Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium

Sure, there is a lot on the internet about it. The question is, what are the best and most reliable sources? If there is a gigantic conspriacy theory to keep the facts under wraps, how would that happen when I have quoted a Swiss Laboratory doing research for the EU, the World Health Organization, and the Royal Society of Scientists.

The nature of the word "nuclear" brings out a visceral response in people. When you tell them that there is Uranium in every soil sample in the world, and in their own bodies it freaks em out.

When dealing with an emotional topic, it is even more important to look at GOOD science, and factual and non-political sources. Do the Iraqi's get a lot of sympathy with this stuff? Yup! Would they have some motivation to make this more and more horrible? Yes.

Other urban legends include alligators in the water system and the guy who is missing his kidney when he wakes up. I prefer solid science from multiple sources, rather than Jerry Springer hyterical pseudo science.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Sure, there is a lot on the internet about it. The question is, what are the best and most reliable sources? If there is a gigantic conspriacy theory to keep the facts under wraps, how would that happen when I have quoted a Swiss Laboratory doing research for the EU, the World Health Organization, and the Royal Society of Scientists.

The nature of the word "nuclear" brings out a visceral response in people. When you tell them that there is Uranium in every soil sample in the world, and in their own bodies it freaks em out.

When dealing with an emotional topic, it is even more important to look at GOOD science, and factual and non-political sources. Do the Iraqi's get a lot of sympathy with this stuff? Yup! Would they have some motivation to make this more and more horrible? Yes.

Other urban legends include alligators in the water system and the guy who is missing his kidney when he wakes up. I prefer solid science from multiple sources, rather than Jerry Springer hyterical pseudo science.
[/QUOTE]

Dude, either you listen and read what I post and "say" or you don't discuss. I said concentrate on the 3rd link on this thumbnail. Do that and you'll get your answer.
You might have a read too.

I read the two line blurb, but there is no link. If you research the past posts on DU here on Gupshup, you will find that there was a huge stink in Europe over DU after the Balkans. The Swiss the Germans the Belgians, even the Italians all set up independent boards of investigation. They took urine samples from all the soldiers living in the Balkans and NO ONE showed an increased amount of uranium. The Swiss even found the level lower than at home.

If you can find a credible FINISHED research paper that concludes there is risk, I would read it and consider it. But to date, every research paper that has been published has come to the same conclusion, that there is very little risk. Second hand smoke in your house is a bigger cancer risk....

OG, this is what the Article from the Royal Society states at the beginning:

** Due to the lack of experimental data, the approach taken was to estimate the typical levels of exposure on the battlefield over a wide range of scenarios, and the ‘worst-case’ exposures that individuals are unlikely to exceed. These estimated values have then been used to assess the potential health risks from radiation.**

Therefore one has to be VERY skeptical about the reports findings. They are NOT based on actual medical reports/statistics from areas with DU contamination, they are nothing but estimations.

OG, There are many reports condemning the use of DU.. and the questions still arise.. WHY has the US prevented the UN from implementing a BAN on the use of DU weapons? Why has the US refused to accept that hundreds of its troops are suffering from increased cancer rates and lung disorders especially in areas where they was exposed to DU?

Dil,

You sound like you believe uranium is a new substance. It has been studied for very long periods of time, and under concerntrations that are thousand of times more dense than soldiers on a battlefield. Uranium miners have had studies going for at least 30 years, and the effects of exposure are VERY well known in the scientific community.

Spend some time on the Wise Uranium web site. The link below is a calculator used to project cancer causation rates in miners. The site is loaded with other types of data on uranium.

http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/rdcum.html

OG, here something for you:

http://eces.org/articles/static/9796248005262.shtml

OG,UTD/CH et al, Please read this detailed document on DU.

http://www.who.int/environmental_information/radiation/Depluranium4.pdf

"Since DU is a radioactive metal, restrictions are needed on the disposal of DU.There is the possibility that DU scrap metal could be added to other scrap metals for use in refabricated products. DU is a pyrophoric metal that can produce oxides that can be inhaled when heated (welded). Disposal of DU should normally come under appropriate national or international (IAEA) recommendations for use of radioactive materials.

I had a friend whose father tested the safety of cosmetics. They made a series of rabbits eat chapstick, and another control group eat common eggs. The control group that was forced to eat the eggs got sick first. Thus proving that everything “in theory” is toxic and can harm you. The next scientific approach is to assess the relative risk of causing adverse harm. Read the page below from the Wise uranium web site, and look at how many commissions looked into this for the safety of their own soldiers. Absolutely no correlation between service in the Balkans and uranium.

This is easy to test, as uranium is water soluable, and is excreted in urine. Your body eliminates it. In one case they found that Italian soldiers had a higher case of cancer, but there was no CAUSAL realtionship to the cancer.

If I bow down in the west every night, do I cause the sun to go down? If I do it every day, can I prove that it is ME causing the sun to go down?

http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/dissbk.html

Asif,

Yes, there are many toxic metals. Mercury, lead, and a host of other heavy metals are discharged into the enviornment everyday. Most of these are MUCH more toxic and carcinogenic than uranium. The fear factor associated with DU is just monsterously higher.

If you read the web site above, there are already international standards for exposure that have been sestablished and verified for years.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Asif,

Yes, there are many toxic metals. Mercury, lead, and a host of other heavy metals are discharged into the enviornment everyday. Most of these are MUCH more toxic and carcinogenic than uranium. The fear factor associated with DU is just monsterously higher.

If you read the web site above, there are already international standards for exposure that have been sestablished and verified for years.
[/QUOTE]

At least you do admit some of it....

Yes, I admit that DU is more dangerous than chapstick. LOL

But if you read the page above, you may be less hysterical and realize that fear mongering that has political ramifications should be suspect.

*You sound like you believe uranium is a new substance.... Spend some time on the Wise Uranium web site. *

Lol! OG, on the contrary I dont need to use a uranium calculator.. although thanks for the link. Im well aware about the use of Uranium and its effects on the environment.. The world has seen what Depleted Uranium has done to thousands of children who are born with cancer or are deformed at childbirth. Infant mortality rates are extremely high in areas effected by DU radiation. The FACTS are there for all to see. The medical/scientific evidence from the Contaminated areas is what is important. Relying on scales/graphs/predictions/estimations to test if people are effected by DU is meaningless.

“Relying on scales/graphs/predictions/estimations to test if people are effected by DU is meaningless.”

Perhaps your father can get a refund on that university education.

Dig a little deeper into the website and you will find sections of articles that don’t require numbers. Try this one:

http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/dissbk.html

Such IGNORANT comments OG show your COMPLETE and utter disregard to ACTUAL facts. Instead you would rather rely on Calculators to prove that DU has no detrimantal effect to humans… :nook:

Well, let’s look at those things, even though you want to ignore them. Here is the probability that a soldier, inhaling huge doses of DU immediately after a tank explodes, not once but ten times (!) contracts leukemia:

WISE Uranium Project’s Uranium Miner Health Risk Calculator gives the opportunity to make some first rough assessments of the cancer risk for soldiers who served in the Balkans.
Although the models used by the calculator are optimized for the situation experienced by former Wismut uranium miners, it can nevertheless be used for a first rough approach to assess the magnitude of the problem.
The calculator over-estimates the risk, since it assumes natural uranium rather than depleted uranium (the activity of which is only 60% that of natural uranium), and since it assumes that the uranium is in secular equilibrium with its decay products (what is not the case for depleted uranium).

In its theoretical assessment, UNEP’s Balkans Task Force assumes a max. inhalation intake of 100 mg of DU close to the target and immediately after the attack. [BTF1999 p.58]

For this assessment, we assume that a 25-year old soldier experienced 10 such situations in 1995 in Bosnia (this is a clear over-estimate for allied forces’ soldiers, since they came into the area only later). In case this soldier contracts leukemia in 2001, what is the probability of this leukemia being caused by the uranium?

Select “Inhaled U-238 Activity [kBq]” in the Parameter table and enter 12.4 in the year 1995 (this is the activity of 1 g U-238). Enter 1970 in Year of birth, 1995 in Year of first and last exposure, and 2001 in Year at risk.
The answer is: 1.7%. Thus, only one in 57 leukemias observed under the above circumstances could be attributed to the inhalation of uranium
http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/dbkcr.html#DUSTATTACK

You see, cancer and deformities are attribuatable to lots of things in our envionment, and occur as a natural part of cell division. Just because you observe a lot of an activity does NOT mean that you can determine it’s cause. You have simply chosen to believe something, but science is the only avenue of proof!

Im still very skeptical about such calculators.. in reality its a different ball game out there. Yes agreed cancers can occur from a number of different factors BUT all the evidence points to DU shells as EXTREMELY harmful to mankind.

Impact of Depleted Uranium on Man and Environment in Iraq](benjaminforiraq.org)

An international scientific symposium on the use of Depleted Uranium and its impact on man and environment in Iraq was held in Baghdad between December 2-3, 1998.

Several Iraqi and international researchers attended the symposium, in which 11 researches were presented on the effects of the use of the radioactive weapon -Depleted Uranium (DU)- on human beings and their environment (soil, water, plants and animals). Most of these studies focussed on the investigation of the frequency and the pattern of cancer primarily in southern Iraq, and on the health implications for future generations in view of the high incidence of congenital deformities. Data on the relationship between the high incidence of cancer and DU explosions were also presented.

The researches were conducted under unfavourable conditions, and with the lack of necessary equipment and limited facilities because of the severe effects of more than eight years of sanctions. Besides, the complete isolation of Iraqi scientists from their counterparts outside Iraq, and the absence of recent periodicals made the work even more difficult.

However, Iraqi scientists managed to provide solid evidence for the causal relationship between the use of DU during the Gulf War and the high incidence of cancer and congenital deformations, particularly in southern Iraq. It was moving to see cancer and Gulf War Syndrome patients of different nationalities, British, American and Iraqi, share their dreadful experience as both Gulf War participants and victims.

Papers Presented
In a research on the long-term effect of DU on the Iraqi environment in six selected regions in the south, plant an animal tissues, soil, and water samples were collected and analyzed. The presence of isotopes of U-238 series in over a third of the collected plant samples was confirmed, using Gamma spectrometric analysis. Some wild plant samples had high concentrations of radioactive elements with levels reaching up to three times the natural background.Average radioactive doses delivered to the population in the study area via inhalation, ingestion of meat and milk, and external exposure were measured for the period 1991-96. The dose delivered to infants and children under 15 years of age represented 70% of the total dose delivered to the general population. Calculations showed that in areas covered by the study, an estimated 845,000 tons of edible wild plants were contaminated with radioactive materials and 31% of the animal resources in the area were exposed to radioactive contaminants.

Another study examined the frequency of incidence of cancer diseases as well as the distribution of different types of cancer among patients (males and females) in four hospitals in Mosul, the provincial capital of Nineveh, northern Iraq, before and after the Gulf War of 1991.** Cancer diseases were recorded in these four hospitals from August 1989 to March 1990 and later from August 1997 to March 1998. The frequency of cancer cases increased five-fold, with lung, leukemia, breast, skin, lymphoma, and liver cancer being prevalent. The study revealed that solid tumours were more frequent.** The distribution of the cancer diseases among males and females before and after the war was different, pointing to a new factor, namely the impact of the war, and probably the use of DU weapons. In 1996, one of the researchers reported a remarkable increase in Uranium concentration, especially in southern Muthanna and Thi-Qar provinces, where the Republican Guards were concentrated. Notably, before the war the prevalence of cancer diseases was, in decreasing order of frequency: lung, lymphoma, larynx, leukemia, and breast. After the war, in 1997-98, the order became: lung, lymphoma, breast, larynx, skin, and leukemia. A sharp increase was reported in the incidence of most of these types of cancer diseases: lung (five-fold), lymphoma (four-fold), breast (six-fold), larynx (four-fold), skin (eleven-fold). Among less prevalent cancer diseases, the increase is even sharper: uterus (nearly ten-fold), colon (six-fold), hyper-nephroma (seven-fold), malignant myeloma (sixteen-fold), liver (eleven-fold), ovaries (sixteen-fold), peri-anal (twenty-fold). Excerpt.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Yes, I admit that DU is more dangerous than chapstick. LOL

But if you read the page above, you may be less hysterical and realize that fear mongering that has political ramifications should be suspect.
[/QUOTE]

You asked for a link that does "prove" some of the danger with UD's what do you need next? A tape that is approved by US Government relaying on the fact that UD is a threat to only Americans not the rest of the world?!

Ah, a cancer paper presented in Iraq by Iraqi scientists! Now how come the freeworld CANNOT find the same problem in the Balkans?

Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that this is an "impartial" panel, subject to peer review? What do you believe would have happened to the scientists and their families if they had NOT presented this information?

Let those same scientists travel outside the country with their families and let's see what they say then! Surely they could go to Britain or Paris or Switzerland or the US to discuss their findings......

Hahahahaha

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ah, a cancer paper presented in Iraq by Iraqi scientists! Now how come the freeworld CANNOT find the same problem in the Balkans?

Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that this is an "impartial" panel, subject to peer review? What do you believe would have happened to the scientists and their families if they had NOT presented this information?

Let those same scientists travel outside the country with their families and let's see what they say then! Surely they could go to Britain or Paris or Switzerland or the US to discuss their findings......

Hahahahaha
[/QUOTE]

When US Scienties can state the opposite and the EU is no less in favour of Iraq why not then discuss on Iraqi Scientists about their results?

Once again, establishing cause and effect is difficult. While there was NO uptick in any cancer rate in the Balkans, Kuwait is also having an up tick in cancer. How do THEY explain it? Read on:

Pollution legacy lives on in Kuwait

Rising cancer rates, heart disease result of damaged environment

By BBC News Online’s Andrew North in Kuwait

The oil fires may have been put out and most of the oil spills cleaned up, but Kuwait is still counting the environmental and health costs of Iraq’s occupation and the subsequent Gulf War.

Scientists say parts of the desert are still heavily polluted with oil. Off the coast, oil covers large patches of the seabed. Kuwait’s coral reefs have yet to recover.

The environmental catastrophe that happened to Kuwait is unique

Doctors have reported a significant increase in patients with heart diseases and cancers - and they say pollution from the war is the most likely cause.

Iraqi troops deliberately spilled oil into the Persian Gulf in 1991, in an effort to foil any attempt by US-led forces to launch a marine assault on the emirate. As they retreated in February 1991, they set fire to hundreds of oil wells, coating the country with thick black smoke.

“The environmental catastrophe that happened to Kuwait is unique,” said Dr Badria al-Awadi, a lawyer and the Kuwait representative for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). “Even though the air is clean now, still we don’t know the full impact of this kind of pollution.”

Dr al-Awadi, who is also involved in Kuwait’s claim for compensation from the United Nations for the environmental damage, said health statistics since 1991 were alarming. “A lot of diseases which we never had before, now we are having,” she said.

The incidence of cancer is a particular worry which “is much higher than it was before the invasion”. Dr al-Awadi is also concerned about growing numbers of people with breathing problems and allergies.

She said she could not say for sure whether oil pollution has caused all these health problems, but work by Kuwaiti research institutes suggests it is highly likely.

Scientists are also looking into the possibility that some of the cancers have been caused by residues from depleted uranium (DU) munitions used by US forces in 1991. Dr al-Awadi says: “The claims that we have taken to the UN have touched on that.”

The Iraqi Government has blamed a fourfold increase in leukaemia among Iraqi children since 1991 on DU ammunition fired by American troops.

Kuwait is not just concerned about the long-term health impacts.

Dr Mohammed al-Sarawi, chairman of Kuwait’s Environment Public Authority, says the country’s desert is still badly polluted.

“We have about 20 million cubic metres of contaminated soil,” he said, which has played havoc with the fragile desert vegetation in these areas.

Dr al-Sarawi says the marine environment - particularly its coral reefs - has still not recovered from the estimated eight million barrels of oil the Iraqis pumped into the Gulf from Kuwait’s oil terminals.

However, Kuwait can also point to several successes in cleaning up after the war. The burning oil wells were put out within six months of Kuwait’s liberation.

The total cost of firefighting and then repairing the wells has been put at $12bn, however.

Less publicised, but a greater challenge was the task of cleaning up around 320 “oil lakes” in the desert.

Many of the oil wells detonated by Iraqi soldiers did not catch fire, but simply spewed their contents across the desert, creating these lakes.

The Kuwaiti Petroleum Corporation says these lakes covered an estimated 50 square kilometres and amounted to around 60 million barrels of oil.

By 1995, the Kuwaiti authorities had only managed to clear around half the lakes. But today, just a handful remain.

The magic weapon, says Dr al-Sarawi, was a special type of bacteria “which degrades the oil”. The oily sludge it produces has been used as compost by some Kuwaiti farmers.

BBC News Online saw two of the remaining oil lakes in the Burgan oil field, to the south of Kuwait City.

With a destroyed Iraqi tank nearby, it is an apocalyptic scene and brings back memories of February 1991.

Even before you approach the lakes, you smell the oil, baking in temperatures of more than 50C.

Just a few kilometres away in the Ahmadi field is the shattered remains of Gathering Station 14, the collection point for the output of several oil wells.

Ruptured tanks and mangled pipes are scattered across a large area and it serves as a permanent reminder of one of the world¿s worst ever environmental disasters.

http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/MonAug070835432000.asp

Burning pools of oil and great lakes of oil? Oil contamination in the gulf and in ground water? Go figure…