4.4 Article

Epidemiologic Evidence of Health Effects from Long-Distance Transit of Chemical Weapons Fallout from Bombing Early in the 1991 Persian Gulf War

期刊

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 178-189

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000345124

关键词

Chemical warfare agents; Sarin; Chemical alarms; Persian Gulf syndrome; Survey

资金

  1. US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-97-2-0725, DAMD17-01-1-0741]
  2. US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dallas, Tex. [VA549-P-0027]
  3. Federal government
  4. Department of Veterans' Affairs Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Military intelligence data published in a companion paper explain how chemical fallout from US and Coalition bombing of Iraqi chemical weapons facilities early in the air campaign transited long distance, triggering nerve agent alarms and exposing US troops. We report the findings of a population-based survey designed to test competing hypotheses on the impact on chronic Gulf War illness of nerve agent from early-war bombing versus post-war demolition. Methods: The US Military Health Survey performed computer-assisted telephone interviews of a stratified random sample of Gulf War-era veterans (n = 8,020). Early-war exposure was measured by having heard nerve agent alarms and post-war exposure, by the computer-generated plume from the Khamisiyah demolition. Gulf War illness was measured by two widely published case definitions. Results: The OR (95% CI) for the association of alarms with the Factor case definition was 4.13 (95% CI 2.51-6.80) compared with 1.21 (95% CI 0.86-1.69) for the Khamisiyah plume. There was a dose-related trend for the number of alarms (p(trend) < 0.001) but not for the number of days in the Khamisiyah plume (p(trend) = 0.17). Conclusions: Exposure to low-level sarin nerve agent in fallout from bombing early in the air campaign contributed more to chronic illness than post-war demolition. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据