significant health concerns were systematically ignored during, and after, their service to Canada.

“It is clear from our investigation that members of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment discharged their responsibilities with exemplary courage and dedication to duty that demands special recognition,” stated Mr. Côté. But he added, “It troubles me greatly that the legitimate health concerns of these proud veterans were not given the weight and respect that they deserved.” ....



Combat engineers exposed to Gulf War contaminants: ombudsman
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 1 Nov 06
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/061101/n110165A.html

OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian combat engineers serving in Kuwait in the aftermath of the first Gulf War were exposed to a noxious cocktail of chemicals, including depleted uranium, the Canadian Forces ombudsman said Wednesday.

In a scathing 46-page report, Yves Cote concluded the army did little to protect soldiers from the environmental hazards posed by burning oil wells, set alight by retreating Iraqi forces in 1991.

There's no definite link between exposure to the smoke, as well as to burning ammunition containing depleted uranium, and health concerns raised by soldiers after the deployment, Cote said.

But the military systematically ignored complaints from many of the roughly 350 soldiers who took part in the Kuwait mission, his report concludes.

"The Canadian Forces was aware that burning oil wells posed air quality issues; however, the provisions that were made to protect personnel were limited and not universally applied," said Cote.

"Also ground personnel lacked an adequate supply of protective equipment. Following our investigation, I also found the legitimate health concerns . . . were not given the weight and respect they deserved."

The initial complaint that prompted the investigation by the military watchdog came from the unit's former second-in-command.

"This is fantastic," retired Maj. Fred Kaustinen said of the report's findings.

"We have a world-class health system in Canada and we have world-class soldiers.

"Somehow these world-class soldiers were denied our own health system. It's great that a leader in our system has stepped up and said these guys didn't get what they deserved."

During a three-year investigation, begun under Cote's predecessor Andre Marin, former engineers complained of a variety of health issues, including breathing trouble, unexplained headaches and tumours.

Cote also discovered that the medical files of some soldiers who served in Kuwait have key pieces of information missing - documents that soldiers were assured would be there should they ever report any health concerns.

"At some point in time there were pieces of paper that may have been on an individual's files that were removed, but this may not be a sinister move," said Cote.

Given that 15 years have passed, it could have been a bureaucratic exercise or an oversight, he said.

Six years ago, a board of inquiry into concerns Canadian peacekeepers in Croatia were exposed to toxic chemicals in 1993 found that information was deliberately removed from the medical files of those soldiers. A non-commissioned officer was disciplined over the incident involving troops who served in the Medak Pocket.

The Croatian investigation also found that the Defence Department did not keep proper track of who served in the Balkan operation. It recommended better recordkeeping, a measure that has yet to implemented six years later.

Cote not only discovered deployment lists for the engineers in Kuwait to be incomplete, but also records of who has been serving in Afghanistan.

He said it's important, especially if soldiers currently overseas ever need a paper trail to present to Veterans Affairs for benefits and compensation.

Like their Croatian counterparts, engineers who served in the Gulf have had trouble applying for benefits "primarily because they were unable to document the fact that they had served in Kuwait and had been exposed to various environmental toxins," said Cote's report.

Kaustinen said someone should be asking the government why it is reluctant to recognize these illnesses.

For years, the health of many soldiers who took part in peacekeeping or support operations - conflicts that were not quite peace and not quite war - have been dismissed as stress-related.

Critics have also attempted to link the ailments with exposure to depleted uranium shells - munitions that are coated with spent nuclear fuel in order to make it easier for them to penetrate armoured vehicles.

Cote's report appears to be the first official acknowledgment by anyone connected with the Defence Department that Canadian troops were exposed to the potentially hazardous residue.

Scientists have long been concerned about the health effects of soldiers inhaling depleted uranium dust, which is leftover in the aftermath of the exploded shell.

In 2002, the Defence Department offered to test Canadian veterans for radioactive contamination. To date, only 228 out of 4,262 who served in the Gulf have taken up the offer and no abnormal readings having been found.

Cote said the combat engineers should be recognized for their bravery, especially for helping U.S. soldiers stamp out a July 1991 fire at an ammunition depot in Doha, where they evacuated many casualties who had been exposed to burning rounds containing depleted uranium.

The ombudsman met Tuesday with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, who promised to develop an action plan to implement Cote's nine recommendations.


Defence Minister Welcomes Ombudsman Report
CF news release #06.093, 1 Nov 06
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2135

The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, welcomes the recommendations made in the report released earlier today by the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

The report investigated the treatment of military veterans from 1 Combat Engineer Regiment following exposure to harmful substances during their deployment in Kuwait in 1991.

"As Minister of National Defence, it's important for me that the brave men and women risking their lives serving our country are treated with respect and dignity," said Minister O'Connor. "I'm pleased to mention that most of the recommendations made in the report are in the process of being implemented within the Department and Canadian Forces."

Since 1991, the Canadian Forces has made significant progress in the assessment, management and documentation of environmental exposure.

Military officials are reviewing the report and will provide the Minister with feedback on ways to further improve its practises.

-30-

 
A bit of follow-up.....

Army doesn't know who has seen combat
report: Revelation shocksmilitary ombudsman 

Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, 2 Nov 06

The Canadian Forces can't keep track of whom it's sending into combat in Afghanistan -- something the military's ombudsman said Wednesday is disappointing.  Ombudsman Yves Cote made that shocking finding as he released a report on how the military failed troops exposed to environmental hazards in Kuwait in 1991 during the first Persian Gulf War.  Cote also concluded the Forces have no idea exactly who it sent into harm's way during that conflict 15 years ago.  "Most notably, and I must say disappointingly, Defence seems unable to identify, with accuracy and confidence, who was deployed, and for what period of time, during recent missions in Afghanistan," Cote said.  "I was certainly surprised and extremely disappointed to learn that the Canadian Forces remain unable to provide with certainty, a complete list of all those deployed to Kuwait in 1991, with the result that the organization itself is unable to track and analyze health outcomes on an organizational-wide basis."  Asked at a news conference to clarify which Afghanistan tours of duty the Forces can't provide personnel information on, Cote replied: "That would apply to all tours of Afghanistan." ....


Ombudsman says Forces failed troops who battled Kuwait fire
Alex Dobrota, Globe & Mail, 2 Nov 06
Globe & Mail link - Permalink

Canada failed its first Persian Gulf war veterans who fell ill after being exposed to poisonous chemicals, including depleted uranium from U.S. munitions, a military ombudsman said yesterday.  One soldier of the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment died of cancer, and about 60 others developed cancer or respiratory symptoms after the unit fought a fire at a U.S. munitions depot in Doha, Kuwait, in 1991.  The warehouse contained shells made of depleted uranium, a radioactive metal heavier than lead and prized for its armour-piercing properties.  But the Canadian Forces have so far systematically ignored the complaints of the soldiers who inhaled that toxic smoke, Forces ombudsman Yves Côté said yesterday ....

 
I believe that our tours/postings/att postings etc are all input into peoplesoft by the RMS types are they not? So I would think that since this has come on-line, pers records should be tracked much better. We can track "outside the gate combat" in the pers tempo section.

My last CC spent much time going through everyone's pers file and ensuring that all of the above were indeed input into peoplesoft. Further to that, she also put any courses, TD etc or time spent away from home overnight on conferences, taskings etc into my "pers Tempo" section.

Now when I login to EMAA, postings/tours/att postings/courses etc show on my MPRR (490) and all my other time away on TD, conferences show up in the "pers Tempo" portion of the EMAA, including the number of days I spent on them. "Outside the wire" dates can also be input here.

I believe however, that it just became "mandatory" for Unit clerks to input any pers tempo details which are not regularly tracked on the MPRR into this section of peoplesoft. As long as this occurs, it should help the situation of tracking exact locations of pers on whichever dates.

For example, the MPRR shows that a member is on tour from 01 Jun 05 to 28 Nov 05 and leaves it at that. The clerk in-theatre however, can enter into peoplesoft under the pers tempo screen that the same member was employed "outside the gate" from 04 Jul 05 - 19 Jul 05, and can continue to do this each time a member is actually serving outside the gates.

So the tool to fix this "tracking" problem is already out there and has been for some time. Some Units have used it to it's fullest ability (ie tracking everything in the pers tempo section) and others have not. My CC here has been inputting everything since I got here anyway....after I told her she could and therefore she should!! It is a much better tool for supervisors as well.

No more well Johnny's only done one tour in the past 3 years because his MPRR says so. Now looking at his pers tempo history, you can also see that Johnny was employed "outside the wire" for 96 days of that tour, spent 325 days away from home on course, 37 days as an augmentee instructor to a school, 21 days on conferences in the NCR, 13 days at seminars in LFAA and 102 days in the field on a couple of ex's. So I guess little Johnny's really has been busy and away from home alot the past 3 years too.







 
Hmm, wonder how much of that was told to the Minister in preparation for his reply - "Hey, we've already moved on THAT bit," is a good message to share, esp. while the media are stil listening.
 
milnewstbay said:
Hmm, wonder how much of that was told to the Minister in preparation for his reply - "Hey, we've already moved on THAT bit," is a good message to share, esp. while the media are stil listening.

WRT Kuwait, years ago, probably 5 or 6, all pers who were available and wished to be tested for DU from Kuwait, were tested. P**s in a bucket for 24hrs, bring it in and it was sent off to a lab for testing. If we weren't happy or satisfied with the results, we could have sent hair samples in. So the DU part has been addressed. All of the other stuff is still ongoing. "oldfart" and myself will be heading to the UMS to get our books checked.
 
You got's to make sure everything is tickity-boo!  Insist on a full body CAT or MRI just to make sure!  I mean, I was on a few UN gigs, and I'm still finding things that don't seem right!  I'm being supported by VAC, but it take so blessidly long to get checked!   
Do yourselves a favor if you still in....get the medicos to set you up for a top to bottom physical (perferably done by someone other than a CF doctor ::))

"Make it so #1"
 
I go Monday, oldfart goes on Wednesday.
 
Went to UMS to check records. The documentation is there however there is a problem with the DU testing. The testing was completed by 2 different labs with the same sample. My readings from both are quite different. One reading falls into the normal category and the other exceeds the normal catergory. I am working on getting answers now. Hopefully the Military didn't just pick the lesser of both evils by defaulting to the lower reading. I remember getting spoken to about the lower reading but not the higher reading......... time will tell.

Oh yeah, here is a copy of a message I sent to the Ombudsman's Office:

To whom it may concern, First and foremost, I wish to thank you for taking the time to conduct the detailed inquiry into the mission in Kuwait. Secondly, and I do not know if this is where I should be going with this however, I review my medical records today, 06 November, 2006. With reference to the DU testing that was conducted on myself, I was wondering as to why the two results are quite different. On one hand, the report from Actlabs states that my reading was 7.7ng/l total uranium and the other, from BQ states my reading as 35 ng/l. Normal ranges are considered to be between 6-30ng/l. I guess my reasoning for writing is just to question as to why there is such a difference in readings between samples. They were both taken from the same urine sample. As well, if I am outside of the normal range, why was I not spoken to by a MO? I specifically remember speaking with a Medical Sergant, however it was in reference to the 7.7 reading, and not the 35 ng/l. Did the Military simply default to the analysis that was within normal parameters?

 
I have possibly been exposed to Toxic Industrial Materials during the following deployments;

-UNIKOM, 1 CER April - Oct 91 DU, smoke,
-UNPROFOR 2 VP Mar - Oct 93 Bauxite????
-KFOR 1 RCR - Dec 99 - Jun 00 Radiation(ferro Nickel plant Glogovac)

Two Questions;
1. Where can I find out what specifically should be annotated in my med doc's?
2. What if any testing should I be requesting?
 
For the questions regarding anything on your med docs, speak to an MO (Medical Officer) that you trust. You may also want to speak to your local PMed Tech in regards to any messages that might have been circulated regarding the health threat assessment.

BTW, as an asside. We in the medical world try our best to look after our boys (and girls). I hope that the past doesn't fog your opinions of us.

 
Ratcatcher, thanks for the advice. BTW, I hold no ill will towards the medical branch. Two words, unlimited liability, we practice due dilligence, but  at the end of the day soldiers have to go places nobody else wants to!!!!
 
Lazy E said:
Ratcatcher, thanks for the advise. BTW, I hold no ill will towards the medical branch. Two words, unlimited liability, we practice due dilligence, but  at the end of the day soldiers have to go places nobody else wants to!!!!

To ya'll who served in Desert Storm, my thanks for a job well done. I was over there in the Gulf from Dec 90- May 91 and I had no idea at the time that any Canadians were in theater. I'm glad to say I've corrected that ignorance.

Medical folks are mostly professional and helpful as individuals, but here in the states, the Department of Veterans Affairs, as a system, is pretty non-responsive to veterans' needs. I hope your veterans agency up north is better at handling your problems. The thing is, Soldiers have to go places nobody else does, but it's a deal where nobody can tell you what will happen to you when you enlist.

If an industrial worker was exposed to the toxic sludge of Desert Storm, he would've probably been in level 1 encapsulated suit with a dosimeter. Just look at the "creeping footprint" from the chemical weapons dump at Nasiriyah that the engineers destroyed in March of 91. The first DA study showed a downwind footprint that included about 14,000 troops. In the mid 90s, they widened the footprint to most of southeastern Iraq. Then, in the past few years, they included most of the units that made it into in Kuwait in the footprint.

My opinion: You get sent without any real understanding of the long term consequences into a situation that can damage your health. The government owes it to you and your family to ensure that you get the best possible care, respect and treatment. You should get the benefit of the doubt and if your health is degraded from your exposure, it's up to the government to help you with fixing it, or compensating it.
 
Red 6:

Thanks for the post however, I should point out that the 1 CER troops that the report refers to were not part of Desert Storm. We went in right after the cease fire. We were stationed in Doha, right beside Blackhorse.

Chimo!!!
 
Copied below is an article from the June 22 Maple Leaf requesting members who were on the tour to call the number included.  You will be asked a bunch of questions, and will need 5+ mins.  I have posted this for those that may not be aware.

In October of 2006 the DND/CF Ombudsman produced a report entitled “Heroism Exposed: An Investigation into the Treatment of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment (1 CER) Kuwait Veterans (1991)”. The reason for this report was to investigate the treatment of 1 CER veterans following their exposure to environmental substances while on deployment to Kuwait in 1991. These substances included but are not limited to: exposure to substances emanating from a camp munitions fire; exposure to smoke from Kuwait’s burning oil
wells; exposure to insecticides sprayed within living quarters; exposure to unknown contaminants in former Iraqi hospitals. The entire report can be viewed at the following Web site: www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/kuw-kow/index-eng.asp.

DND has established a helpline to capture the names and provide assistanceto those members of 1 CER who served in Kuwait. If you are one of thesemembers, please call 1-800-883-6094 and ask for the 1 CER/Kuwait desk. The helpline will be operational from June to December 2007. :cdn:

Regards to one and all...Old Fart out.... :salute:
 
The first few postings are the type of information that every soldier should have handy for when they go into a hearing with the VAC reps. 

ArmyVern said:
I believe that our tours/postings/att postings etc are all input into peoplesoft by the RMS types are they not? So I would think that since this has come on-line, pers records should be tracked much better. We can track "outside the gate combat" in the pers tempo section.

ArmyVern, I hope what you say is true, but 'much better' is not the same as 'done as well as they should be'.  I lost confidence in the tracking system when my entire 490/MPRR was wiped out during the transfer to a new software package.  Unlike other guys who used most of their course and deployment certificates to wipe their butts, I had my own copies of everything I'd done and been to, so wasnt hard getting my records rebuilt.  Other people werent so lucky, and went through months of research to get all their records back.  And this was just for members working at a HQ, not to mention the difficulties for (i.e.) infantry guys faced with obstructive orderly staff and supervisors.  As another example I had access to my own unit file in 2003 to make sure it was properly updated and found years of my time as well as numerous courses/deployments/attachments were not documented or accounted for.  Our clerk had no idea what information was missing, thus had no idea what needed to be corrected or updated.  In the end you can trust the CF to pay you and clothe you (generally), you can trust your officers to lead you (mostly), but its up to each member to ensure their own history and records are documented correctly.
 
Hello everyone reading this especially any engineers that served in Kuwait during Desert Storm.
My name is Dave Toy. I was a mcpl ammo tech in 1991. i was sent to saudi with the field hospital during desert storm. After the ceasefire was called the hospital was packed up and returned to Canada, however anyone with E.O.D. qualifications were sent to Kuwait City to do bomb disposal. This consisted of myself and about two dozen engineers. We stayed at the American base in Kuwait. We conducted our eod ops around Kuwait city and spent alot of time in direct contact with the oil well fires. We disposed of various types of Iraqi and American ordnance.
Shortly after returning to Canada I began having health problems,mainly sinus problems and sever headaches. The headaches are so bad that alot of days I cannot function at all. I put in my release shortly after I got back.
It took a long time to figure out what had happened to me as I started to hear all about this unknown "Gulf War Syndrome". I started to wonder what happened to me while I was there. I know I was not the same person I was before I went. I started going to doctors and getting all kinds of tests but I was dealing with Civilian doctors now because I was out now. I put a claim in with VAC in 1997. I got back a short and sweet reply. "claim denied no connection between headaches and service in the gulf"
Last year I happened to be watching CTV news about this new report and the major said that there was a connection between service in Kuwait and severe headaches. I appealed my Vac claim in Nov 2007 and won. I relied heavily on this report. If there is anyone else out there struggling with this problem and I can help in anyway please contact me.
Thanks 
Dave Toy
705-368-1300
 
Back
Top