Talk:Depleted uranium

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 (18:05, 15 May 2006) 7 (09:29, 15 June 2006)

Legal status of weapons

From the history of the article: 16 June 2006 195.92.168.173 (→Legal status in weapons - Emphasis removed. POV. Let the words speak for themselves without promotion

Please explain why in a legal section on the military use of DU it is POV to emphasise that There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles in a document released by an international tribunal investigating war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement however feel that the emphasis added is pushing that statement to the detriment of the issues raised regarding the controversial nature and debate going on re the legality of DU munitions use. If I were to similarly emphasise phrases such as "Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium" or "He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties:" that could also be construed as POV highlighting.

Surely it is for the reader to decide what is relevent and contributers should concern themselves only with submitting relevent information without emphasis on parts which their POV deems more important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.176 (talk • contribs) on 16:17, 18 June 2006.

Which is why I did not include the words of Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen when I partialy reverted your changes[1] and it is his you are talking about above, not the international tribunal investigating war crimes. You have not explained why the emphasis is an unbalanced POV when it is a pronouncement by an international tribunal investigating war crimes. All the emphasis is, is the equivelent of a sound bite, or the first paragrah of a news paper article: The international legal position in a nut shell.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is all the emphasis is one wonders why you are so keen to have it in. I believe that it deliberately pushes a viewpoint you are trying to promote and that is why you are so keen to see it remain. IMO The removal of the emphasis takes nothing from the article whereas the inclusion of it makes the article deliberately highlights a POV. This is NOT a newspaper and NOt a place for soundbites. Keep it if you must. I am not going to engage in a revert war with you but accept that the inclusion is detrimental to the neutrality of wikipedia. 195.92.168.169 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I got no problem with the emphasis applied to the passage but I dont know why its emphasised when no one disputes that no treaties exist?? Treaties on DU weapons making them illegal arent actually needed when (campaigners say) existing Humanitarian Law automatically illegalising the weapons applies. That is the route that anti-DU campaigners have gone down. While that point is represented in the Yeung Sik Yuen quote I do not believe that the ways in which the campaigners say DU weapons fail to meet the standards is, nor is the section prefaced by the 2 ways by which weapons become "illegal". Without these the subsection has no structure for the reader in which to set the 2 opposing sides of argument against one another. I will try some changes. 82.29.227.171 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uranium (VI) salts

Would it be better to refer to "soluble uranyl compounds" than "soluble uranium(VI) salts"? Are there any uranium(VI) compounds which are not uranyl compounds? If not, then the wikilink would be an advantage. Also, are we saying that only the soluble uranium(VI) compounds are toxic, or that they are all soluble, and toxic? If the later, then the "soluble" adjective should come after the predicate instead of before the subject. 71.132.128.168 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an invalid statemnet. The wording is better as-is. Give Peace A Chance 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some uranium(VI) compounds which are not uranyl compounds, eg uranium hexafluoride. The general consensus is that that chemical toxicity is related to solubility. Physchim62 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "soluble uranium(VI) salts, such as uranyl compounds"? 71.132.128.168 17:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Europe contamination and bunker bombs

Sorry for my english. I suggest you to read those references and incorporate this material in the article:

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells

Factfile: Bunker buster bombs

Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe

Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator --85.218.46.50 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

These reports all cite Chris Busby. People have looked into the work and found it less than trustworthy. The discussion is here: Talk:Uranium_trioxide/Archive_2#Busby.2C_C._and_S._Morgan Dr Zak 23:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a discussion but a monolog. I added one comment because I desagree. Dominique

There are a number of competent chemists editing Uranium trioxide, Olin, Stone, amongst others. At least one of them would have spoken out had the assessment been dubious. Dr Zak 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Chris Burton's curriculum is | here. He is what I call an international expert on low level radiation and its effects on health. And how can those competent chemists axplain how can different measure instruments in four different places show the same increase of uranium at the same time? Dominique

The four different instruments were in fact five and all located within a small (10km radius) area around Aldermaston. According to the first article posted. "Other experts said local environmental sources, such as a power station, were more likely at fault. The Environment Agency said detectors at other sites did not record a similar increase, which suggested a local source." Common sense dictates that if the raise in levels was due to contamination blown over from Iraq then, barring almost impossible freak weather patterns, the readings would have risen over a much larger area. BRT01 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Common sens dictates at, if it was some local source such as power station, this would have been recensed as an incident. No incident have been reported at that time, at least for what I know. --85.218.2.215 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it not strike you as odd that the readings only appear to have risen in a small area which has the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston at its epicentre? Surely a prime contender for the finger of suspicion and a place where 'in the interests of national security' incidents may be kept out of the public domain. BRT01 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning and reversion without comments from User:Physchim62

Maintaining my login as fieldlabseems to be a problem sometimes, because it occasionally reverts to an IP address. Physchim62, who seems at times controversial, has outright reverted a large number of careful comments by myself on DU oxide, based apparantly on nothing more than a suspicion that he believes I am user Nrcprm2026, apparantly also referencing a new ArbCom ban of my IP address as equivalent to Nrcprm2026, who is not me and who I know nothing about, and which was normally impossible for me to know about. As it is only an address, it cannot be arbitrated or commented normally. I can state for a fact that it was impossible for that user to use the IP address in question, so the reason given for the censorship is outright false. Physchim62 has left no comments in either this page or the Gulf War DU comments page about his or her rather extreme editing and enforcement of the letter of a rule which has not been quoted or linked to by him or her, and total censorship of comments, based really on a login technicality. Since that was the only problem cited, the comments have been dutifully re-added using my correct login. In the future I would advise Physchim62 to be judicious about censoring out of hand what are obviously careful and sincere comments, and with little useful communication. Though Physchim62 cites the rule regarding the ban, a link for ArbCom documentation was not provided.

Why on earth does User:Nrcprm2026 have several sockpupets running arround doing the same things he was banned for? User:Fieldlab and User:LossIsNotMore!--Stone 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note:

• 216.173.207.10 has very little editing overlap with Nrcprm2026
• 216.173.207.10 is a static IP in Olympia, Washington while Nrcprm2026 claimed to be in Menlo Park, California
• No checkuser was performed before this block.
• Fieldlab (talk · contribs) claims to be 216.173.207.10, and not Nrcprm2026

As for Nrcprm2026's multiple accounts, please see the link on my userpage. SeparateIssue 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem very knowledgeable on the background of this issue for such a new editor James, tell me, did you just move to Olympia, or are you just visiting? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey- why not post to my user page? I'm answering questions twice. I'm 42 years old. Been in Olympia for 8 years. Portland 8 years before, and originally from Offutt AFB in Nebraska, where guess what, I studied plenty of weapon systems and miltary history growing up. I'm really sorry about your mistake, but you made an assumption, you were wrong and you will have to deal with it. My user is new precisely because DU is controversial, and my previous edits were anonymous and minor. The history should be there for this IP or any in the .248 subnet around it. I've had those hard IP's for at least 4 years.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty before, but your edits so closely mirror James that such suspicion is warranted. I will give you the benefit of doubt for now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to comment on the ban (which was duely recorded on the relevant ArbCom page, and so completely open to review), please do so elsewhere. This page is for discussing the article, not for petty politicking between editors. For the record, I did not revert any edits, nor have I edited the article for several months. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments reverted

OK- so this article does not meet some standard and is called propaganda. Where is the rationale and discussion of it? If it's inaccurate, it should at the least be paraphrased with counter-points offered. If it's ultimately without merit, move it to discussion area. The problem with censors vs. editors is precisely that they wish to stifle dialog. So what exactly is wrong with quoting this? This includes the source and author in the link.

From a published letter to The New Scientist, May 2003-

Depleted uranium emits about 40 per cent less alpha particles than natural uranium, due to the removal of most of the uranium-235 and, more importantly, the uranium-234. Immediately after its production, that is the whole story.

However, within a few weeks of production, decay of uranium-238 re-establishes equilibrium quantities of the first two isotopes in the decay chain of uranium-238: thorium-234 and palladium-234. These are both beta emitters, and once equilibrium is established, DU emits on average two beta particles for every alpha particle. The betas from palladium-234 are particularly energetic.

These complicate the radiobiology considerably, because beta particles have much longer ranges in tissue, affecting large numbers of cells to a minor (possibly carcinogenic) extent, as opposed to the small number of cells heavily affected (probably killed) by the alpha particles.

It should be noted that the first daughter nucleus of both uranium-235 and uranium-234 is relatively long-lived, so neither contributes significantly to the radioactivity of natural uranium. Thus DU is actually quite as harmful as natural uranium in terms of beta radiation.

Finally, the Pentagon claims that uranium oxide dust is so dense that it quickly settles, and therefore poses a threat only to persons in the vicinity of the target at the time of impact. Having seen television coverage of dust storms in Iraq, I find it hard to believe that fine uranium oxide dust would somehow avoid being blown about during such storms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldlab (talk • contribs)

Update: the point seems to be that for a given quantity of DU, Thorium-234 with a short 25 day half life will soon account for most of the emitted radiation, and the radiation is also higher energy beta particles. See decay chain. The question is, do studies based on applied radiological effects always take this into account, or is there an opportunity to present impossibly low levels of radiation for a given quantity of what is assumed to be pure U-238?--Fieldlab 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

James, as you well know, the above statement is taken from a letter to a magazine, and does not meet the WP:RS guidelines. Its not an article from a well know scientist; its not from a peer reviewed journal, it nothing. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose it is just related to the form. You have stated nothing useful about the content, because you seem to be against any useful content. TDC- you seem really stuck on the idea that I'm your special friend James. You are jeopardizing your position at Wiki with that glaring mistake. I will just slowly persist in arbitration until I have proved beyond any doubt I am not who you think. Maybe I could even find your friend James and we could all have a conference call about it. Maybe you could also look at my IP address and the ones adjacent to see a long history of posts obviously from me. I don't know. Maybe you think anyone who can write effectively in english is James. Maybe you are tired of your responsibilities at Wiki and want to leave anyway. If so, do me and everyone who's time you are about to waste a favor. Do it.

Content aside, we cannot use material from letters published in a magazine from a non-noytable individual, (who is Clive Semmens Ely and what are his credentials to make him notable enough to be cited here). I am sure you know that James, and I am not going anywhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules do not specifically address that topic if the content is useful. Content is what interested me about the letter. It is well stated, and the issue has not been touched on in the DU health effects section. The source was just for information. I'm not swearing by the credibility, just that it bears consideration. So, fair enough so long as this same high standard is applied to all the other sources here. --Fieldlab 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats been the debate for an entire year now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

two forms

The two forms paragraf is stange and far from scientific. Without ony citation it does give an impreesion like two modifications or crystal structure, but this is not the case. Alloys or other modifications are the only suitable answer, but this nites a citation of literature stating this two conditions.--Stone 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this? [2] - --Fieldlab 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rand report

Stone 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry had to read further!--Stone 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you refer to the RAND Corporation. You can argue that they may have bias, and you can argue against their conclusions, but few people will argue their understanding of the issues they address, as they have some very brilliant folks on the payroll. Give Peace A Chance 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The pyrophoric characteristic of DU is the primary

Why write two times the same in one article? The same is in the ammunitionsection already written. The small particles created after the imact of ans staballoy penetrator...... --Stone 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

would solve problems, one can only wonder

This is the language for the talk page not for the article. Weasling around like a weasle.--Stone 08:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, suggestions are welcome, thanks. Why these numerous high dollar studies never just do a lab test or postmortem exams is the burning question in this topic. If you have a better idea for wording then please just offer it. But your opinion about wording seems to be someones rationale for total deletion. Now we see the real content of the section on DU health effects is cut almost ridiculously to nothing, with huge amounts of valid content wiped out.

I'm happy to repost the original article minus the New Scientist letter until it is debated more. In fact, considering everything that is gone I feel a responsibility.

I don't know what happened as far as vandals or why so much content is gone. Though my user is new (to allow more freedom with controversial topics like DU), I've posted minor things to wiki for several years from this or adjacent IP's. Someone misidentified me earlier and my IP is still unfairly banned because of that. If any admin here has any question about my identity or my intentions on Wiki, I am glad to email you my phone number and we can talk about it. Yes, I'm serious. - --Fieldlab 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior Material

See here for a summary of all prior material on the subject. Talk:Depleted uranium/health. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some info to the health section - with references. I'll admit that I put a lot more effort into the health hazards than the refuting of these hazards, but did add some links to the people who refute these hazards (I don't know if they're scientists or not). I tried to find the original Department of Veterans Affairs study that mentions the 67% statistic but couldn't, so I added the secondary source as a reference instead. Is the Life photoessay a bit much? CClio333 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, a study conducted by the Department of Veteran Affairs did find that 67% of post-Gulf War babies have serious birth defects or serious illnesses, such as missing eyes, limbs, and organs; fused digits; or organ malfunctions" ... 67% of post gulf-war babies would include every child born since the gulf war throughout the world., shouldn't it state the number and demographics of the group under study? Also, since we don't appear to have a link to the study quoted it cannot be verified that the study specifically attributes these claimed defects to DU exposure?

I fixed that statistic - what I'd meant to say was 67% of children born to Gulf War veterans, not 67% of the whole world. According to the secondary source I listed, the Dept of Veteran Affairs noted the statistic, but it was the secondary source that claims that uranium (actually non-depleted uranium) is the cause. CClio333 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Donna Nook

Can anyone answer my question at Talk:Donna Nook? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

As all other links in the section are without quotes from the linked articles I removed a quote from one of the published links (Scientific reports, Hindin R, Brugge D, Panikkar B.) as I feel that the section, as its title suggests, is there to link out to further sources of information for those interested in taking their research on the topic further and the use of quotes from the linked articles is superfluous. 195.92.168.165 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-Gulf War Syndrome

This section needs to be NPOV'd. For one thing, starting with the sentence "any connection between...is purely speculative" is probably wrong. State the evidence first, in a npov way by attributing sources. Then state what people say about the evidence, still attributing all opinions. The use of weasel words in this section is also pretty evident. With appropriate sourcing and careful rewording this could be better.

The section currently only contains a rebuttal of the hypothesis that DU causes GWS, without even cohrently stating the hypothesis first. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For a while, it had both points of view. Look at the edit history for "TDC" to see who started the recent edit war with both sides deleting the others' paragraphs. Peter Cheung 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

115 news articles in the past day

From the Associated Press:

Sickened Iraq Vets Blame Depleted Uranium

(AP) NEW YORK It takes at least 10 minutes and a large glass of orange juice to wash down all the pills — morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant, a stool softener. Viagra for sexual dysfunction. Valium for his nerves.

Four hours later, Herbert Reed will swallow another 15 mg of morphine to cut the pain clenching every part of his body. He will do it twice more before the day is done.

Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq, his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil.

There is something massively wrong with Herbert Reed, though no one is sure what it is. He believes he knows the cause, but he cannot convince anyone caring for him that the military's new favorite weapon has made him terrifyingly sick.

In the sprawling bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, he has many caretakers. An internist, a neurologist, a pain-management specialist, a psychologist, an orthopedic surgeon and a dermatologist. He cannot function without his stupefying arsenal of medications, but they exact a high price.

"I'm just a zombie walking around," he says.

Reed believes depleted uranium has contaminated him and his life. He now walks point in a vitriolic war over the Pentagon's arsenal of it — thousands of shells and hundreds of tanks coated with the metal that is radioactive, chemically toxic, and nearly twice as dense as lead.

A shell coated with depleted uranium pierces a tank like a hot knife through butter, exploding on impact into a charring inferno. As tank armor, it repels artillery assaults. It also leaves behind a fine radioactive dust with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Depleted uranium is the garbage left from producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and energy plants. It is 60 percent as radioactive as natural uranium. The U.S. has an estimated 1.5 billion pounds of it, sitting in hazardous waste storage sites across the country. Meaning it is plentiful and cheap as well as highly effective.

Reed says he unknowingly breathed DU dust while living with his unit in Samawah, Iraq. He was med-evaced out in July 2003, nearly unable to walk because of lightning-strike pains from herniated discs in his spine. Then began a strange series of symptoms he'd never experienced in his previously healthy life.

At Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C, he ran into a buddy from his unit. And another, and another, and in the tedium of hospital life between doctor visits and the dispensing of meds, they began to talk.

"We all had migraines. We all felt sick," Reed says. "The doctors said, 'It's all in your head.' "

Then the medic from their unit showed up. He too, was suffering. That made eight sick soldiers from the 442nd Military Police, an Army National Guard unit made up of mostly cops and correctional officers from the New York area.

But the medic knew something the others didn't.

Dutch marines had taken over the abandoned train depot dubbed Camp Smitty, which was surrounded by tank skeletons, unexploded ordnance and shell casings. They'd brought radiation-detection devices. The readings were so hot, the Dutch set up camp in the middle of the desert rather than live in the station ruins.

"We got on the Internet," Reed said, "and we started researching depleted uranium."

Then they contacted The New York Daily News, which paid for sophisticated urine tests available only overseas.

Then they hired a lawyer.

___

Reed, Gerard Matthew, Raymond Ramos, Hector Vega, Augustin Matos, Anthony Yonnone, Jerry Ojeda and Anthony Phillip all have depleted uranium in their urine, according to tests done in December 2003, while they bounced for months between Walter Reed and New Jersey's Fort Dix medical center, seeking relief that never came.

The analyses were done in Germany, by a Frankfurt professor who developed a depleted uranium test with Randall Parrish, a professor of isotope geology at the University of Leicester in Britain.

The veterans, using their positive results as evidence, have sued the U.S. Army, claiming officials knew the hazards of depleted uranium, but concealed the risks.

The Department of Defense says depleted uranium is powerful and safe, and not that worrisome.

Four of the highest-registering samples from Frankfurt were sent to the VA. Those results were negative, Reed said. "Their test just isn't as sophisticated," he said. "And when we first asked to be tested, they told us there wasn't one. They've lied to us all along."

The VA's testing methodology is safe and accurate, the agency says. More than 2,100 soldiers from the current war have asked to be tested; only 8 had DU in their urine, the VA said.

The term depleted uranium is linguistically radioactive. Simply uttering the words can prompt a reaction akin to preaching atheism at tent revival. Heads shake, eyes roll, opinions are yelled from all sides.

"The Department of Defense takes the position that you can eat it for breakfast and it poses no threat at all," said Steve Robinson of the National Gulf War Resource Center, which helps veterans with various problems, including navigating the labyrinth of VA health care. "Then you have far-left groups that ... declare it a crime against humanity."

Several countries use it as weaponry, including Britain, which fired it during the 2003 Iraq invasion.

An estimated 286 tons of DU munitions were fired by the U.S. in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. An estimated 130 tons were shot toppling Saddam Hussein.

Depleted uranium can enter the human body by inhalation, the most dangerous method; by ingesting contaminated food or eating with contaminated hands; by getting dust or debris in an open wound, or by being struck by shrapnel, which often is not removed because doing so would be more dangerous than leaving it.

Inhaled, it can lodge in the lungs. As with imbedded shrapnel, this is doubly dangerous — not only are the particles themselves physically destructive, they emit radiation.

A moderate voice on the divisive DU spectrum belongs to Dan Fahey, a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley, who has studied the issue for years and also served in the Gulf War before leaving the military as a conscientious objector.

"I've been working on this since '93 and I've just given up hope," he said. "I've spoken to successive federal committees and elected officials ... who then side with the Pentagon. Nothing changes."

At the other end are a collection of conspiracy-theorists and Internet proselytizers who say using such weapons constitutes genocide. Two of the most vocal opponents recently suggested that a depleted-uranium missile, not a hijacked jetliner, struck the Pentagon in 2001.

"The bottom line is it's more hazardous than the Pentagon admits," Fahey said, "but it's not as hazardous as the hard-line activist groups say it is. And there's a real dearth of information about how DU affects humans."

There are several studies on how it affects animals, though their results are not, of course, directly applicable to humans. Military research on mice shows that depleted uranium can enter the bloodstream and come to rest in bones, the brain, kidneys and lymph nodes. Other research in rats shows that DU can result in cancerous tumors and genetic mutations, and pass from mother to unborn child, resulting in birth defects.

Iraqi doctors reported significant increases in birth defects and childhood cancers after the 1991 invasion.

Iraqi authorities "found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious impact on health: The number of cases of leukemia had increased considerably, as had the incidence of fetal deformities," the U.N. reported.

Depleted uranium can also contaminate soil and water, and coat buildings with radioactive dust, which can by carried by wind and sandstorms.

In 2005, the U.N. Environmental Program identified 311 polluted sites in Iraq. Cleaning them will take at least $40 million and several years, the agency said. Nothing can start until the fighting stops.

___

Fifteen years after it was first used in battle, there is only one U.S. government study monitoring veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

Number of soldiers in the survey: 32. Number of soldiers in both Iraq wars: more than 900,000.

The study group's size is controversial — far too small, say experts including Fahey — and so are the findings of the voluntary, Baltimore-based study.

It has found "no clinically significant" health effects from depleted uranium exposure in the study subjects, according to its researchers.

Critics say the VA has downplayed participants' health problems, including not reporting one soldier who developed cancer, and another who developed a bone tumor.

So for now, depleted uranium falls into the quagmire of Gulf War Syndrome, from which no treatment has emerged despite the government's spending of at least $300 million.

About 30 percent of the 700,000 men and women who served in the first Gulf War still suffer a baffling array of symptoms very similar to those reported by Reed's unit.

Depleted uranium has long been suspected as a possible contributor to Gulf War Syndrome, and in the mid-90s, veterans helped push the military into tracking soldiers exposed to it.

But for all their efforts, what they got in the end was a questionnaire dispensed to homeward-bound soldiers asking about mental health, nightmares, losing control, exposure to dangerous and radioactive chemicals.

But, the veterans persisted, how would soldiers know they'd been exposed? Radiation is invisible, tasteless, and has no smell. And what exhausted, homesick, war-addled soldier would check a box that would only send him or her to a military medical center to be poked and prodded and questioned and tested?

It will take years to determine how depleted uranium affected soldiers from this war. After Vietnam, veterans, in numbers that grew with the passage of time, complained of joint aches, night sweats, bloody feces, migraine headaches, unexplained rashes and violent behavior; some developed cancers.

It took more than 25 years for the Pentagon to acknowledge that Agent Orange — a corrosive defoliant used to melt the jungles of Vietnam and flush out the enemy — was linked to those sufferings.

It took 40 years for the military to compensate sick World War II vets exposed to massive blasts of radiation during tests of the atomic bomb.

In 2002, Congress voted to not let that happen again.

It established the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses — comprised of scientists, physicians and veterans advocates. It reports to the secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Its mandate is to judge all research and all efforts to treat Gulf War Syndrome patients against a single standard: Have sick soldiers been made better?

The answer, according to the committee, is no.

"Regrettably, after four years of operation neither the Committee nor (the) VA can report progress toward this goal," stated its December 2005 report. "Research has not produced effective treatments for these conditions nor shown that existing treatments are significantly effective."

And so time marches on, as do soldiers going to, and returning from, the deserts of Iraq.

___

Herbert Reed is an imposing man, broad shouldered and tall. He strides into the VA Medical Center in the Bronx with the presence of a cop or a soldier. Since the Vietnam War, he has been both.

His hair is perfect, his shirt spotless, his jeans sharply creased. But there is something wrong, a niggling imperfection made more noticeable by a bearing so disciplined. It is a limp — more like a hitch in his get-along.

It is the only sign, albeit a tiny one, that he is extremely sick.

Even sleep offers no release. He dreams of gunfire and bombs and soldiers who scream for help. No matter how hard he tries, he never gets there in time.

At 54, he is a veteran of two wars and a 20-year veteran of the New York Police Department, where he last served as an assistant warden at the Riker's Island prison.

He was in perfect health, he says, before being deployed to Iraq.

According to military guidelines, he should have heard the words depleted uranium long before he ended up at Walter Reed. He should have been trained about its dangers, and how to avoid prolonged exposure to its toxicity and radioactivity. He says he didn't get anything of the kind. Neither did other reservists and National Guard soldiers called up for the current war, according to veterans' groups.

Reed and the seven brothers from his unit hate what has happened to them, and they speak of it at public seminars and in politicians' offices. It is something no VA doctor can explain; something that leaves them feeling like so many spent shell rounds, kicked to the side of battle.

But for every outspoken soldier like them, there are silent veterans like Raphael Naboa, an Army artillery scout who served 11 months in the northern Sunni Triangle, only to come home and fall apart.

Some days he feels fine. "Some days I can't get out of bed," he said from his home in Colorado.

Now 29, he's had growths removed from his brain. He has suffered a small stroke — one morning he was shaving, having put down the razor to rinse his face. In that moment, he blacked out and pitched over.

"Just as quickly as I lost consciousness, I regained it," he said. "Except I couldn't move the right side of my body."

After about 15 minutes, the paralysis ebbed.

He has mentioned depleted uranium to his VA doctors, who say he suffers from a series of "non-related conditions." He knows he was exposed to DU.

"A lot of guys went trophy-hunting, grabbing bayonets, helmets, stuff that was in the vehicles that were destroyed by depleted uranium. My guys were rooting around in it. I was trying to get them out of the vehicles."

No one in the military talked to him about depleted uranium, he said. His knowledge, like Reed's, is self-taught from the Internet.

Unlike Reed, he has not gone to war over it. He doesn't feel up to the fight. There is no known cure for what ails him, and so no possible victory in battle.

He'd really just like to feel normal again. And he knows of others who feel the same.

"I was an artillery scout, these are folks who are in pretty good shape. Your Rangers, your Special Forces guys, they're in as good as shape as a professional athlete.

"Then we come back and we're all sick."

They feel like men who once were warriors and now are old before their time, with no hope for relief from a multitude of miseries that has no name.

GVWilson 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring!

The recent edits by TDC, GVWilson, and Give Peace A Chance are all equally BAD and POV!

If you don't agree with something, put in the other side, but DO NOT DELETE THE PART THAT YOU DON'T LIKE.

This article needs to be protected, or at least carefully watched by a neutral party. Peter Cheung 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Horse shit. Neutral party? You? Who started an account today? I'm laughing my ass off. Give Peace A Chance 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about my identity can be answered by WHOIS on any of my home office's static IP addresses, such as this one. 69.228.65.174 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) = Peter Cheung

I see DU victims in my practice every few months. How many people have been falsely accused of being James Salsman in this article since his undeserved sanctions just to get people to shut up? WHOIS me, CHECKUSER me, call me on the phone. Just don't use someone else's arbitration sanctions to skew the article. 69.228.65.174 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I could give two shits what your "real" identity is. You still think you can create an account today, and then dictate how other editors should contribute? What a joke. Give Peace A Chance 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Should the Health concerns section contain one side's selected text, or both pro and con arguments?

• Both. Peter Cheung 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice of you to show up and PRETEND to be the honest broker. Except nobody is buying it. Give Peace A Chance 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)