Gulf War Syndrome

[svero]

Don't know if this has been brought up before but I thought we could discuss the Guld War Syndrome. Lately there's been some talk of depleted uranium in the news, citing it as a possible reason for health problems soldiers had/have. I've also read that Gulf War Syndome was a lot of bunk, and that statistically gulf war vets were as healthy as anyone else. So I guess the first question is... Is there really such a thing as the Gulf War Syndrome? Is it a real medical problem or not?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by svero
So I guess the first question is... Is there really such a thing as the Gulf War Syndrome? Is it a real medical problem or not?
My Personal view is that there is such a thing as Gulf War Syndrome. There was a thing called Vietnam war syndrome...A lot of people I know went through it.
I also believe there was Korean War syndrome, WW2 syndrome, WW1 syndrome, American Civil war syndrome and one for any other war you can think of. Is the issue now the fact that we have only just started to realise that the casualties don't stop when the shooting is over?

[svero]

Originally posted by The Fool

My Personal view is that there is such a thing as Gulf War Syndrome. There was a thing called Vietnam war syndrome...A lot of people I know went through it.
I also believe there was Korean War syndrome, WW2 syndrome, WW1 syndrome, American Civil war syndrome and one for any other war you can think of. Is the issue now the fact that we have only just started to realise that the casualties don't stop when the shooting is over?

What are you implying, that there is a psychological post war sydnrome? I'm talking about a real medical problem caused by something other than post war mental trauma like radiation poisoning. Does that exist?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by svero


What are you implying, that there is a psychological post war sydnrome? I'm talking about a real medical problem caused by something other than post war mental trauma like radiation poisoning. Does that exist?

Acknowledging post-traumatic stress disorder.

I saw a doccie about gulf war syndrome (GWS) on the telly a while ago and aslo from my own scientific literacy I can share with you the following:

Depleted Uranium: Not very radioactive at all nor anymore poisonous than lead so can be discounted.

Vaccinations: No evidence to substantiate any allegations that vaccines cause typical GWS symptoms like motor-neurone disease.

Chemical weapons (Nerve Gas). It seems likely that there want any high level exposure to nerve agents in the gulf- at least not enough to cause symptoms. However- low level exposure is known to have occured widely as muntions/factories/stockpiles were destroyed.

What has recently been discovered is that at very low levels, different nerve agents acting together can cause harm to lab animals. These are at levels far below what is required for symptoms to develop when only one agent is present. So it is possible that something like this has happened. However, I would like to see some epidemiological data that indicate a higher incidence of motor neurone/neuro-degenrate conditions amongst gulf-war vets than any other section of the population and so far- I aint seen nuthin!

[Jon_in_london]

(myslef:) However, I would like to see some epidemiological data that indicate a higher incidence of motor neurone/neuro-degenrate conditions amongst gulf-war vets than any other section of the population and so far- I aint seen nuthin!

Ahem. Seems thats because I never looked.

http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/research/mortality_illhealth.htm

From the articale:

The results of the mortality study were published in The Lancet on 1 July 2000. The study found that the number of deaths and the causes of death in the comparison group who did not deploy to the Gulf were similar to those for Gulf veterans. There was however a small non-significant excess of deaths amongst Gulf veterans particularly due to road traffic accidents.

The randomly selected study population for the study of ill health was composed of a total of 9,600 Gulf veterans and some 4,800 service personnel who did not serve in the Gulf. Work on the study of ill health is now complete. The results were published as two papers in the May 2001 edition of Occupational and Environmental Medicine on 12 April 2001.

The research found that Gulf veterans report a greater severity of symptoms than those who were not deployed to the Gulf although the overall severity of symptoms was not high. There was no evidence of any illness unique to Gulf veterans and the various symptoms reported were ranked in generally the same order by both groups. The researchers found no evidence of a "Gulf War Syndrome".

The research also found that there were weak associations between particular exposures reported (handling pesticides, vaccinations and exposure to oil fire smoke) and particular types of ill health.

The researchers suggested that a possible link between particular exposures and ill health should be researched further through clinical examination. Such work is already planned or has been under way for some time.

So. In other words, probably not.

[svero]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Depleted Uranium: Not very radioactive at all nor anymore poisonous than lead so can be discounted.


I've seen interviews with specialists and so on where they say this isn't the case. Do you have some study or article to back this up?

[Jon_in_london]

gaahh. There have been threads in the science forum about DU. I suggest trying to dig those out.

Basically DU is a low activity alpha emmiter so isnt much to be feared- desert sun is prolly more of a problem than DU. Although its noteable that DU may contain mother radioactive uranium isotopes but in very small quantities.

From the Mod'S website:

http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/depleted/du.htm



Naturally occurring uranium contains several uranium isotopes, mainly 235U and 238U in the proportion 0.7% and 99.3%. It is known as Depleted Uranium (DU) if it has a lower concentration of 235U isotope than natural uranium (approx 0.2%)

{Note- Naturally occuring uranium is not fissionable which is why you need to enrich it for U235. What left is depleted uranium- much less radioactive than the naturally occuring stuff}

SUMMARY

20. DU when compared to other non-radioactive heavy metals has a low order of chemical toxicity. The permissible levels to the body for soluble uranium compounds are based on chemical toxicity while the permissible levels to the body for insoluble compounds of uranium is based on the radioactivity.

21. During and following combat it is difficult to postulate how soluble or complex uranium salts would be produced, and it is likely that the uranium oxides would be the main species released. As these are essentially insoluble so the risk to those exposed is governed more by radioactivity than by chemical toxicity. The dose limit to the whole body would be exceeded before the dose limit to the lung.

22. The only clinical signs or symptoms from exposure to DU would arise if it was inhaled as a soluble compound or spilled on the skin. These would be transient kidney damage or skin irritation.

CONCLUSION

23. In the light of the known exposures to uranium in the uranium industry during and after World War II it would seem unlikely that the hazards of uranium have been underestimated.

24. To date there is no indication that harmful overexposures to DU with respect to chemical toxicology or radioactivity have occurred either at the UK ranges or in the Gulf conflict.



So basically- you have more to fear from lead in terms of heavy metal poisoning and more to fear from stong sunlight in terms of radiation.

To me, the most convincing indication that there isnt any such thing as GWS are the epidemiological studies.

[Segnosaur]

Well, if you believe in Fumento, he covered gulf war syndrome in many articles:

http://www.fumento.com/sugulf.html

Basically, the stats show that gulf war vets suffer illness in about the same rate as non-gulf war vets, and that any time a gulf war vet gets sick, they attribute it to something which happened during the war, rather than assuming it is just a natural part of getting older and having the problems associated with aging.

[svero]

Fumento was one of my main sources for doubting the gulf war syndrome... but it's like a lot of these issues.

Expert #1) Of course DU is detrimental to health. That's obvious to any scientist who knows anything about... bla bla bla...

Expert #2) Of course DU is no worse than x. There's no stats to show that it is etc...

So who then to believe? In a case like this I often look at motive. Who are these experts and what do they have to gain, if anything from what they've said?

In Fumento's case he seems somewhat independent of the issue, but then on the other hand if it did turn our that DU was a major health risk and he was wrong that would seriously hurt his credibility.

In terms of someone like Former US colonel Dr Asaf Durakovic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/909638.stm) maybe he has some research grants to gain? Why should I doubt his research? On the surface he seems like a credible scientist and a lot of what he says makes sense.

How do you decide?

[alancarre]

Originally posted by svero
Fumento was one of my main sources for doubting the gulf war syndrome... but it's like a lot of these issues.

Expert #1) Of course DU is detrimental to health. That's obvious to any scientist who knows anything about... bla bla bla...

Expert #2) Of course DU is no worse than x. There's no stats to show that it is etc...

So who then to believe? In a case like this I often look at motive. Who are these experts and what do they have to gain, if anything from what they've said?

How do you decide?

You use physics. After a quick look through some physics formums I found this:


Aaron Boyden wrote:
}
} "Bruce A. Perreault - Magistrate" wrote:
} > When these depleted shells explode they release particles less
} > than 5 microns in size into the atmosphere! What do you think
} > these minute radioactive particles do once they are breathed
} > into the body?
}
} Based on the best current information about the effects of low levels
} of radiation, the answer is virtually nothing.
>
>Uh. Not cause cancer?

The answer did not say that, it said _virtually_ none.

That answer is correct.

The reason is that DU is primarily 238U (having been "depleted" of most, but not all, of the somewhat shorter-lived 235U isotope that is used as a nuclear explosive), and the lifetime of 238U is a mere 4.468 x 10^{9} years. Materials with billion year lifetimes do not pose a major health risk. You live with that risk every day from a wide variety of naturally occuring radioactive materials.

The radiological risk is proprotional to the specific activity (decays per second per unit mass) of whatever you are looking at, which is inversely related to the lifetime, and the kind of particle released in the decay (alphas being the worst in the body). That is, longer lifetime, less risk, other things being equal.

The risk of an alpha emitter like 238U is much greater than that of a beta emitter such as 40K with 'only' a 1.25 x 10^{9} year lifetime, but more 40K atoms decay in any given time period and there are more atoms in a given mass. Taken together, this means a given mass of 238U (which has 6 times fewer atoms and 3 times less activity but has 20 times the risk) is about the same as a given mass of 40K. Note that 40K is also naturally occuring and, since it is potassium, makes up part of your body at all times. You are probably buying into the concept that any radioactive material (such as your body, what with its 40K and 14C) is inherently dangerous. Those natural sources of radioactivity have a low risk because our bodies evolved mechanisms that repair most minor damage from radiation and other insults our cells put up with. You need exposures many times the natural level before risk becomes detectable in a population.

You might also be jumping to an unwarranted analogy to the risk of inhaling small amounts of plutonium. By comparison, the lifetime of 239Pu (used in nuclear weapons) is only 24,000 years and the lifetime of 238Pu (used in RTGs) is only 87.7 years. The former is 4.468x10^{9}/24,000 = 186,000 times more dangerous than 238U. That is, you would need to inhale about 200,000 of those micron sized dust particles to equal the effect of one from 239Pu. Note that some tons of 239Pu were vaporized during atmospheric testing....

...People who are out to scare you rarely present all of the facts.




Maybe he's wrong, if so someone please offer a counter argument.

- Alan

[Jon_in_london]

Sounds right to me.

Summary.
(1) Epidemiological studies indicate that their is no such thing as GWS
(2) With the possible exception of co-operative activity of certain neurotoxins (unproven and untested in primates) there isnt any possible mechanism for GWS to exist.

Ergo it doesnt exist.

[svero]

Hmm.... Well I was kind of on the fence about this when I started the thread, but now I'd say that the evidence is strongly in favor of there not being a medical/biological GWS.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by svero
Hmm.... Well I was kind of on the fence about this when I started the thread, but now I'd say that the evidence is strongly in favor of there not being a medical/biological GWS.

Yes, there is a biological and chemical (http://www.gulfwarvets.com/testimony_2.htm) connection to GWS (mycoplasma infections (biological) and sarin (chemical)). The government knows about it and that is why they have many gulf vets getting medical treatment for it.

What has blurred the issue is that the battlefield produces many different types of toxins, so you can't say that 14 soldiers who got sick from oil well fires is the reason why they "all " got sick, so to speak.

The soldiers in the gulf were for the most part in general proximity to each other, and there was massive clouds of sarin that floated over vast numbers of coalition troops after US engineers mistakenly blew up Saddam's forward chemical weapons bunkers filled with chem-munitions and other ordinance.

It is easier not to believe and think that the soldiers from the Gulf war don't have any problems--the same was said for agent orange from the Vietnam war until the veterans of the Vietnam war started having children with missing arms, legs, etc.

Almost 2/3 of the entire Gulf War force is sick. That is not a cause of "aging".

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Almost 2/3 of the entire Gulf War force is sick. That is not a cause of "aging".

JK Jedi,

You have posted this before and it has been debunked (one of the articles is also quoted in this thread). Do you really want to go through your percentages again? :(

Gulf veterans are about as sick as others of their age, that's what research is showing. If you find some research showing something else, please post it.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi,

You have posted this before and it has been debunked (one of the articles is also quoted in this thread). Do you really want to go through your percentages again? :(

Gulf veterans are about as sick as others of their age, that's what research is showing. If you find some research showing something else, please post it.

I just did in the link above.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I just did in the link above.

JK Where in that link is anyone confirming that 2/3 of the entire Gulf War force is sick?

Check this:

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

Over 100,000 American veterans of Desert Storm /Desert Shield (approximately 15% of deployed U. S. Armed Forces) returned from the Persian Gulf and slowly (6-24 months or more) and presented with a variety of complex signs and symptoms characterized by disabling fatigue From your own source on a former thread:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=28958

So far, according to an April 2002 Veterans Affairs report, an additional 7,758 Desert Storm vets have died, while 198,716 vets have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits. Of the claims filed, 156,031 have been granted as service-connected, with more vets being designated casualties as each day passes. The 198,716 figure represents a staggering 28 percent of the vets – 696,579 – who fought in the Gulf War conflict! Even if these sources were to be relied upon, it's very far from your 2/3 of the force, and it covers all claims, not only GWI. (I guess it is an insult to the vets to mention that money is involved in filing such claims.)

And of course, one could add that British soldiers, according to this research, must be a lot more robust than the American:

The research found that Gulf veterans report a greater severity of symptoms than those who were not deployed to the Gulf although the overall severity of symptoms was not high. There was no evidence of any illness unique to Gulf veterans and the various symptoms reported were ranked in generally the same order by both groups. The researchers found no evidence of a "Gulf War Syndrome". Why the exaggeration Jedi?

And by the way, did you ever read anything here?

http://www.fumento.com/sugulf.html

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Yes, there is a biological and chemical (http://www.gulfwarvets.com/testimony_2.htm) connection to GWS (mycoplasma infections (biological) and sarin (chemical)). The government knows about it and that is why they have many gulf vets getting medical treatment for it.

What has blurred the issue is that the battlefield produces many different types of toxins, so you can't say that 14 soldiers who got sick from oil well fires is the reason why they "all " got sick, so to speak.

The soldiers in the gulf were for the most part in general proximity to each other, and there was massive clouds of sarin that floated over vast numbers of coalition troops after US engineers mistakenly blew up Saddam's forward chemical weapons bunkers filled with chem-munitions and other ordinance.

It is easier not to believe and think that the soldiers from the Gulf war don't have any problems--the same was said for agent orange from the Vietnam war until the veterans of the Vietnam war started having children with missing arms, legs, etc.

Almost 2/3 of the entire Gulf War force is sick. That is not a cause of "aging".

JK

Just what I'd expect from a communist leftie posing as a patriot!

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Even if these sources were to be relied upon, it's very far from your 2/3 of the force, and it covers all claims, not only GWI. (I guess it is an insult to the vets to mention that money is involved in filing such claims.)


Not really related to the data - but yes, it would be an insult to the vets to claim that money is all they're after. Particuarly if you know how long it takes for Veterans Affairs to do anything.

(A family member of mine is a 100% P&T disabled Gulf War vet...)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


(A family member of mine is a 100% P&T disabled Gulf War vet...)

What does that mean?

BTW- I'd never suggest that the vets are grubbing for money. But thier views are very much subjective, wouldnt you think?

[Nephilimn]

Shortly after leaving the gulf in the summer of '91, our unit was given a notice stating that anyone associated with our unit during the entire time of actual operations in the Persian Gulf were not allowed to donate blood in the United States for at least two years.

Do any other Desert Storm vets here remember this? I believe the memo stated something about a desert black fly carrying some disease.

In 97, the VA here in Las Vegas, when I applied for my VA loan, sent me over to the hospital for a free full-fledged medical exam w/ blood tests after they saw the dates served "in theather" during Desert Storm, even though I had been out of the military since 93, so there may be something to this GWS, although I haven't had any adverse affects, nor has the few people I've kept in contact with since that time.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
What does that mean?


Permanently and totally disabled. Sorry about abbreviating - I'm used to abbreviating it "out loud" when discussing it.


BTW- I'd never suggest that the vets are grubbing for money. But thier views are very much subjective, wouldnt you think?

It is difficult to look at the situation objectively when you're the one in the wheelchair, yes. (I'm not in the wheelchair, of course, but the family member I spoke of earlier is getting there.)

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Nephilimn
( don't donate blood for 2 years ...)
Do any other Desert Storm vets here remember this? I believe the memo stated something about a desert black fly carrying some disease.


Here's a link (http://www.tricare.osd.mil/pgulf/arch/arch8.html) that might be related.

[svero]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Permanently and totally disabled. Sorry about abbreviating - I'm used to abbreviating it "out loud" when discussing it.



It is difficult to look at the situation objectively when you're the one in the wheelchair, yes. (I'm not in the wheelchair, of course, but the family member I spoke of earlier is getting there.)

I don't think anyone is arguing that *nobody* got sick or hurt from Gulf War service. This is about whether there is statistically significant evidence of deteriorating health in a large percentage of GWV's due to DU or some other identifiable cause like exposure to toxic gas, or disease.

If a disease spread by black flies was the culprit that would be easy to test for and show so I can only assume that, while there may have been such a disease, it is not the reason for deteriorating health in a large number of veterans, if indeed there is any evidence that GWV's are statistically less healthy than the general population.

I think the very first debate I engaged in with Jedi Knight was over the Gulf War Syndrome. He made some outlandish claims, as usual, and cited, but did not link, the VA as backing him up.

I was able to go right to a VA link to show that Gulf War veterans suffered no more illness, right up to the current day, than the civilian population, with the exception of motor vehicle accidents shortly after returning. Which is understandable, since they were out of practice.

And now I am going to be hypocritical and not provide the link. :D

I am tired, but promise to look for it later.

Okay. I hate to leave anyone hanging.

Here (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7891&perpage=40&highlight=gulf%20syndrome&pagenumber=3) is the Gulf War Syndrom topic that JK started. Don't let the title throw you off. My posts begin on page 3.

And here (http://www.va.gov/resdev/prt/gulf_war_2000/gulf_war_report_2000_appendixC.doc) is the VA report I mentioned in the same topic and in my last post on this topic.

Here is the relevant data from the VA report:


In summary, the mortality rates in both Gulf War veterans and non-deployed veterans are about 40% of the mortality rates in the general US population, which means that veterans are much healthier. In both the US and the UK, Gulf War veterans have had a significantly higher mortality rate due to unintentional injuries, mostly motor vehicle injuries, compared to non-deployed veterans. This is the only difference in mortality rates, to date. The follow-up mortality studies in the US and UK will continue indefinitely.

[Bjorn]

Thanks, Luke.

I was going to PM you since I knew you had some research results handy - you saved me the trouble. :)

[Nephilimn]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Here's a link (http://www.tricare.osd.mil/pgulf/arch/arch8.html) that might be related.

Thanks!!!

I've been wondering about that for quite some time. It was the desert sandfly that was mentioned to us.

I wonder if some of these diseases could be the cause of GWS, misdiagnosed or not understood?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nephilimn


Thanks!!!

I've been wondering about that for quite some time. It was the desert sandfly that was mentioned to us.

I wonder if some of these diseases could be the cause of GWS, misdiagnosed or not understood?

This assumes that there are some unattributable diseases that can be called "GWS".

However, the links provided above make an important claim: deployed Gulf war vets _DO NOT_ have a higher incidence of unattributable disease or problems than non-deployed troops.

IOW, you are speculating on a mechanism without having observed an effect.

[Troll]

I was in an artillery regiment in the Marines during the Gulf war. We used depleted uranium rounds. we were given the new and experimental NAP (nerve agent protection) pills. we were given shots for anthrax. we spent days in the clouded skies filled with the smoke from the oil fires in Kuwait. we used literally tons of dead animals to mark roads, how the animals died is unkown, they were not shot. Did any of that kill me or mess me up? So far no. Could any of it mess someone up? Yep. Different people get different reactions. I know a guy that became anemic because of the malaria pills we take when we went to the Phillipines, I've taken those pills on 4 different occassions and have no known adverse effects from them. I wouldn't call it a syndrome so much as a bad reaction to something that someone was exposed to.