If you're a veteran of the Persian Gulf War, there is a chance that you may have been exposed to Iraqi chemical or biological weapons.

As can be expected the US Government, (in this case the Central Intelligence Agency and the US Department of Defense) though they have admitted that such exposures may have been possible, they are disputing the number of service men and women who need to be concerned.

Count Bruce Kletz among those who are convinced that the government is going its best to cover up as much information as it can regarding the possible exposures. Kletz is a publisher with Insignia Publishing, a Washington D.C.-based publishing company.

Kletz has posted to the World Wide Web an extensive of list of documents he says prove his assertion that government leaders are "trying to hide the documents only to avoid political and personal embarrassment." Kletz also plans to publish a book about his findings.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some unresolved questions about what really happened regarding chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War. I know a few of the brave people who served there, and at least one of them had experienced some of the symptoms associated with the so-called Gulf War Syndrome. As a result he and his wife agonized for at least two years following the war over the question of whether they should have a second child.

There are 308 documents posted to the Web site . Each of them had been posted to a Defense Department Web site before the CIA requested that they be removed. You can view each one of them individually, or download the entire file directly to your computer, but make sure you have some time to wait, especially if you are using a 14.4 kbps or 28.8 kbps modem.

This is only the latest example of how the Internet can be used by individual citizens with a complaint against the government. As recently as five years ago, when government officials, especially those connected with the CIA and the military didn't want something they considered "sensitive" to be published, it was a safe bet the information would never see the light of day. And even if it something of a sensitive nature did make it into the hands of an individual who wanted to publicize it, there was little chance he could do more than either try to get the attention of the news media or find a publisher, neither of which is any guarantee that the story would reach the ears of those who needed to hear it.

Now with minimal technical knowledge (and I do mean minimal) knowledge, we as citizens are more powerful in our ability to share our information than ever before. But along with that power, comes an important responsibility.

Anyone who has used the Internet for any length of time knows that its ability to for spreading untrue rumors is legendary. In your travels on the information byways you may run across some references to something called the "Good Times Virus." This is the most repeated, and most untrue rumors of the Internet. Usually it appears in the form of an e-mail message from someone who thinks you need to know about it, simply forwarded to you from whomever had sent it to them. Because of its instantaneous nature, you'll be tempted to forward the same message on, just as your friend did for you. Once it happens enough you have a serious rumor.

There never was and never will be a Good Times Virus, unless you consider the rumor itself to be the virus. (Read about it for yourself at www.crew.umich.edu/~chymes/newusers/Think.html.) When I get Good Times e-mail, that is exactly what I tell the person who is warning me about it.

And though the Good Times hoax is fairly innocuous, I see the potential on the Internet for the circulation of a new wave of hoaxes and so-called news stories that could create unnecessary worry or panic. It hasn't happened yet, but it wouldn't take much for a big rumor to begin circulating, eventually making its way to the news media, who in many cases don't question such information as often as they should.

When you run across potential informational "bombshells" on the Internet, don't rush to take it as truth right away. Try and do your own research. Take it with a grain of salt.

I have no reason to doubt Kletz's efforts to document his assertions about chemical weapons releases during the Gulf War, but I don't know enough about the situation myself to make a judgment yet. Surely the information on his Web page bears further scrutiny. But that scrutiny takes time. Simply posting the documents to the Web is only the first step in what should prove to be a long process of examination and review by outside sources.

Send e-mail toArik Hesseldahl.

Send e-mail toThe Idaho State Journal.