This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Occupational and Environmental Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic

Brian Vastag

JAMA. 2003;289:1621-1623.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Scientific consensus can be elusive. It took decades for scientists to accept that continents drift, that DNA is not a protein, and that Mendel was right. Such is the process of science.

In the case of "depleted" uranium weapons, consensus regarding possible health effects remains distant 12 years after their battlefield debut. The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains that the weapons are safe—as safe as live ammunition can be, at least. Prestigious institutions such as the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States and the Royal Society in London, England, provide qualified reassurance about some potential health effects, but say the available studies are too limited and have too many shortcomings to allow firm conclusions.

Today, hundreds of thousands of soldiers may face these unanswered questions anew. Despite official reassurances about the safety of uranium weapons, a cloud of uncertainty hangs over them; the acute and long-term . . . [Full Text of this Article]