Talk:Gulf War syndrome/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Mercury Poisoning - Thimerosal

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Depleted uranium 

message: 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. .
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WP:CITE and peer-reviewed literature 

message: 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)
thread_title: How many?

message: Please provide reasons for repeated removal of sourced information. AvB ÷ talk 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [[User:TDC]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LD50/30 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion from mediation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Factual dispute remains

message: 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. 
--171.66.111.77 02:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence to suggest that depleted uranium is not the cause of the birth defects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aspartame Poisoning? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yoker's ''What is Really Behind the Gulf War Syndrome?'' 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title: Chemotoxicity of Uranium vs. Lead

message: 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)
thread_title: Is this a big fucking joke?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war 

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

message: "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) , so this figure increased after medical records study. LossIsNotMore 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Doyle and Ryan called Dr. Kang's measured increase "modest." LossIsNotMore 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth defect increase from survey data confirmed by medical records 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extrapolation of birth defect trend 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gompertz sigmoid 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That temp article is incoherent biased propaganda.  Speedy delete!!!!!! Give Peace A Chance 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gulf War syndrome/Temp 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Afganistan? 

message: I took these eight year-old graphs off the top of the article, because they end before the larger effects had been detected:
	
They seem, together, to have little informational content. James S. 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted graphs 

message: I revised this graph:
James S. 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dan100's suggested additions