Military Tech

(Credit: Project SHAD)

Thousands of people who may have been exposed to chemical or biological agents during military tests remain unaccounted for, and the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs have given up on tracking them down, according to a new report.

Some of the tests were conducted as part of a weapons testing program known as "Project 112." In others (click here for PDF), individuals were intentionally exposed to hazardous substances such as blister, nerve, and biological agents as well as LSD and PCP, according to a Government Accounting Office report (PDF).

Any veterans who believe they have sustained a disability from exposure during testing may file a claim (PDF) for compensation with the VA.

The DOD stopped actively searching for test subjects in 2003 "but did not provide a sound and documented basis for that decision," the GAO reported. At the time, it had identified 5,842 service members and about 350 civilians as having been potentially exposed during Project 112 alone (PDF). It is estimated that tens of thousands of military and personnel and civilians may have been exposed over the last 60 years.

(Credit: VFW)

However, in 2004 the GAO reported that there was still a chance that additional test subjects could be located, and it recommended that the DOD determine the feasibility of continuing the search. Instead, the Pentagon determined that it had reached "a point of diminishing returns" and called it off; a decision not supported by an "objective analysis of the potential costs and benefits of continuing the effort," the congressional agency charged.

Further, the GAO found that the Pentagon's efforts lacked oversight, clear and consistent objectives, and most of all transparency, because it had not kept Congress or veterans organizations fully informed of its progress, or lack thereof.

The DOD was pretty much an equal-opportunity employer when it came to its human test subjects--healthy adults, psychiatric patients, and prison inmates were all used. In some instances, service members who consented to serve as test subjects found themselves participating in experiments quite different from the one they had been pitched when they volunteered, according to the report.

Also known as "Project SHAD" ("Shipboard Hazard and Defense"), the highly classified Project 112 was started in 1962 to determine the vulnerability of U.S. warships to chemical and biological attacks. In this case, service members and civilians were not the test subjects, but rather conducted the tests on animals, in some cases with foreign observers present, according to the DOD. Veterans of the tests tell another story.

The same week this GAO report came out, a federal judge ruled, in dismissing a lawsuit brought by individual members of the military, that there is no reason for troops to second-guess the Food and Drug Administration when it comes to the safety of anthrax vaccinations. DOD says the shots are now mandatory. If this means you, make sure you leave a forwarding address.

A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office charges that the Department of Homeland Security used biased methods to enhance performance results in tests on a new generation of radiation detectors meant to protect U.S. ports.

At stake are $1.2 billion in contracts to produce advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP) monitors and thousands of lives should they fail to work.

Experts from four national laboratories were consulted prior to publication of the report (PDF) by the GAO, the nonpartisan audit and investigative arm of Congress, which was released yesterday.

(Credit: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office)

The agency found that the DHS' Domestic Nuclear Detection Office "used biased test methods that enhanced the performance of ASPs." Specifically, it conducted preliminary tests and then allowed contractors access to the results, which they then used to adjust systems accordingly.

It is "highly unlikely that such favorable conditions" would be found in a real-world situation, the GAO report deadpanned.

Portals in use today detect radiation but cannot distinguish between different types. This leads to expensive and time-consuming delays at ports of entry when customs officers respond to false alarms, according to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. To remedy this, DHS sponsored research on new technology to enhance detection capabilities at the nation's ports. In 2006, it awarded contracts to three companies based on performance tests in Nevada the previous year: Raytheon, Thermo Electron and Canberra Industries.

The GAO, however, was not convinced that any "additional detection capability provided by the ASPs was worth the considerable additional costs." The accounting agency found that the DHS had no sound basis for spending taxpayer money and "relied on assumptions of anticipated performance instead of actual test data." It recommended further testing and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

It wasn't the first time that problems had been found in the procurement process. In a March 2007 report (PDF), the GAO concluded that DHS' decision to procure and deploy the new equipment was not supported by the cost and suggested that the department come up with some "objective" assessments of ASP capability.

The question was whether the new equipment, at six times the cost of current models, was better able to detect radiation through different masking materials, such as a lead. The GAO charged that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office did not test portal limitations or make any effort to replicate the material that would be used to mask a radiation source from detection, a "critical oversight in DNDO's original test plan." Instead, the detection office is attempting to get off the hook by substituting what are essentially computer simulations that are not comparable with "actual testing with nuclear and masking materials," according to the GAO.

The GAO recommended that production of the new portal monitors be delayed until the DHS provides a "sound analytical basis for its decision to purchase and deploy the new technology."