Much has been done in recent years to push the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, as a tourist destination. But for decades, the small island off the eastern coast of mainland, Puerto Rico, was used by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to test weapons, and as a firing range. Artillery shells, bombs, missiles. Napalm, Agent Orange, depleted uranium--all of those things rained on Vieques. But that testing ended in May 2003 after pressure by protesters, spurred by the death in 1999 of native David Sanes--a civilian guard for the U.S. Navy who was hit by a bomb during target practice.
The impetus for protest, however, was not just about keeping residents clear of friendly fire. For years locals, along with some doctors and academics, have been concerned about the rate of cancer and other serious illness, which is believed to be linked to munitions testing. In fact, around 7,000 residents together have filed a federal lawsuit seeking financial compensation for their illnesses. One doctor, Dr. Nayda Figueroa, an epidemiologist for Puerto Rico’s Cancer Registry, found that Vieques’ cancer rate was one-third higher than that of the mainland.*
Between 1999 and 2002, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry tested Vieques’ soil, fish and shellfish, air quality, and water supply for toxic substances. In 2003, the Agency concluded that there were no health hazards caused by U.S. military exercises. That conclusion was met with fierce criticism. Now the Agency, which is part of the CDC, has overturned its own research, the Associated Press recently reported, and will take another look at the island. Director Howard Frumkin told the AP that there are, “gaps in environmental data that could be important in determining health effects." In collaboration with Puerto Rican health officials, the Agency plans to conduct in-depth health evaluations to determine if residents were exposed to toxic substances.
t seems to me that the real question the Agency should be asking is one of yay versus nay, but rather a question of extent: Was U.S. munitions testing toxic enough that it has become detrimental to the health of residents and the natural environment? Recent research by the University of Georgia, for example, concluded that the hundreds of unexploded and corroding bombs lining the ocean floor around Vieques are leaking carcinogens. The research detected high levels of carcinogen chemicals in marine life, including corals and sea urchins, close to the bombs, CNN reported earlier this year. In some cases, the level of carcinogens was found to be 100,000 greater than what is deemed safe for edible seafood.
Repeatingislands.com cited that:
A 2004 study by Imar Mansilla-Rivera and Carlos J. Rodríguez-Sierra of the Department of Environmental Health (Medical Sciences Campus) at the University of Puerto Rico, also found high levels of arsenic exposure from fish consumption and evidence that the Vieques population has been chronically exposed to high concentrations of this metal.
In 2005 an effort by the EPA began to clean up thousands of unexploded munitions. But even with the cleanup, there is still risk of exposing locals to toxics.
*That research was conducted from 1995-1999
---
Photo: Casa de Queso's Flickr photostream/Creative Commons
Comments