Some pesticides used during the Persian Gulf War cannot be ruled out as factors that could have contributed to the health problems reported by Gulf War veterans, according to two new RAND studies published as part of a continuing series of studies on Gulf War illness.
Based on a review of the scientific literature on pesticides likely used during the Gulf War, RAND researchers investigated the health effects of the active ingredients in many of the pesticides and compared those effects with the symptoms reported by some Gulf War veterans. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) selected the active ingredients of concern because of their toxicity and/or possible extent of use.
The researchers found that carbamate and organophosphate pesticides have been shown to produce symptoms--including fatigue, joint and muscle symptoms, headaches, and other effects--frequently reported by ill Gulf War veterans. The research team was led by Gary Cecchine and included Beatrice Golomb, Lee Hilborne, Dalia Spektor, and Ross Anthony.
"Given the evidence to date from the literature reviewed, it is inappropriate to rely upon exposure to pesticides, especially organophosphates and carbamates, as the explanation for the myriad health problems reported by Persian Gulf War veterans," the team concluded. "However, we think it equally inappropriate at this point to rule out pesticides as a potential contributing factor." The authors call for more research on the genetic and biological differences between ill and healthy veterans and on the interactions among pesticides and other exposures.
A complementary RAND study surveyed the use of pesticides by a sample of Gulf War veterans who served on the ground in the Kuwaiti theater. The survey--which provides the best picture to date of which pesticides the troops used, who used them, and in what quantities--shows that cases of pesticide misuse were rare.
However, there was one major exception: It is estimated that about 13,000 service members used a pet flea/tick collar at some point during their tours of duty. Although deemed "unsafe and illegal" by DoD, the collars were often obtained by troops from well-meaning family and friends back home. Most of the troops wore the collars over their uniforms, not on their skin.
The survey revealed that two-thirds of the troops used personal pesticides, such as insect repellents. Moreover, some service members who used personal pesticides more frequently also took larger quantities of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills.
PB was a drug supplied to troops to guard against the nerve agent soman, and a 1999 RAND report found that PB itself "cannot be ruled out as a possible contributor" to Gulf War illness. Both PB and nerve agents generate similar chemical activity when combined with some pesticides, but scientific research is unclear about the effects of these combinations.
The RAND survey on pesticides was directed by Susan Hosek and Ron Fricker, whose team included Elaine Reardon, Dalia Spektor, Sarah Cotton, Jennifer Hawes-Dawson, and Jennifer Pace.
Other recent RAND reports about Gulf War illness include examinations of infectious diseases and combat stress. The first report concluded that none of the diseases known to have infected Gulf War troops, or to be present in the combat zone, likely caused the unexplained illnesses.
The second report, a history of combat and deployment stress, indicated that stress could be a contributing cause to many psychological and somatic symptoms and that "it could have rendered soldiers more vulnerable to environmental pathogens."
More about the Gulf War illness studies can be found at www.rand.org/multi/gulfwar/.
Schadenfreude is a German word that means "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others." Perhaps there's an element of schadenfreude in recent national media coverage of California's energy crisis. But another and more compelling reason for the media's behavior may be the unsettling question that the California crisis raises in the minds of observers nationwide: Can it happen to us?
The answer is yes, according to former U.S. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who spoke at RAND on Jan. 18, 2001. The outgoing energy secretary ranked the national energy situation as "critical." Not since the 1970s, he said, has there been more reason for concern about energy in the United States.
"There's no more dramatic example of the problem than what's taking place in the Golden State," he said. In California's case, electricity shortages were triggered by a protracted series of overlapping events: utility deregulation, lack of infrastructure development, inconsistent pricing structures, unusual weather, and soaring demand for energy. Although Richardson called California's woes a "state issue" that ultimately would have to be resolved by Californians, he noted the larger lesson for national policymakers: Energy policy deserves top priority.
"The U.S. should have a broad, balanced energy portfolio," echoed Mark Bernstein, codirector of RAND Environment and a member of the RAND team working to inform the California congressional delegation about energy policy priorities. "There is no silver bullet, but these problems can be addressed through a mix of actions."
Just how did the energy situation in the United States get to a point where it needs such fixing? According to Richardson, "California experienced 13 percent more electricity demand in just one year." Similarly, "the booming economy of the last two years drove a 14-percent increase in U.S. energy demand." He also explained that computer technology and Asia's economic recovery further hastened a dramatic worldwide draw on energy.
While demand rose, new sources of supply failed to keep pace. These trends exacerbated America's dependence on imported oil, particularly on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Although not all foreign oil comes from OPEC nations, most observers agree that the organization effectively sets world oil prices. U.S. diplomats have attempted to stabilize OPEC oil prices at about $25 a barrel, but most OPEC countries prefer a higher number, closer to $30 a barrel. To increase revenues, OPEC has cut back oil production.
Some solutions might seem obvious: Drill for more oil and find other energy sources here at home. The new administration has raised the possibility of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. While recent oil discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico may concentrate further production in already developed areas, conservationists ultimately insist that oil and the environment don't mix. "Can we truly drill for oil and leave a small footprint on the environment?" asked Bernstein. Oil development clearly poses environmental challenges.
Greener options include developing technologies that harness the sun, wind, water, and biomass, which is biological material used to make liquid fuels or to generate electricity. "The cost of wind power may be competitive under certain circumstances, but its availability depends on the weather," said Bernstein. "Same thing with solar power. And we've tapped out hydropower." Yet all of these options, though limited today, can add needed diversity to the energy portfolio of tomorrow, according to Bernstein.
Although nuclear power is now back on the table, Bernstein said significant public resistance remains. Many are concerned about safety and the unresolved problem of long-lived radioactive waste. On top of this, construction costs remain high, and construction requires long lead times.
Given the obstacles to pursuing each option, perhaps it's time for Americans, once again, to practice restraint. "Conservation is not such a bad word," said Richardson. "We have to be more energy- efficient. We have to have more fuel-efficient vehicles."
In fact, according to Richardson, an increase of only three miles per gallon in auto efficiency would reduce demand in this country by nearly one million barrels per day--roughly 10 percent of the oil now being imported. To this end, a cooperative program between the government and the Big Three automakers, called Partnership for the Next Generation of Vehicles, has been established to raise fuel-economy standards.
So assume for a moment that OPEC becomes more cooperative, solar panels become as popular as satellite TV dishes, and American consumers are persuaded to trade their sport utility vehicles for less energy-intensive vehicles. Problem solved, right? Not quite.
According to Richardson, the energy infrastructure--the system that moves power from point A to point B--is literally falling apart. Bernstein concurred that the infrastructure is aging and that the country has failed to invest in expanding its capacity. "Also, you have 50 states with 50 different regulatory structures," he added.
"This doesn't mean that the federal government should do the work or even pay for it, but the federal government should know what the problems are and make sure things get fixed. Experience has shown that we cannot leave all of these long-term investment decisions solely to the marketplace, at least not until we better understand how competitive energy markets actually work."
The current situation foreshadows future problems, particularly in natural gas markets. All power generation plants built in the past ten years use natural gas, as will most of the plants planned for the next ten years. Although domestic supplies of natural gas may be adequate for the foreseeable future, large questions remain for the long term regarding feasible production levels, pipeline investments, and the functioning of regional natural gas markets.
Already, a key problem underlying the California crisis "appears to be the extremely high prices that electric power generators have had to pay for natural gas," noted Jim Bartis, another member of the RAND energy team. For most of December 2000, spot market prices for natural gas in the state were, in terms of energy produced, equivalent to oil selling at $90 a barrel. On a few days, the spot price spiked to nearly the equivalent of $300 per barrel of oil. Thus, while diplomats argue with OPEC about the difference between $25 and $30 per barrel, California already pays between three and ten times those amounts for energy. Building more natural gas power plants in California won't solve the state's electricity problems without an increased supply of natural gas.
Recent technical advances in pollution control mean that coal-fired power plants could once again be an option for California. Of all the alternatives to natural gas, Bartis said that coal is probably the most cost-effective way for California to diversify its energy infrastructure. "I wouldn't site a coal plant in the L.A. basin" because of air quality concerns, said Bartis, "but it's important to recognize that state-of-the-art coal power plants are a lot cleaner than what our parents grew up with."
RAND Joins Online Consortium to Promote Scholarly LearningRAND recently formalized a partnership with Fathom.com, an educational web site that provides scholarly content and online learning. Fathom.com is a consortium of universities, research institutions, museums, and libraries. Members include the University of Chicago, Columbia University, the New York Public Library, the London School of Economics, the British Library, Cambridge University Press, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the American Film Institute, the University of Michigan, and the Victoria and Albert Museum. RAND now joins these institutions in offering content to students, professionals, and intellectually curious individuals. "For all the strengths of the Internet--its vastness, openness, and decentralized architecture--it doesn't always deliver legitimacy or authenticity of knowledge," said John Warren, the RAND publications marketing director. "Fathom's intellectual content is distinguished from most Internet sites by its rigor, sophistication, and roots within the scholarly community." Fathom pools its content--publications, interviews, lectures, essays, and multimedia presentations--from top scholars and researchers at member institutions. Information is organized in a unique way that allows users to explore a subject along a graphed "trail." Users hoping to learn about a subject can follow a predetermined trail or, where subjects intersect, switch directions to explore another trail. Michael Rich, RAND's executive vice president, serves on Fathom.com's Academic Council, which is chaired by Jonathan Cole, provost of Columbia University. Much of Fathom's content is free, although registration is required. Once registered, users can participate in discussions, purchase products, and enroll in courses. |