Gas May Have Harmed Troops, Scientists Say

NY Times ^ | May 17, 2007 | IAN URBINA

[neverdem]

WASHINGTON, May 16 — Scientists working with the Defense Department have found evidence that a low-level exposure to sarin nerve gas — the kind experienced by more than 100,000 American troops in the Persian Gulf war of 1991 — could have caused lasting brain deficits in former service members.

Though the results are preliminary, the study is notable for being financed by the federal government and for being the first to make use of a detailed analysis of sarin exposure performed by the Pentagon, based on wind patterns and plume size.

The report, to be published in the June issue of the journal NeuroToxicology, found apparent changes in the brain’s connective tissue — its so-called white matter — in soldiers exposed to the gas. The extent of the brain changes — less white matter and slightly larger brain cavities — corresponded to the extent of exposure, the study found.

Previous studies had suggested that exposure affected the brain in some neural regions, but the evidence was not convincing to many scientists. The new report is likely to revive the long-debated question of why so many troops returned from that war with unexplained physical problems. Many in the scientific community have questioned whether the so-called gulf war illnesses have a physiological basis, and far more research will have to be done before it is known whether those illnesses can be traced to exposure to sarin. The long-term effects of sarin on the brain are still not well understood.

But several lawmakers who were briefed on the study say the Department of Veterans Affairs is now obligated to provide increased neurological care to veterans who may have been exposed.

In March 1991, a few days after the end of the gulf war, American soldiers exploded two large caches of ammunition and missiles...

[Dr. Frank fan]

The only thing that counts is a warehouse full of Fat Mans and Little Boys.

Yes, that might count. Just as long as it wasn't "left over from the Iran-Iraq War", of course. ("left-over" WMDs don't count.)

;-)

[rangerX]

I’ve took a nice picture of the smoke plume from when that dump went up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[massgopguy]

“Mr Ritter, is it true that UNSCOM has intelligence that Iraq has three Nuclear Weapons Assemblies but lacks only the fissile material to make them operational?” - Sen John McCain
“Yes”. - Scott Ritter

Sept 3,1998 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

[TexKat]

Bush said there were WMDs and there were.

THE PRESIDENT Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

[Vinnie]

Bingo

[Rated_Republican_Superstar]

Why does 1991 weapons not count?? Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement countless times, and violated 17 United Nations resolutions. Because of that, the 1991 Gulf War was not over, and Clinton wasted jet fuel for 8 years, causing the fake problem known as global warming. Bush is an environmental president because now we don’t have to waste jet fuel patrolling the no fly zones in Iraq anymore.

[Rated_Republican_Superstar]

The liberal media will save that juicy tidbit until a Democrat president, so they can claim credit for finding the WMD that would not have been found in the first place if Bush had not taken down Saddam.