UNCLASSIFIED

SubJecti L.»ReEmber’s article on Yellow Rain in C&EN» Jan. 9» 1984

The article has value by virtue of its listings of seorle who nave contributed
data and ideas concerning wellow rain. Howevers the article srrears to be
biased against the sgovernmernt’s case for yellow rain as 2 miljtary action and
in favor of the arguments adainst the sovernment’s case. The bias is manifest
in the author’s value Jjudsdements» two-valued (either/ors all/none) statements >
and inferences based on specutlation, In some instances these manifestations
of bias lead the author into error or self-contradiction, For examreler an
PelO pPar.7 the author states that excert for 2a das masks all rositive samples
(rositive for mycotoxin) have come from one private laboratory, However, ir
addition to the rositive findings of C.J.Mirochay which ere cited frequently

im the articles the author indicates that J,D.Rosen obtained a rositive result ~

on the ABC sample (rP.11 last rar.)s and that H.&.Schiefer corrotorated
Mirocha’s findings (*.17 rar.d), E.W.Sarver and Mirocha both found T-2 on

the gas mask from Afshanistan (f.18 last par.)» but the author states that not
one Piece of military hardware hes tested rositive fur toxins (e100 Par.?7).

On fF-19 par.? one reads that the "single gas mask is the sum total of the
dovernment’s rhusical evidence’, yet surely the samrles listed in the table

on pr. 18 $ 19 are Physical evidence samples,

In an effort to discount the credibility of body fluid samples collected more
than several days after 2a rerson Claimed to have heen exrosed to yellow rain»
the suthor rereatedliy refers to animal studies that show tricothecenes to have
only a brief residence time in the body (rP.14 last Fates P20 Pare2» FP.20 last
Pare, &.21 pars,ils ».25 -ar.4). Howevers in referring to D.L.8rurner’s
Finding that a dose to the skin is not comrPletely absorbed into the body efter
2 months the author calls the government’s studies ambiguous (r.21 last Pare).
While Brunner’s results are called into question (rP.22 rpars.1 % 2). no
eauivalent level of auestionnming is applied to the rapid cleararice findings

te oral or i+v. doses. ©

The author makes much of the fact thet Sarver did net corroborate Mirucha’s
results on the rock scraring sample (Govt. No. FS 704B. see tables ©. 18).
Reference is made to chemists who think that T-2 could not degrade iim the
wear interval between Mirocha’s resulis and Sarver’s analysis (fp, 17 wars. 4
2 6). In rar. 6 of &. 17 the author calls this a *startling* discrerency
and M.S.Meselson is Portrayed as nmonrlussed by it, The author did not seem
to realize the importance of other information in this article relevant to
the rroblem: aC
(1) The extraction rrocedures that Mirocha and Server use are differents and
neither recovers more than 10% of tricotnecene in the kind of samela
im question (Mirocha-re.16.rar.4: Sarver-e.i7? eer.5). Thus» there is
8 significant frroblem with T-2 recovery, Wnere everorsation can be
ruled out, degradation end bindind are candidate exrlanetions for roor
recovery of 3 comrounrid. Given that the chemist’s cited by the author

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

are correct that T-2 would not sidnificaently degrade in one veer im the
Sample in auestions it is still rossinle that T-2 could be rFrogressivelss
bound to something else in the sample and rendered less extractable with
time.

I’m mot convinced that T-2 degradation can be ruled cut in the sample in
auestion. T-2 is an eroxide comrounds and tne eroxide grour is auite
reactive. The sample is 2 rock scrarinds and srecs of rock in the
Sample could act as a catalyst for T-2 resction with another samrle
ingredient or moisture in the air..

(2) On p.33 rpar.2 the author cites the fact thats without careful control»
the GC-MS procedure (which toath Mirocha and Sarver use) can dive false
Positives or nmedatives very easily, Sne should have noted thet the data
obtained by hoth chemists show an ansence of false rositivess which
attests to careful control on tne rart of both rersons.

The rresence of rollen and hee feces in vellow rain is diven cansiderable
space (rprp.,22-26). The author flatly states thats “if yellow rain is bee feces:
it discredits the dovernment’s case. * The government’s idea that Pollen might
be deliberately used to carry tricotnecenes (*.23 rar. 1) is debunkedr and
Meselson is the chief debunker cited for this rurrose (e.der &.25 par. 7y SIt’s
incredible that ansone would use rollen. It’s verys very outlandish. Then for
it to be Southeast Asian Pollen! * ,

Actually» of courses there could be some very good reasons why rollenm and/or
(bee feces) may be used to carry tricothecenes:

(1) Consider the difficulty in differentiaten between a maturel end man-made
edents as evidenced oy the subJect articler wher adent is mixed with
naturally occurring material;

(2) These carriers may confer some desired rrorerties, such es teilor-made
rersistence or dose delivery enhancement.

With redard to hee feces: Shiefer auestions the theory that the bee feces
exrelanation of yellow rain in the rresent case by asking why the heavy smounts
of bee defecation seems to occur only in militarily contested egreas (7.234
Par.2). The author does mot comment on that rarticularly vYyermane observation,

(Maybe the bees are scared iii 7)

Notably anosent from the article are some of the calculations that can be
Ferformed on the data presented. For examrler some interesting calculations
can be rut todether yvsing W.BR. Buck ’s studies of T-2 retention im swine and
cattle following an oral dose (f.21 rar.i12)*+ Brunner’s findings with resrect
to skin retention (f.21 last rar.)d» and the level of T-2 in the blood of some
Victims (tables pr.18-19), Given 2 tyrical blood level of about 10 Frts
there would be about 30 micrograms in the rerson’s 3 liters of blood -lasma.
One half of this would be rerlaced every {5 minutes from some derot (rrobably
skin. We will assume a skin dose and shin derots since these are consistent
with aeriel delivery and Bruner’s findings. If the semele were teken four
weeks after dose delivery and the 15 microsrams were rerlsced every 15
minutes in the blood from the derots then the initial derot level was at
least 40 milligrams, Given that an individual rfresents shout 0.4 sa. meter
to @ falling sprays then the delivery was at least 100 me. rer sa. meter»
which corresronds to about 400 g/acre,. Given that the discreraney between
Miroche and Sarver’s analytical results om the rock scraping samrle was due
to degradation of T-2 facilitated by samele ingredients, and sssuming that
the desgradetion reaction was underway prior to the sample collection (it
could have heen more rarid before samele collection them after)» then the
initial T-2 concentration in the vellow rain could pave been on the order of
1% by weight. If sory ther the delivery could nave been on tne order of 40

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

kg iacres which is well within the cermaebility of delivery tye an ordinary
cror-duster aircraft.

Similarly,» the data @uoted from the Chinese rparer (f.25 last rer.) are
worth some attention! i.e.s 3s 20 minute descent of yellow rain covering

20 scres with s viscous liauid to about 160 srots of liaguid Fer sauare meter
implies 1.387 srots/20 scres. It is said that tine seots were 3 few mm in
Sizes so assume thet the averede radius was 0.2 em. Since the fluid was
Viscous» assume an averade height of 0.2 cm. Then the totel volume of the
material was ahout 330 liters: and if the density was unity the total
weight was 330 kag. The material is surmised to be fecel material from
cpees (F.26 par.i), If we aesume the average bee weighs S00 m4 and can
defecate 5% of its body weights, ther the vellow rain in this case was
caused 64 about 12 million bees. One would think thats if the vellow

rain im the case of Southeast Asia were similarly caused hy dees,» surely
the victims of yellow rain might have naticed the some Millians of bees
that would have heen resronsible.

Usually the articles in C8EN are very well written, informativey and helr
busy reorle imrerove their understanding of subJects outside of their
fields of exrertise,. Unfortunately,» the subject article falls far short
of the usual standards. Recause of its bias», which is arrarent by virtue
of its lensuade,s it imposes uron the reader a considerable level of effort
to try to understand the true merits of the government ’s case,

UNCLASSIFIED