Re: FW: More on the Gulf War illness and DU

[Philip Hypes <phypes@lanl.gov>]

At 12:38 PM 2/10/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>....as usual, there is no word on how/if there was any check to see if the
>presumed DU wasn't in fact just NU-NORM.
>Jaro
>

What's more, no one can really even tell you what constitutes GWS.  See the
article intro I've attached at the end of the message.  Anyone who wants
the full article can go to the Denver Post web site.  The article appeared
on the 30th of January.

>> ----------
>> Subject: 	More on the Gulf War illness and DU
>> 
>> Aha!  If one listens to the CBC, one believes that depleted uranium has
>> been proven to be the cause of the Gulf War sickness.  Not so, according
>> to their own source ...
>> 
>> 
>> Doctor offers to share Gulf War findings
>> Krista Foss
>> 
>> Thursday, February 10, 2000 
>> A U.S. doctor who found depleted uranium in the bones of a dead Canadian
>> soldier has offered to share his research results with the Canadian
>> government. But Dr. Asaph Durakovic said yesterday that his tests on the
>> bones, organs and lymph nodes of former military police officer Terry
>> Riordon do not conclusively show that depleted uranium is the cause of
>> so-called Gulf War syndrome.
>> "It is not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination," said Dr.
>> Durakovic, a Washington medical doctor and nuclear physicist. "The fact is
>> that uranium in the body of exposed veterans most likely is a contributing
>> factor to the complexity of Gulf War illness."
>> Reports this week of Dr. Durakovic's findings have put pressure on the
>> Department of National Defence, which says the syndrome is stress-related.
>> Mr. Riordon died last April after an 8½-year battle against mysterious,
>> debilitating symptoms that began after he returned from the Persian Gulf.


Massive Study Proves Gulf War Syndrome Only A Myth

By Michael Fumento

WASHINGTON - Call it 'A Tale of Two Studies,' one celebrated by the media,
the other one ignored. Both concerned Persian Gulf War syndrome, the
illness with a variety of symptoms reported by some veterans of the 1991
conflict in the Persian Gulf.

The first received tremendous media coverage, although it only involved a
handful of veterans, was privately funded by somebody with an agenda, was
conducted by people on a research gravy train and was merely announced at a
meeting.The second was utterly ignored, though it involved a huge number of
vets, was publicly funded, involved myriad researchers from all over the
country and appeared in the prestigious, peer-reviewed American Journal of
Epidemiology.

Why the difference? Study One purported to show the existence of Gulf War
syndrome, while Study Two showed conclusively the term is worthless,
meaning nothing more than any illness, ache or pain that any Gulf vet or
veteran's spouse or child has contracted in the eight years since the war.
___________________________________________________________
Philip Hypes
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Safeguards Science and Technology Group (NIS 5)
(505) 667-1556  phypes@lanl.gov

Opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise noted

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html