Surveying the veteran-related evidence pertaining to the Gulf War, a 2001 editorial in the BMJ concluded that it was not possible to justify claims of radiation-induced lung cancer and leukaemia in veterans of that conflict. While agreeing with the editorial's conclusion, a reply noted that its finding in the negative was guaranteed, given that "global dose estimates or results of mathematical modelling are too inaccurate to be used as dose values for an individual veteran", and that, as of April 2001, no practical method of measuring the expected small doses that each individual veteran would receive had been suggested.. Mould's suggestion was electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry using tooth enamel. He also wrote that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology was able, using this method, to measure doses as low as 20 mSv, and that, if it were asked to, the NIST would be able to get involved, meaning at least one centre could help undertake a screening programme for veterans. The author of the reply, a radiation scientist, went on to suggest a method that had been used several times before, including after the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Despite the widespread use of DU in the Iraq War, at least a year after the conflict began, testing of UK troops was still only in the discussion phase., which found that perhaps a quarter of all UK troops would have been interested in undergoing DU-related monitoring, although "the desire for DU screening is more closely linked to current health status rather than plausible exposure to DU."Confusingly, reports that "testing is now available to all troops that served in Iraq", and does not say if this is testing à la Mould.
Surveying the veteran-related evidence pertaining to the Gulf War, a 2001 editorial in the BMJ concluded that it was not possible to justify claims of radiation-induced lung cancer and leukaemia in veterans of that conflict. While agreeing with the editorial's conclusion, a reply noted that its finding in the negative was guaranteed, given that "global dose estimates or results of mathematical modelling are too inaccurate to be used as dose values for an individual veteran", and that, as of April 2001, no practical method of measuring the expected small doses that each individual veteran would receive had been suggested. Mould's suggestion was electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry using tooth enamel. He also wrote that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology was able using this method, to measure doses as low as 20 mSv, and that, if it were asked to, the NIST would be able to get involved, meaning at least one centre could help undertake a screening programme for veterans The author of the reply, a radiation scientist, went on to suggest a method that had been used several times before, including after the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Despite the widespread use of DU in the Iraq War, at least a year after the conflict began, testing of UK troops was still only in the discussion phase., which found that perhaps a quarter of all UK troops would have been interested in undergoing DU-related monitoring, although "the desire for DU screening is more closely linked to current health status rather than plausible exposure to DU."Confusingly, reports that "testing is now available to all troops that served in Iraq", and does not say if this is testing à la Mould.