Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 14th, 2013

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Radiation—

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

The radiation, okay? They're not exposed to depleted uranium—

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

No, no, but the radiation.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

—but it's the radiation effect, equivalent radiation.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

How often do you think Canadians have an angiogram?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Well, I've never had one. I don't wish one on you, but—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

How many Canadians do you think may have an angiogram each year?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Well, it's fairly common. What is even more common are CAT scans. CAT scans are X-rays. There are many X-rays in one exam. On average, depending on the instrument, one CAT scan will give you 15 millisieverts, which is considerable. It's external. It happens at once, but it's still radiation. That's 15 millisieverts and that's five times the radiation that a soldier at Doha may have had.

But it's not exactly the same, okay? It's external radiation. This is why I talked about angiography, because angiography is internal. It is something that is injected and it's inside the body.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Your conclusion 3 says that it's unlikely that Canadian soldiers were exposed to harmful levels of depleted uranium. Conclusion 4 says there's no consistent evidence of adverse health effects attributed to depleted uranium in military cohort studies. Can you explain what this means specifically for Canadian veterans?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Which one? The first one or...?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

The two of them, if you'd be kind enough to reconcile them. They're not quite the same thing.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

No, they're not quite the same thing.

The second one really refers to studies that were done specifically on military cohorts or groups. I referred earlier to the NATO countries study. These studies looked at cancer, mortality, and cancer incidence. The reason they were looked at separately is that these were done by different NATO countries on soldiers who had gone to different zones.

The other one is more general: “It is unlikely that Canadian soldiers have been exposed...”. Number 3 is a much broader conclusion. It looks at not just cancer and not just cancer incidence; it's less restrictive than those studies.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Has there been any investigation into individuals who have had depleted uranium embedded in their bodies? Are you familiar with any of that?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

With those who have depleted uranium?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Yes.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Oh, very much so. This is the Baltimore study. We've looked at that. It's very important. That's an experiment in itself. We have a number of soldiers who have depleted uranium in their bodies through an unfortunate friendly fire situation. They have been identified. They're followed at the veterans hospital in Baltimore. They are followed regularly. They have been followed for 20 years.

What distinguishes them from others is that many of them still have depleted uranium in their bodies, and they keep excreting it, so it's like a continuous exposure. From that, you can draw certain scientific conclusions.

There are not that many of them. There are fewer than 100, but it's still the best there is, you know.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much, Ms. Adams.

That concludes our general questioning for two rounds.

Sir, I'll take the chair's prerogative to ask you one quick question before we conclude.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

From you?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Yes, sir.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Okay. I'll time you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

That's very good. Thank you for that.

Your committee's terms of reference in regard to the task you were asked to do were twofold: one, to review and summarize the public scientific evidence and literature on the human health effects of depleted uranium; and two, to assess the information concerning the potential exposure of Canadian military personnel to depleted uranium. Those were more or less the two points.

In conclusion 7, you state that many veterans are “suffering from persistent symptoms following deployment”, which “can cause considerable suffering and can be effectively treated”. Unlike the other committee's six conclusions, which relate directly to the scientific study, this seems to be a general statement of opinion that doesn't seem to come directly from the scientific literature you've reviewed. I'm just wondering why you or the committee thought that would be a seventh point to add in the conclusions of your report.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

When looking at the depleted uranium literature, you often come back to these hypotheses. We thought there was sufficient confusion in the minds of veterans, or anyone, for that matter, who might be reading this that we might just suggest there is a putative link between depleted uranium and these symptoms; that because these symptoms are real and affect a large number of veterans, it might be worthwhile to include them in the conclusion at the end, as a signal that there may be something else.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Well, sir, thank you very much for that.

That concludes our questioning for today.