Article

Chemical warfare and the Gulf War: a review of the impact on Gulf veterans' health.

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, the Pentagon, Washington, DC, USA.
Military medicine (impact factor: 0.92). 09/2003; 168(8):606-13. pp.606-13
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is unlikely that Gulf War veterans are suffering chronic effects from illnesses caused by chemical warfare nerve agent exposure. Extensive investigation and review by several expert panels have determined that no evidence exists that chemical warfare nerve agents were used during the Gulf War. At no time before, during, or after the war was there confirmation of symptoms among anyone, military or civilian, caused by chemical warfare nerve agent exposure. However, studies of Gulf War veterans have found belief that chemical weapons were used, significantly associated with both severe and mild-moderate illnesses. The psychological impact of a chemical warfare attack, either actual or perceived, can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. The deployment or war-related health impact from life-threatening experiences of the Gulf War, including the perceived exposure to chemical warfare agents, should be considered as an important cause of morbidity among Gulf War veterans.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
58 Views
  • Source
    Article: Long-term Psychological Consequences among Chemical Warfare Survivors of World War I and their Current Relevance
    Edgar Jones, Neil Greenberg
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In undertaking the research for this article, Professor Jones was supported by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Ministry of De-fence (RES-000-23-1057). The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not refl ect the offi cial policy of the Royal Navy or the Ministry of Defence. Dr. Jones and Dr. Greenberg disclosed no relevant fi nancial relationships. 725 G as was the truly novel ele-ment of World War I. A range of toxins were used (princi-pally chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas), delivered by a variety of methods, including cloud, shell and mortar. Pro-duction of chemical weapons grew pro-gressively and, as a result, increasing numbers of servicemen were exposed to poison gas as the war drew to a close. Although the box respirator, introduced from the summer of 1916, protected the windpipe and lungs from all toxins used in the war, many suffered from the vesi-cant effects of mustard gas for which, in the absence of special clothing, there was no adequate defense. Yet the num-bers killed by chemical weapons were relatively small as a percentage of total deaths: an estimated 6,060 U.K. troops, which was about 1% of the total. 1 For the U.S. Army, it was calculated that of the 34,249 immediate deaths of soldiers on the battlefi eld, only 200 (0.6%) were from gas. However, of 70,552 U.S. ser-vicemen exposed to chemical agents and admitted for treatment, 1,221 (1.7%) died in American Expeditionary Force (AEF) medical units. 2 Despite low mortality rates, gas ca-sualties were numerous, being the sec-ond largest category (31.5%) of patients admitted to AEF hospitals after gunshot wounds (33.4%). In part, these fi gures refl ected the capacity of gas to trauma-tize soldiers. Indeed, some units exhib-ited outright panic when subjected to chemical attack. Inexperienced troops were considered more vulnerable than units that had habituated to this new form of warfare. Clark showed, for example, that in July 1918 the U.S. 26th Division suffered four times as many gas casu-alties than the battle-hardened French 39th Division, although both units had been exposed to similar quantities of chemical agent. 3 Lack of knowledge about different types of toxins and their specifi c effects added to genuine anxi-eties. Soldiers traumatized or mentally exhausted by the effects of prolonged warfare often misinterpreted the nature of bombardments and assumed that they had been poisoned by gas. Powerful emotions inspired by chemical weapons not only had an impact on servicemen's beliefs about damage to vital organs and long-term health but also infl uenced the number and range of symptoms that they reported.
  • Source
    Article: Saudi Arabia-United States collaboration in health research: a formula for success.
    Tomoko I Hooper, Tyler C Smith, Gregory C Gray, Mohammed S Al Qahtani, Ziad A Memish, Drue H Barrett, Karen M Schlangen, David F Cruess, Margaret A K Ryan, Gary D Gackstetter
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is to share our experiences from an international collaborative effort to study health outcomes among Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) soldiers following the 1991 Gulf War. By paying particular attention to distinct social and religious customs, geopolitical differences, and unique aspects of the health care system, we achieved a successful international collaboration in health research.
    American Journal of Infection Control 05/2005; 33(3):192-6. · 2.40 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Full-text

View
4 Downloads
Available from

Keywords

chemical warfare agents
 
chemical warfare attack
 
chemical warfare nerve agent exposure
 
chemical warfare nerve agents
 
chemical weapons
 
expert panels
 
Extensive investigation
 
Gulf War
 
Gulf War veterans
 
illnesses
 
life-threatening experiences
 
long-term health consequences
 
mild-moderate illnesses
 
morbidity
 
perceived exposure
 
psychological impact
 
severe
 
war-related health impact
 

James R Riddle