Talk:Gulf War syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

older entries

Stress and PTSD-like illnesses were oficially ruled out by the pentagon in early 2005; no further funds are expended on such research.

Pyridostigmine bromide is not a teratogen. (Rand Co., 2001)

Mercury Poisoning - Thimerosal

It was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Gulf War Illness was caused by mercury poisoning from all 19 vaccines soldiers were forced to take containing deadly ethyl mercury alkso known as Thimerosal, causing severe irreversible mercury poisoning and Parkinsonian's symptoms. The vaccines manufacturers concealed the fact that all vaccines had deadly doses of ethyl mercury causing cumulative mercury poisoning from all 19 vaccines given to great majority of veterans.

1 - Sign your comments. 2 - source your statements, especially if they claim to provide facts. -Interested2 19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agent Orange?

I dont think Agent Orange has enough relevance to this article to have it as a See Also. We should consider removing it. Bonus Onus 14:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I put it there because of the (possibly) similar situation of authorities long denying that anything was amiss. It would be nice to embed a short discussion of the various public views on that issue into the article itself, but I just stuck it in the "See also" because I don't have time to research a proper presentation right now. — B.Bryant 15:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that Agent Orange has a distinct medical link to many diseases, but GWS has no proven cause. I still think having this here is a stretch. Plus it could confuse people: "They used Agent Orange in Iraq??" Bonus Onus 02:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs either. The "See also" implies a direct connection (as Bonus Onus says, some people will think Agent Orange is a cause of GWI), not just that there are similarities. DanKeshet 03:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there should be an explain as to why Agent Orange is being mentioned, but I definitely think it should be included... Bonus Onus points out that:

The difference is that Agent Orange has a distinct medical link to many diseases, but GWS has no proven cause.

That comment was probably unsigned because the author didn't know that Agent Orange wasn't the problem -- the cancer and birth defects were from contamination by "inactive" ingredients, such as benzene, with which it was packed by the manufacturer. 71.141.165.134 20:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would respond to that by pointing out that GWS has no proven cause yet. Same was true of Agent Orange in the late 70's. AO wasn't "proven" to be a problem for almost a generation. Like AO, the possibility that "higher ups" know what causes GWS is also still a possibility. And even if they don't, there's a perception among some that they do (FYI, I'm not among the conspiracy theorists on this one, but I recognize why they are suspicious). So if B.Bryant wants to expand it a little, I think that'd be great; if not, maybe I'll do so myself!  :-) 5:50, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yet? In the U.K., the case was closed in 2004, and even the Texas attornies who were trying to sue the mustard gas suppliers haven't been able to explain away the lack of the expected amount of cancer in U.S. and U.K. troops in proportion to birth defects. 71.141.142.114 06:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your thinking of 'Agent Orange' is too narrow. Agent Orange was a dioxin, which became also known a 'Seveso Poison'. It is produced by burning diesel oil and burning oil wells, where we have the connection. If you look at the issues affecting ex-soldiers as dioxin poisonings then you have the common denominator. Since I get very sick from diesel fumes, probably their dioxin content, I view these things under this aspect. My symptoms after diesel fumes exposure are very similar: About 15 hours after exposure I get brainfog, fatigue, migraines, and general listlessness. I also find it difficult to focus (vision and mind), and my reaction times are slowed as if I had a bad hangover. And that's probably what describes it best, a hangover type effect, not from alcohol poisoning but from dioxin poisoning. The dosage which causes symptoms seems to vary greatly among people, if you consider some people work in traffic situations and do not get sick, others, like me, get sick from waiting at a bus stop for half an hour. If symptoms were to occur quicker, people would be believed, but it is just such a slow reacting poinson, that people often do not make that connection. Dioxins are the common denominator in Gulf War Syndrome, Vietnam Veteran Syndrome, and other maladies suffered by people living near diesel infested roads and railway lines. I am not a scientist or ex-soldier, just a person who gets sick after diesel exposure.

GWS & MCS

The Multiple Chemical Sensitivity section is very weak - no sources at all, and a (to my mind) POV slant in the way it compares Gulf War Syndrome and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in extremely vague and entirely negative terms. "Leading some to believe" and "most experts" are bad enough as weasel words, but the claim that believers in GWS are "mostly adherents of alternative medicine" is unprovable and/or meaningless. And what are these tests we're referring to? Unless someone fleshes it out with some sources, I'm tempted to either strike this section completely or cut it down to a simple mention of MCS. ←Hob 05:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. 71.141.142.114 06:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"The symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome are more similar to those of industrial uranium fume exposure[25] than Multiple Chemical Sensitivity." This would be very interesting, however the PDF linked, (http://www.umrc.net/pdf/medical_effects_of_uranium.pdf), is simply a one page introduction of a study that doesn't even mention fume exposure.

Please see the full-text here for a limited time only for purposes of fair use research. Nrcprm2026 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

In the depleted uranium section:

"In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were found to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims[10],[11]."

That is only in one article that the person himself mentioned he made the conenction with radiation after the Gulf War. In the mill, the articles indicate they were rolling uranium for reactors. If this is the case, this is NOT depleted uranium. It doesn't mention anywhere that they were workign only with depleted uranium. Furthermore the problems the workers had are described as cancer, NOT "chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, diarrhea, migraines, dizziness, memory problems and loss of balance"

There is no difference in the chemical toxicities of the different isotopes of uranium, except for the rate at which they are metabolized and translocated. The only toxicological differences are between the oxidation states. Please see the Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305.

Furthermore, that the uranium metalworkers have been comorbid with cancer is interesting but epidemiologically insignificant; there are many possible explainations. Chronic fatigue, loss of coordination, diarrhea, headaches, memory problems and eustation tube infections are all symptoms of immunocompromization. 71.141.126.0 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The government cites in most of its reports against depleted uranium being a cause, of monitoring dozens of veterans that still have depleted uranium fragments embedded in their bodies from friendly fire incidents have not experienced any health problems. This should at least be mentioend somewhere.

If you are referring to the shrapnel victims' urine studies, those are addressed in the paragraph on UO₃(g). Nrcprm2026 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

DU has similar affects on humans as those of lead. Scapegoating DU is only because there are too many morons that don't understand that it isn't significantly radioactive. If you are a DU hater, please contact me so I can mail you a dunce cap. Thanks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan100's edits of mid-December

Please do not justify deletions on the depleted uranium page by moving them here, and then later deleting them from here. That is unethical. 71.141.163.10 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is about Gulf War Syndrome, not depleted uranium. It's as simple as that. Dan100 (Talk) 10:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any remaining evidence that GWS isn't primarily attributable to DU? Nrcprm2026 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are thinking of isn't GWS - that's where you're going wrong! Dan100 (Talk) 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it your personal opinion that GWS isn't associated with depleted uranium, or is there someone -- anyone -- in the post-2004 peer-reviewed medical literature who agrees with that? Nrcprm2026 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He did it again ("rv as per talk") without answering any of the above questions. There has been no substantial activity here in talk for days, and certainly no activity to support such a drastic reversion. I have posed additional questions at User_talk:Dan100#Please_justify_your_GWS_and_DU_edits. Please see. Nrcprm2026 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, after I already took out the DU-specific stuff not pertinent to GWS. --James S. 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nrcprm2026, please provide links to peer-reviewed journal which support your position. Dan100 (Talk) 11:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, the most recent major study I know of makes only passing reference to DU, and does not suggest a relationship. And it's list of outcomes does not include health effects which are causable by depleted uranium.

Further, just a quick search on PubMed for "gulf war syndrome depleted uranium" reveals nothing in "post-2004 peer-reviewed medical literature". Although this is worth a read... Dan100 (Talk) 11:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Point-by-point explanation of re-write

• GWS is an "umbrella term" with no medial definition [1]
• No legal cases or science research that I can find has suggested that birth defects are part of GWS
• The 2004 UK P.A.T. ruling only found that the appellant had been exposed to DU in the Gulf [2]
• Much of the removed material is original research, e.g. " In 2005, depleted uranium was shown to be a a potent neurotoxin[25], explaining observed symptoms previously unattributable to uranyl poisoning and the other harmful substances to which some 1991 Gulf War combat veterans were exposed." citing this study which was performed on rats, not Gulf vets!
• Removed "United States Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi's pre-2005 review committee found that studies suggest the veterans' illnesses are neurological and apparently are linked to exposure to neurotoxins." pending provsion of source (as per WP:CITE)
• Removed "The symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome are more similar to those of industrial uranium fume exposure[3] than Multiple Chemical Sensitivity." - OR
• Removed "Potential sources of DU exposure" as not relevant to article

-Dan100 (Talk) 12:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I think you missed these:

• http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract
• http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74

Also, the comment about rat neurotoxins unlikely to be human neurotoxins is strange. Why would a rat neurotoxin not be a human neurotoxin? 146.74.231.120 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Birth defects, gonocytes and testes

Nrcprm2026, I'm looking into this in more depth right now. Any source info you may have would be appreciated. AvB ÷ talk 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of accumulation in testes? "In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain." Toxicol Ind Health. 2001 Jun;17(5-10):180-91; "The relationship between dosage and the 18-hr accumulation of U in leg bones, liver, kidneys and testes was linear" Comp Biochem Physiol C. 1989;92(1):55-9; "Degenerative changes in the testes resulting in aspermia in the testes and epididymis ... apparently a result of uranyl nitrate" Maynard, E.A., Downs, W.L. and Hodge, H.C., "Oral toxicity of uranium compounds," in Voegtlin, C. and Hodge, H.C., editors, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium, Volume 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953), pp. 1221-1369; and "uranium exposure causes morphologic changes in the rat testes.... Average testes weight was significantly (P0.05) decreased in rats exposed to uranyl nitrate" Malenchenko, A.F., Barkun, N.A. and Guseva, G.F., "Effect of uranium on the induction and course of experimental autoimmune orchitis and thyroiditis," J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol, vol. 22, pp. 268-277 (1978).

Thanks, James, but this is not about the well-known consequences of uranium compound toxicity for the reproductive organs etc, but about the birth defects evident in the children of people who have been exposed to such compounds. AvB ÷ talk 12:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there weren't any substantial human uranium inhalation exposures prior to 1991. I think this Domingo paper on developmental toxicity in mice might be helpful. Note that they were unable to pin down a minimum NOEL dosage. —James S. 13:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting one. AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen that you've reverted my edit without using the discussion page. I think you lack true understanding of the function of gonocytes. Please document. I will refrain form reverting for now.  AvB ÷ talk 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope my edit summary was descriptive. Gonocytes are the primary, secondary, or definitive oocytes or spermatocytes, but still morphologically undifferentiated from PGCs and still being fed by the bloodstream (in which uranyl ion is known to dissolve.) —James S. 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are referring to possible effects of UO2 on (non-neonatal) spermatogenesis, not about a birth defect affecting gonocytes. AvB ÷ talk 12:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm not defending my second (PGC) edit but questioning your first one (adult vs neonatal testes) and I guess I have my doubts about the verifiability of the gonocytes reference. I'm still looking for sources that refer to damage to neonatal gonocytes in children of Gulf War vets, but for now I'll edit the gonocytes reference into something I hope you can live with. AvB ÷ talk 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the kids gonocytes which are being mutated, it's the dad's. Whether there is a 2nd generation effect is still unknown, because kids born in '92 or later aren't reproducing yet. —James S. 13:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. My original minor edit of the article was based on what it says there: birth defect (obviously not in GW vets but in their children). I tried to verify that but couldn't so I'm sure you're right. To me the upshot is that the "birth defect" language needs a bit of a rewrite (just a few words really). It fooled me so it may fool others. Thanks for the feedback. Also, I apologize & take back the "lack true understanding" remark. AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE and peer-reviewed literature

A 14 November 1996 article in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in death rates or hospitalization rates between Persian Gulf vets and non-Persian Gulf vets.

This is an attempt to refer to peer-reviewed science. There is actually a lot of research into Gulf War syndrome, including systematic reviews. The correct reference for the above is Gray GC, Coate BD, Anderson CM, Kang HK, Berg SW, Wignall FS, Knoke JD, Barrett-Connor E. The postwar hospitalization experience of U.S. veterans of the Persian Gulf War. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1505-13. PMID 8890103.

There is much more to be done here to reflect the scientific side of GWS fairly. JFW | T@lk 13:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to me that it has moved on from the status as represented in this article. I have tried to recruit an expert (externally) but without much success thus far. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How many?

How many people are alleged (by whom) to have suffered from Gulf War syndrome?

I heard 400,000 on Coast to Coast AMHerb-Sewell 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, when it comes to facts please don't cite Coast to Coast AM. According to that radio program Planet X would have destroyed earth years ago.

User:TDC

Please provide reasons for repeated removal of sourced information. AvB ÷ talk 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because James continues to put information in the article that he has been told repeated has no relevance to the subject, or is bieng purposefully distorted to suit his POV. Such as the inclusion of "uranyl oxide gas" which does not exist, and whose existance James is trying to argue with a metalurgist with 30 years experience under his belt. DTC 04:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been reverting information about the number of birth defects observed over time and the neurotoxicity level in drinking water for rats. As for the uranium trioxide gas claims, the metalurgist approves of it as properly sourced. --James S. 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

James, it is now concensus that the UO3 gas has is OR and that you have not read your source properly. DTC 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this is part of something larger (also see Depleted uranium) so I'll take a step back. (I came in to revert a change relative to a subject I had checked for references). I'll be back if I think I have something worthwhile to contribute. AvB ÷ talk 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Source for UO₃(g) oversight mistake

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Director's Decision
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:57:11 -0500
From: Joseph DeCicco <JXD1@nrc.gov>
To: James Salsman <james@bovik.org>
CC: Paul Goldberg <PFG@nrc.gov>

Dear Mr. Salsman:

In response to your question:

>> Question six poses the question of whether the armed forces
>> were aware that uranium-oxygen combustion produces monomolecular
>> gaseous UO3 gas vapor, before the Petitioner brought the issue
>> to their attention in the petition. As stated in Petition Summary
>> Item 2, a 1979 Pacific Northwest Laboratories test report
>> indicates that UO3 was established as one of the possible oxides
>> resulting from uranium combustion at elevated temperatures. The 
>> statement that no UO3 was in fact found is factually accurate,
>> and, therefore, cannot constitute a violation of NRC requirements
>> concerning completeness and accuracy of information. Also the
>> Capstone Report, mentioned above, indicates that because of the
>> difficulty of distinguishing x-ray diffraction lines of U3O8 and
>> UO3, the report provides data in the form of total U3O8/UO3
>> quantities.
> 
> I need to ask just one further clarification:  My question six
> concerned "gaseous" UO3.  Do either the PNL or Capstone reports
> to which the above answer refers mention the possibility of
> UO3(g) production in particular, or just UO3 in general?

The PNL uses the terms "airborne particulates" and "respirable" 
and "non-respirable" "airborne particulates."  The Capstone 
Report uses the term "aerosols" when discribing U3O8/UO3.

Sincerely,
Joe DeCicco

Earlier correspondence is available from Drs. Mishima, Parkhurst, and Johnson on request. --James S. 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I hardly see this as evidence qualifying your belief that UO3 exists in a gaseous phase. DTC 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My belief? I guess these peer-reviewed sources describing the formation of uranyl oxide gas need to be repeated here, since you removed them from DV8's inclusion on uranium trioxide:

• R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355,
• Nakajima, K; Arai, Y, "Mass-spectrometric investigation of UO{sub 3}(g)", Journal of Nuclear Materials; April 2001; vol.294, no.3, p.250-5
• Green, DW, "Relationship between spectroscopic data and thermodynamic functions; application to uranium, plutonium, and thorium oxide vapor species," Journal of Nuclear Materials; Jan. 1980; vol.88, no.1, p.51-63
• Ackermann, RJ; Chang, AT, "THERMODYNAMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF U3O8-Z PHASE," JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THERMODYNAMICS; 1973; v.5, no.6, p.873-890
• CHAPMAN, AT; MEADOWS, RE, "VOLATILITY OF UO2+/-X AND PHASE RELATIONS IN THE SYSTEM URANIUM OXYGEN," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY; 1964; v.47, no.12, p.614-621
• DROWART, J; PATTORET, A; SMOES, S, "Heat of sublimation of uranium and consistency of thermodynamic data for uranium compounds," Journal of Nuclear Materials; 1964; v.12, no.3, p.319-322
• ROBERTS, LEJ; WALTER, AJ, "EQUILIBRIUM PRESSURES AND PHASE RELATIONS IN THE URANIUM OXIDE SYSTEM," JOURNAL OF INORGANIC & NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY; 1961; v.22, no.3-4, p.213-229
• WILSON, WB, "HIGH-PRESSURE HIGH-TEMPERATURE INVESTIGATION OF THE URANIUM-OXYGEN SYSTEM," JOURNAL OF INORGANIC & NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY; 1961; v.19, no.3-4, p.212-222

--James S. 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Final Plea

James, your continual insertion of disputed material in this and related article is getting tiresome. The following has been pointed to you repeatedly:

1. You continue to reference material that you clearly do not understand
2. You have little if any expertise/training on the subject and have been repeatedly rebuffed by more knowledgeable editors, including a doctor, metallurgist/chemist and an engineer.
3. You continue to use material from your website, a violation of WP:RS, and WP:OR
4. You constantly remove information that runs contrary to your POV and replace it with material that has been deliberately distorted.

Either abide by the consensus of the other editors, or this will lead to a RfArb. I really hope you seriously reconsider your actions. DTC 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have a very good understanding of the subjects, and that assertions to the contrary are baseless and little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks. The peer-reviewed sources I cite support my edits. I've only referred to full-text versions on my website here on talk page discussions, not in the article text where I cite the publisher's or Medline's abstracts. There is no consensus on these topics at all; they are all recognized as controversial in and outside Wikipedia. Why don't you request that this article be mediated along with the pending request for mediation of Depleted uranium? --James S. 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your beliefs are irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that I and several other editors have come to the conclusion that you do not know how to read a technical source. No matter how much you may think otherwise, your amateur knowledge of the subject material is quite evident, and you should defer to those who have more experience/training than you. DTC 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to point out any specific, objective misinterpretation I've made, or is this just a subjective abstract personal attack because you don't like what the sources I've cited say? --James S. 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*1. and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine[4]. This is synthesis, and not supported by the source. Assuming these are the 27 mentioned in the RAND report, it was shrapnel and not lung particulates. Dr U 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to tell by the contrast to shrapnel ratios mentioned in the abstract that your assumption is incorrect. There are at least six papers supporting the lung-dissolution theory of the quoted passage in Medline, but they show fairly divergent results. The U.K. DUOB has another set of different results from urine isotope ratio studies, and if you look at the minutes on their web site, they've been getting different results from the three blinded labs they've been using. More detail here. --James S. 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

okay, it was unclear whose shrapnel was being referred to, and it is now easy to discern what they are trying to do. I understand the theory on tracking exposure source through isotope ratios. The author themselves say that further investigation is warranted, which is a responsible statement. Though the implication is that 22% of these soldier total body uranium is DU, it appears that they just assuming the exposures were pulmonary/particulate, as they have not biopsied anyones lung. I find this very interesting, and agree it merits further study. And looking for uranium in soldiers is great. If they do this with very large populations, and correlate DU content with increased pathology in human beings, I could be persauded to join your cause. However, based on my prior statements it still does not prove A)Anything (sample size too small) B)Lung C)Particulate D)Harm Dr U 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*2. But according to Drs. Jofu Mishima, Maryanne Parkhurst, and John R. Johnson of the Army's Pacific Northwest Laboratory proving grounds, and Joe DiCicco and Dr. Phil Goldberg of the NRC, those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas -- also known as uranyl oxide gas, or UO₃(g) -- which is formed during uranium combustion (R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355, "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U₃O₈ with oxygen." U₃O₈ being the dominant aerosol combustion product[5].) This is synthesis. Also, source does not support the conclusion that: Drs. Jofu Mishima, Maryanne Parkhurst, and John R. Johnson of the Army's Pacific Northwest Laboratory proving grounds, and Joe DiCicco and Dr. Phil Goldberg of the NRC ignored uranium trioxide. The report does not say that they ignored it. It is just not mentioned in the report. An equally valid interpritation is that they thought of it, and felt that it wasn't worth adressing in the report. Dr U

The cited sources show that (1) U₃O₈ + O₂ produces UO₃(g), and (2) U₃O₈ is the dominant combustion product. Mishima, Parkhurst, Johnson, DeCicco, and Goldberg are primary sources; the first three are actually the ones who ignored the gas production, and they have admitted it. DeCicco and Goldberg confirmed that in their email excerpts above, in the course of investigating my petition. --James S. 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*3 "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U₃O₈ with oxygen." U₃O₈ being the dominant aerosol combustion product[6].) It is impossible to verify the source, because the page contains extracts from multiple sources, none of which mention uranium trioxide in the extract. Perhaps clarify which abstract is being refered to would help. Dr U 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Search that source for the string "75 percent" to find the abstract of Mishima's 1970s studies. --James S. 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*4 Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets[7]. Yes, this talks about PARTICULATES not GASEOUS matter. Dr U 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tiny, film-sized particulates swabbed from surfaces. The statement doesn't claim that the uranyl contamination was gaseous. I have corresponded with Salbu, and you should, too. --James S. 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*5 UO₃ gas remains dissolved in the atmosphere for weeks, but as a monomolecular gas is absorbed immediately upon inhalation, leading to accumulation in tissues including gonocytes (testes[8]) and white corpuscles[9], but virtually no residual presence in urine other than what might be present from coincident particulate exposure. The WHOOPER. This compound sentence is by far the biggest synthesis, and completely unsupported by the sources listed. A)We have jumped back from particulates to gas. B)The length of time the alleged gas stays in the atmosphere is not addressed by either of these two sources. C)The absorbtion of this alleged gas is not addressed in either of these two sources. D)The body's handeling of U03 gas as compared with other forms of U are not addressed in either of these two sources. E)Because we have not addressed D, we cannot conclude that the testes, white corpusles or anything else is affected F)Because D is not addressed, the presence in urine cannot be addressed. G)There seems to be an implication here that the gonads and white corpuscles are favored by this stuff, as they are the only tissues mentioned. H)Even if A-G were proven, it doesn't prove that any of this happens in any significant amount after a typical or even maximal battlefield exposure. Dr U 01:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(A) doesn't need further support; see *4 above. (B) is supported by the CRC Handbook table on atmospheric dissolution which I shall cite shortly. (C) is true of any monomolecular gas or vapor with a molecular weight under 500 amu -- the alveolar tissue transports them directly into the bloodstream; I agree this should have a source, but it is hardly evidence that I've misinterpreted anything. (D) Could use a reference to Morrow et al. (1972) "Inhalation studies of uranium trioxide." Health Physics 23, 273-280. (E) The translocational properties of the uranyl ion are well-known, e.g., Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, vol. U-A7 (1982) pp. 300-322. (G) Testes and WBCs are only two examples; larger uranyl concentrations occur in the liver, but the testes and white corpuscles are up there. Russell, J.J., and R.L. Kathren (2004) "Uranium Deposition and Retention in a USTUR Whole Body Case." Health Physics 86, 273-280. (H) Occam's razor. --James S. 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A)Needs support. You jump from gas to particulate to gas without explaining why. In addition to being synthesis, it is confusing. B) Cite it, then we'll discuss it (but still synthesis, since you're having to put this all together instead of obtaining it from a credible source that puts it together and then uses it to reach any conclusion) C) Cite it, basically true, haven't thought about it in years, only anesthesiologists think about that kind of thing on a regular basis; still synthesis as you are the one putting all this together D)Cite it, still synthesis E)NOT IN HUMANS F) well? G)IN ANIMALS H) Okay, so you are admitting synthesis?

After looking at all your arguments (in the uranium trioxide section) a piece at a time, then going to the sources you derived them from, it looks like it would be more accurate, and less confusing to just state these two things instead: 1. Small human studies indicate that an average of 22% of the uranium in the bodies of Gulf War vets might be depleted uranium. 2. Researchers have identified some limitations in the models used to predict dispersal of depleted uranium on the battlefield, leaving uncertainty as to the true extent of its spread after impact. These two statements A)Support your cause B)Reflect conclusions made by other authors C)Are less confusing to 99%+ of all readers D)Avoid the need to argue about uranium trioxide. You can even add a few sentences to both, elaborating on the work the authors did to reach those conclusions. I will gladly help you. I will help you defend these statements from attacks by other editors. I will even collaborate with you on the other sections, helping you put animal and human medical evidence against DU in the best possible light that can be reasonably supported by facts and conclusions from other researchers. I am sarcastic at times, but mean no harm in it, and I am being completly serious right now; I am offering an olive branch. Dr U 12:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the urine isotope ratio studies is that they all assume accumulation in the lung which wouldn't happen with the molecular gas. I appreciate your offer, and I want to wait for a mediator to take on this topic before responding to it. --James S. 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Military or Government Experimentation

The allegations (similar to the less founded rumors concerning AIDS) may be deserving of a mention or brief explanation. --AWF

LD50/30

The LD50/30 of uranyl nitrate (which has considerably less uranyl ion per unit of mass than uranium trioxide) is 2.1 mg/kg in rabbits, 12.6 mg/kg in dogs, 48 mg/kg in rats, and 51 mg/kg in guinea pigs and albino mice (Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th edition, English translation (1982) vol. U-A7, pp. 312-322.) So I removed a statement (don't know who put it in) that problems are only known to be caused in "large" exposures. --James S. 02:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from mediation

UO3 vapor; Total inhalation exposure; Teratogenicity; Neurotoxicity; Carcinogenicity; and other questions from "Can the value of a human poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects?" to "Does the oxygen gradient in a fire modify the effective surface area of burning particles by a scalar value?" (history.) --James S. 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do any factual disputes remain? --James S. 01:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual dispute remains

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Factual disputes remains!!

As seen on Talk:Uranium trioxide.

First the UO3 is never mentioned as stable at standart conditions. Only at temperatures above 1000° (Ackermann) and at low pressure (all MS studies)Intrinsic stability is never a good creteria for the real world chemistry during combustion reactions. There is no other studie showing it. The linarity of the log pressure to 1000/T diagramm gives the pest hint for the UO3 I can see, but at standart conditions this would make a U03 pressure of 10 ^-56 atm (nothing would fit best for this number).

Mixing the Ackermann paper wich has no experimental data for 2500°C (ending with 1600°C) with the burning temperatur of Uranium from another paper above 2500°is primary research and has no place in Wikipedia. The phase diagramm for Oxygen and Uranium is discribed as complicated and chalenging but well researched ( U02 and the other oxides have high importance in the nuclear fuell cycle!)in most literature (Gmelin), so why are you so sure that they overlook something so important than a U03 gas which would be a better oportunity for enrichment than the toxix chalenging dangerous waterinstable UF6. Factual disputes remains!!--Stone 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wilson (1961) and Cotton (1991) both refer to combustion at standard pressure. I have replied to the above completely unfounded concerns at Talk:Uranium trioxide where they were posted in duplicate. --James S. 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The for weeks in air is the major point for me! Yes one molecule can be in the air for weeks, but not mg or g. You get some ng of Uranium everyday through drinking water, vegetables fertilized with phosphate containing uraniumsalts and dust from atomic explosions in the 1950. The 2 or 3 UO3 molecules from DU burning have no effect, they and in your over all uranium heavy metal depote and have toxic effects like al the rest.

Give the exact amount of U03 in the air above a DU fire after the fire burned down! I this is a significat amount it would be contradictingevery physical chemistry lecture I had!

The mentioning of UO3 is the same as CdO mentioning if you read a old book with yellow colour and say that the Cd0 gas from the book is toxix. This might be true but there are only a few particles in the gasphase and you take up millions more of Cd by eating and drinking.--Stone 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Busby and Morgan (2006) "Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe?" European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics, 1(5), 650-668, as recently summarized in The Sunday Times of Britian, on February 19. There is no question that even aerosol particles can travel great distances between continents. The UO₃(g) molecules which escape crystalization and condensation after a uranium fire remain dissolved in the air. I have only a few more facts to find before we can calculate about how many must be in your lungs as you read this. --James S. 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right with some molecules, but what do they do? You ever heard that uranium is present every were in the enviroment naturaly! The difference between inhaled uranium molecules and the take up by food is 10 to 20 magnitudes and if some molecules in the lung can kill you why everybody survives the uranium in water? The significance of molecules to the problem is the problem!--Stone 08:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the toxicological differences beween uranium(VI) uranyl compounds and uranium(IV) compounds such as the dioxide? Even the metalic (0) form is essentially non-toxic, and the dioxides aren't that bad. The uranyl salts are terrible, though. Your generalizations which don't take this difference into account are not very helpful. Uranium miners aren't at any greater risk than other kinds of miners, but the metalworkers who get exposed to uranyl fumes are. --James S. 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The combounds in water are uranylsalts, because they are the most stable oxidation state in aquius solution. So where is the difference between 5mg in the lung desolving quickly and 5mg in your guts desolving quickly? Both kill you!

Your generalizations which don't take this difference into account are not very helpful. lerne some uranium chemistry and than state it again! You do not have the slightest clue of uranium chemistry! I worked with uranylacetrat and several other components so I know the chemistry!--Stone 11:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence to suggest that depleted uranium is not the cause of the birth defects

I deleted the following passage because the source cited apparently contains no support for the statement:

However there is evidence to suggest that depleted uranium is not the cause of these birth defects. [10]

--171.66.111.77 02:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame Poisoning?

Why was this removed way back in September? What does the remover have to say about it being provably false? I don't know the facts, but I'd like more than 'provably false' before such a theory is removed. Osgoodelawyer 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And I whant more than 'provably right' bevor added to wikipedia.--Stone 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yoker's What is Really Behind the Gulf War Syndrome?

This reference, apparently authored by the editor Yoker (contributions) who inserted it, has some real problems:

• What is Really Behind the Gulf War Syndrome? (2006 - contagious disease, probably leprosy)

Most strikingly, although it cites a number of well-supported studies from the '90s (e.g. this one) none of the sources it cites agrees with Yoker's conclusion that leprosy is to blame. I invite Yoker to explain how this conclusion was reached; for now I'm moving the reference out of the article. --James S. 01:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chemotoxicity of Uranium vs. Lead

Is Uranium more or less toxic than lead; especially: are uranium oxides and other uranium compounds, as created in the high temperature process of a depleted uranium projectile impact, more or less toxic in the short, middle and long term, when compared to the oxides and other compounds of lead, as created in a lead projectile impact? I want numbers! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imator (talk • contribs)

That specific question depends on the dose, which depends on the method of administration, which for the case of uranium is the subject of a bitter dispute. In general, lead is a powerful developmental toxicant in even low doses, and a mild reproductive toxin, but not a carcinogen. [11] Uranium, in the form of dissolved hexavalent uranyl ions, is a powerful reproductive toxin and also a developmental toxin, but there is much less data because there have been many fewer incidents of exposure, and the largest (i.e., the February. 1991 Gulf War) were uncontrolled, the opportunity for accurate direct measurement of the extent of exposures having long since past. Uranium is also mildly carcinogenic, but not all studies agree about that. One big difference, if you are thinking only about weapons, is that lead doesn't burn to produce easily inhaled fumes when fired on hard targets, as uranium does. --James S. 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a big fucking joke?

I am flabbergated to read such a biased, unsupported attack on uranium here. It is sad that someone would use this topic to prop up their agenda, rather than painting an honest assesment of the evidence for what is really harming our brave soldiers. Give Peace A Chance 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses

This committee minutes report has lots of good information in it. Does anyone know how to access or where to find its appendixes? It looks as if they have narowed down the causes to:

• Depleted Uranium,
• Oil Well Fires and Petroleum Combustion Products,
• Vaccines, and
• Infectious Diseases. 71.132.153.46 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see those presentations in the appendix. Are they online anywhere? 72.254.8.223 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing with all the presentation appendixes is at http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/Minutes_Dec2005.pdf (277 pages.) There is lots of good info in those presentations which isn't in the text of the report. 71.132.139.56 23:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone who knows how to do wikitables should copy the tables from pages 70-73. It looks like they found that smoke inhalation causes bronchitis and asthma, but not any GWI (pages 148, 154, 156). 71.132.139.56 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Regarding the recent edit war, I'm not sure whose version is correct, but I reverted to the complete one. Please makre sure the page is complete when reverting. Isopropyl 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not an extension of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. Information from that committee is useful, and can be included, but their conclusions do not equal everyone elses' conclusions. Because they present their findings out of alphabetical order is no pretext for doing so on wiki. Because a cause has been ruled out in their opinion does not mean that it has been ruled out in everyone elses' opinion. Give Peace A Chance 20:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, because they aren't producing their own research, they are just collecting, reviewing, and integrating all the available research from others. There aren't any scientific opinions on the subject which they have ignored, are there? 71.132.132.154 21:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said that they were conducting their own research. They are reaching their own conclusions based on other's research. Not everyone agrees with those conclusions. It is possible to look at same data and reach different conclusions, and others have done exactly that. I do not think that they are a biased organization, and I have no objection to mentioning some of their conclusions, so long as their conclusions aren't held out to be the only word on the matter. Give Peace A Chance 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved here. Just want you all to remember that whatever you do to the page, please don't remove all the references wholesale. Isopropyl 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to "Gulf War illness"

• Gulf War syndrome → Gulf War illness … Rationale: all the current sources say that "syndrome" is a misnomer and that "illness" is the correct term. I believe this is uncontroversial, but it is complicated because: (1) the existing Gulf War illness redirect has a nontrivial history, so my non-admin move attempt failed, and (2) there is also a Category:Gulf War syndrome which I have no idea how to go about moving. —Rtt71 07:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. Google suggests that "Gulf War syndrome" is more than 8x as common. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).--Pharos 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I was unaware of this. I retract my proposal. Rtt71 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Gulf War is a true illness and this name is used by myself and Garth Nicolson (mycoplasma fermentans incognitus "discoverer")

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Birth defect increase from survey data confirmed by medical records

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."

Department of Veterans Affairs (2003) "Q's & A's – New Information Regarding Birth Defects" Gulf War Review 12(1):10 newsletter at va.gov.

Note that the original odds ratio for children of male Gulf War combat veterans for "moderate to severe" birth defects was 1.78 (95% confidence interval = 1.19–2.66) [12], so this figure increased after medical records study. LossIsNotMore 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with Dr. Kang by telephone today. He confirmed that the total number of "moderate to severe" birth defects in children of male Gulf War veterans increased from an odds ratio of 1.8 from survey data to 2.2 after the pediatric medical records were examined. There is no indication of whether this is the result of an inaccuracy in the original survey data, or merely the passage of time. LossIsNotMore 01:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Doyle and Ryan called Dr. Kang's measured increase "modest." LossIsNotMore 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Extrapolation of birth defect trend

File:Basrah birth defects.gif

Defects per 1,000 births at Basrah University Hospital from Wilcock, A.R., ed. (2004) Uranium in the Wind (Ontario: Pandora Press).

Sometime in the next 20 days or so, I will be finalizing an extrapolation of the U.S., U.K., and Iraqi birth defect data I have been able to obtain. Would anyone like to give me any words of caution or advice before I begin? LossIsNotMore 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Gompertz sigmoid

The range is not tightly constrained because it is possible to have multiple defects per birth. However, I will not be using bare exponential curves or fitting in the log domain because there are practical constraints on the range. I will be using a Gompertz sigmoid logistic curve and related curves. I will be using only two significant digits, and if there are more than one 0.99-or-above adjusted R²s, then I will show them all instead of the best one's 95% confidence interval. LossIsNotMore 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The working extrapolation is constrained by how few data points exist. James S. 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome/Temp

I discovered the existence of Gulf War syndrome/Temp. I think it serves no purpose and should be speedied. Does everyone agree? JFW | T@lk 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it around -- it uses the new reference format and someone might want to use that to convert the present article to WP:FN, someday. LossIsNotMore 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That temp article is incoherent biased propaganda. Speedy delete!!!!!! Give Peace A Chance 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why incoherent? I know you believe it is biased, and I can guess that is why you would call it propaganda. But what don't you understand in it? LossIsNotMore 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It rambles more than the Unabomber Manifesto. I would be unsurprised to learn that Kaczynski himself wrote it. Dr U 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion of Schröder H, Heimers A, Frentzel-Beyme R, Schott A, Hoffman W (2003). "Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War Veterans" (PDF). Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 103: 211–219.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)? There are slides here. Should the slides be cited? LossIsNotMore 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Afganistan?

Though mention is made of troops in Gulf War II, none is made of those in Afganistan. Do they not suffer such symptoms? Might this be important? Titanium Dragon 09:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted graphs

I took these eight year-old graphs off the top of the article, because they end before the larger effects had been detected:

Figure 1. Probability of hospitalization for unexplained illness, deployed and nondeployed veterans, from Knoke JD and Gray GC (1998) "Hospitalizations for Unexplained Illnesses among U.S. Veterans of the Persian Gulf War" "This increased hospitalization risk of 11% for the deployed was a consequence of the recruiting for free clinical evaluations beginning in June 1994, with most of the resulting CCEP hospitalizations being for medical evaluation and not for clinical management. When CCEP participants were censored on 1 June 1994, deployed Gulf War veterans were not at greater risk than those not deployed. The slightly lower hospitalization risk for the deployed than for the nondeployed (Figure 2) is consistent with a healthy service member effect; that is, those selected for deployment are, on average, slightly healthier than those not selected." (San Diego, California: Naval Health Research Center).

Figure 2. Probability of hospitalization for unexplained illness, deployed and nondeployed veterans. Adjusted for recruitment effort on 1 June, 1994, from Knoke JD and Gray GC (1998) "Hospitalizations for Unexplained Illnesses among U.S. Veterans of the Persian Gulf War" (San Diego, California: Naval Health Research Center).

They seem, together, to have little informational content. James S. 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew about both graphs when I put the first one in. They are old, but I thought the first one was a nice illustration given the way things have played out in the 2000s. I'll move them both to the controversy section. Stan Ison 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Graph

I revised this graph:

James S. 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the base line is more than a 2.3% risk, but if it is, for example, six times that would be a 14% risk.

Now, I happen to believe that we should include the 95% confidences in the graph, but I only have those from Kang (2001) in Annals of Epidimiology. James S. 06:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan100's suggested additions

I agree with Dan100 about adding this: "Results: Of 12 conditions, only 4 conditions were more prevalent among deployed than nondeployed veterans: fibromyalgia (deployed, 2.0%; nondeployed, 1.2%; odds ratio, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.02 to 5.27]); the chronic fatigue syndrome (deployed, 1.6%; nondeployed 0.1%; odds ratio, 40.6 [CI, 10.2 to 161]); dermatologic conditions (deployed, 34.6%; nondeployed, 26.8%; odds ratio, 1.38 [CI, 1.06 to 1.80]), and dyspepsia (deployed, 9.1%; nondeployed, 6.0%; odds ratio, 1.87 [CI, 1.16 to 2.99])." Eisen et al (2005) Ann Int Med 142(11) pp. 881-90 However, I note from their table four that they didn't consider white blood cell chromosome considerations or reproductive health. James S. 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Bolton and Foster (2002) J Roy Army Med Corps 148(3) pp. 221-9, it should certainly be included. Actually, I believe that 2002 article has been superseded at the MOD according to DUOB minutes. James S. 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)