Now OG I know it's always been hard to understand your system of discussing. (if there is any) But once again I would pleage to read the quoted in my post and to understand that as well. Why DU's not being the major problem in Balkan....the answer is given there and remember we are talking about IRAQI Cancers,...........
...U understand?
*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…**
OG, I would rather believe an Iraqi Doctor struggling to treat 100’s of patients with very little in the way of medicines and equipment than perhaps BELIEVE the propoganda emanating from PRO-Du supporters such as yourself! LOL!
Cancer cases soared in south Iraq- U.N. document](Cancer cases soared in south Iraq- U)
By Dominic Evans - BAGHDAD, June 21 (Reuters)
Cancer cases soared as much as sixfold in parts of southern Iraq after the 1990-91 Gulf Crisis, according to a United Nations document based on Iraqi government figures. The document, obtained by Reuters on Sunday, showed a nationwide cancer increase of 55 percent between 1989 and 1994 with an overwhelming tilt towards the southern provinces.
It identified the southeastern provinces of Thi-Qar, Missan, Basra and Muthanna as having “the highest increase in cancer cases among other governorates.” New types of cancer had emerged over the five-year period and the disease was striking younger people, it said. ..
Iraq says it has been hit by an epidemic of cancer and previously unknown diseases in the south, where the United States and Britain fired depleted uranium (DU) shells during the 1991 U.S.-led offensive to recapture Kuwait. …
Ok, let’s create a hypothetical. for the sake of discussion let’s say that there is a rise in cancers in Iraq. Kuwait is experiencing the same thing, so let’s assume that as a fact. The next question is what caused it. There has been absolutely no study that shows any uptick in cancer rates in the Balkans, not in the peacekeepers who were exposed to combat areas in the Balkans.
So if DU was used in both places, why is there no cancer in the Balkans?
Do Iraqis and Kuwaitis eat polluted fish from the gulf? Was there long term exposure to carcinogens through the oil spills. Was it the heavy oil smoke? Was ther a release of a chemical or biologiacl weapon during the War?
Any one of these or a combination of these may be the culprit. Knowing what we know about DU, based on the long term studies of mining workers, the occurances that you see are highly unlikely to have been DU.
So, did the Iraqi scientists simply leap to this conclusion? Were they coersed into forming this conclusion? Did they investigate other causes that may have been SADDAM’s fault? Would they have been allowed to live if they had said that the burnign of the oiol fields poisoned and killed Iraqi’s.
The only answer is science. Charts, graphs, statistics and proabilities. Medical tests and good investigative skills. But look how much milage Saddam is getting by making the Muslim world believe that the US is responsible for deformities. What a propaganda windfall.
In the mean time, consider that other causes may be the real culprit:
ENVIRONMENT-ECUADOR: Natives in Oil Zones Suffer High Cancer Rate
By Kintto Lucas
QUITO, Jul 6 (IPS) - Indigenous Ecuadorans who live in areas of petroleum production suffer from a higher incidence of cancer than other groups, according to a new medical study here.
The results of the study, conducted by a medical team from the Social Pastoral Department of the Vicariate of Aguarico, indicate that the population of the petroleum zone faces a cancer risk three times higher than in other parts of the country.
Cancer of the larynx is 30 times more prevalent in the zone than elsewhere in Ecuador, while cancer of the bile ducts is 18 times higher, that of the liver and skin 15 times higher, and stomach cancer five times more frequent.
The research, which was acquired by IPS, was carried out in the petroleum zone of the northeastern provinces of Sucumbios and Orellana, in the Amazon region on the border with Colombia. It was carried out with the assistance of the ‘Medicus Mundi’ organisation and the University of London’s Department of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The study, which was developed over a six-month period, was based on analysis of river water, examinations of the affected populations, and statistical research on the growth of cancer rates in relation to increased petroleum exploitation over the past 30 years.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**So if DU was used in both places, why is there no cancer in the Balkans?
*
[/QUOTE]
I knew it would be useless to ask you for something. I didn't even read the whole article did you? THen you would have asked the question again and again.
Again for you:
[quote]
"What Nato and the UK Ministry of Defence are missing is the fact that a single alpha emitter can be carcinogenic. *We don't know how low the risk of DU is. But the uranium has the potential to cause DNA damage because of its chemical properties, and that can trigger cancer. *
"That would be an unconvincing argument about Kosovo, though a possibility for the Gulf. A two-year development period for cancers caused this way is a valid hypothesis. The warning from Chernobyl is to remind us that the Japanese atomic bomb survivors are not typical of all types of radiation. We shouldn't say too lightly that two years is not long enough for radiation to cause cancer."
[/quote]
Ali,
Since you cannot seem to understand, I will help you.
"We don't know how low the risk of DU is."
Yes we do! The examples that I have posted above are based on obsevations of much more potent uranium sources that have been studied for years. Second, on the Wise website there are already limits which are easily measured in the enviornment and in the body. None of these have been independently detected in the Balkans. The Balkans are much more likely to have problems in their ground water, because it RAINS there.
"But the uranium has the potential to cause DNA damage because of its chemical properties, and that can trigger cancer. "
Yes, and virtually every known chemical, as well as sunlight has the ability to alter genes. Virtually everything can cause cancer in excess. A theroy is just a theory until it is proven. No detectable amounts of DU have been found more that 100 feet away from any impact site in the Balkans. There is no evidence of either airborne or ground water infiltration. There has been no evidence that it is making it's way into the human body. The example I gave above is of a soldier exposed to massive doses of uranium, not once but ten times. Even this exposure would only account for a less than 2% increase in the risk of cancer.
"A two-year development period for cancers caused this way is a valid hypothesis"
The key word here is "hypothesis". In science you start with an hypothesis and move to theory then proof. All the "science" that is quoted here is saying, "this stuff can be dangerous". Sure. But it must happen in suffiecient doses and over a sufficient period of time. OTHER factors must be taken into account, rather than fixating on one expected outcome. To think that Iraqi scientists "know" that DU is causing deaths and deformities is terribly bad science. The are starting with the conclusion they WANT to reach, and then citing the facts that would tend to support it. What should happen is starting with the FACTS, and examine ALL possible causes, not just the ones that are politically acceptable. Deformities and Cancer have a huge number of causes. And they are naturally occuring. The science of parsing out cause and effect is very complicated.
You happen to WANT to believe that the US has caused harm because it fits with your personal politics. You have swallowed a line of propaganda hook line and sinker, because it seems possible. Given all of the research I have read, particularly the same circumstances in the Balkans, the conclusion you have reached is HIGHLY improbable.
I will change my mind if a well researched study from an international body concludes that it is "likely" that DU has caused some harm. But I have seen nothing in any credible research that shows this at all. Study away, but based on the studies of Uranium miners, a very well researched group of subjects, exposed to much higher levels of radiation, from a much more potent source, the harm that you are attributing to people in Iraq is highly unlikely.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ali,
Since you cannot seem to understand, I will help you.
"We don't know how low the risk of DU is."
Yes we do! The examples that I have posted above are based on obsevations of much more potent uranium sources that have been studied for years. Second, on the Wise website there are already limits which are easily measured in the enviornment and in the body. None of these have been independently detected in the Balkans. The Balkans are much more likely to have problems in their ground water, because it RAINS there.
"But the uranium has the potential to cause DNA damage because of its chemical properties, and that can trigger cancer. "
Yes, and virtually every known chemical, as well as sunlight has the ability to alter genes. Virtually everything can cause cancer in excess. A theroy is just a theory until it is proven. No detectable amounts of DU have been found more that 100 feet away from any impact site in the Balkans. There is no evidence of either airborne or ground water infiltration. There has been no evidence that it is making it's way into the human body. The example I gave above is of a soldier exposed to massive doses of uranium, not once but ten times. Even this exposure would only account for a less than 2% increase in the risk of cancer.
"A two-year development period for cancers caused this way is a valid hypothesis"
The key word here is "hypothesis". In science you start with an hypothesis and move to theory then proof. All the "science" that is quoted here is saying, "this stuff can be dangerous". Sure. But it must happen in suffiecient doses and over a sufficient period of time. OTHER factors must be taken into account, rather than fixating on one expected outcome. To think that Iraqi scientists "know" that DU is causing deaths and deformities is terribly bad science. The are starting with the conclusion they WANT to reach, and then citing the facts that would tend to support it. What should happen is starting with the FACTS, and examine ALL possible causes, not just the ones that are politically acceptable. Deformities and Cancer have a huge number of causes. And they are naturally occuring. The science of parsing out cause and effect is very complicated.
You happen to WANT to believe that the US has caused harm because it fits with your personal politics. You have swallowed a line of propaganda hook line and sinker, because it seems possible. Given all of the research I have read, particularly the same circumstances in the Balkans, the conclusion you have reached is HIGHLY improbable.
I will change my mind if a well researched study from an international body concludes that it is "likely" that DU has caused some harm. But I have seen nothing in any credible research that shows this at all. Study away, but based on the studies of Uranium miners, a very well researched group of subjects, exposed to much higher levels of radiation, from a much more potent source, the harm that you are attributing to people in Iraq is highly unlikely.
[/QUOTE]
There is hardly any proof on anything in science. If you state something you need to add examples if you add examples you need to proof.
Ppl of science have had to do with cancer, aids and various deceases but couldnt find the ultimate formula for destroying it.
Why? Coz they lack of the information they have. They might have proof that it exists but don't have enough research on how and when and why....got my point?
"There is hardly any proof on anything in science."
No, good science can prove a lot. Bad science, driven by political aims, feeding on peoples fears is taking advantage of the ignorant.
Frankly, I hope they establish what the cancer rate is, research it and come up with a firm cause and let the chips fall where they may. But "assuming" that it is DU when it may not be will only delay the remediation of whatever is causing the illnesses. Take a look at the article above from Kuwait. Kuwaitis are also experiencing an uptick in heart disease. DU may cause Lung cancer (in great doses), but not heart disease.
But articles showing radiation "experts" going out to tanks, and holding a geiger counter to a tank a hundred and fifty miles from a city and then claiming that it caused cancer and deformities in kids is a politically motivated photo opportunity. Hold the same geiger counter to your watch, and you get the same result. (Ever wonder why there those hands on your watch glow?) Geez, an improperly constucted microwave can be more dangerous.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"There is hardly any proof on anything in science."
No, good science can prove a lot. Bad science, driven by political aims, feeding on peoples fears is taking advantage of the ignorant.
Frankly, I hope they establish what the cancer rate is, research it and come up with a firm cause and let the chips fall where they may. But "assuming" that it is DU when it may not be will only delay the remediation of whatever is causing the illnesses. Take a look at the article above from Kuwait. Kuwaitis are also experiencing an uptick in heart disease. DU may cause Lung cancer (in great doses), but not heart disease.
But articles showing radiation "experts" going out to tanks, and holding a geiger counter to a tank a hundred and fifty miles from a city and then claiming that it caused cancer and deformities in kids is a politically motivated photo opportunity. Hold the same geiger counter to your watch, and you get the same result. (Ever wonder why there those hands on your watch glow?) Geez, an improperly constucted microwave can be more dangerous.
[/QUOTE]
OG again on one hand you don't accept a research by Iraqi and on the other hand you want me to believe a monarchy Kuwait and enemy of IRAQ about a research that mainly does effect Gulf war?
Yes, because the Kuwaiti article was balanced. It not only discussed the possibility of Petroeum polution, but also discussed the DU theory thrown out by Iraq. Because they were examining all possibilities they seem to be pursueing a better path of science. They did not absolutely throw the blame on Saddam.
We had a small oil spill where I lived a few years ago in our bay. I was 5 miles away, and it smelled like they were blacktopping a parking lot outside my window. The oil baking in the hot desert would generate unbelievable toxic gasses that could lie low to the ground and travel for miles. Petroleum is both a mutagen and a carcinogen. Read the warning label at the gas pump the next time you fill up your car. You NEVER hear an Iraqi scientist telling anyone that toxic petroem fumes may have effected people, because that would throw blame on Saddam, and he would not allow it.
Just think about things before automatically casting blame....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Just think about things before automatically casting blame....
[/QUOTE]
It's not easy to see what is right what is wrong. I accuse as your government does with lots of other countries. How many proofs are there that Iraq has WMDs? Non! See it's already what you said above but this time the false person I guess.
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Hold the same geiger counter to your watch, and you get the same result. (Ever wonder why there those hands on your watch glow?) Geez, an improperly constucted microwave can be more dangerous. *
OG, nobody should doubt that there are huge increases in Radiation levels within areas bombarded with DU shells. That geiger counter showed levels 1000 times above normal.. NOW anyone who is trying to compare radiation levels in a Tank destroyed by DU munitions to radiation emitted by a watch is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The UN wants an INTERNATIONAL BAN on the use of DU, WHY is that ? is it because they are well aware about the collosal increase in cancer rates and birth defects within areas targetted with DU munitions and/or they are well aware about the thousands of military personnel who served in DU contaminated areas and are now suffering from cancer and serious illnesses and/or the devastating effects to the environment with vegetation and water supplies becoming contaminated for miles around.
Excerpt from the Seattle Post Article: Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program. Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.
An International Appeal to Ban the Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons](http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/appeal.htm)
Drafted by Ramsey Clark (Former US Attorney General)
Depleted-uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on human dignity. To safeguard the future of humanity, we call for an unconditional international ban forbidding research, manufacture, testing, transportation, possession and use of DU for military purposes. In addition, we call for the immediate isolation and containment of all DU weapons and waste, the reclassification of DU as a radioactive and hazardous substance, the cleanup of existing DU-contaminated areas, comprehensive efforts to prevent human exposure and medical care for those who have been exposed.
During the Gulf War, munitions and armor made with depleted uranium were used for the first time in a military action. Iraq and northern Kuwait were a virtual testing range for depleted-uranium weapons. Over 940,000 30-millimeter uranium tipped bullets and “more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield.” (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute)
These weapons were used throughout Iraq with no concern for the health and environmental consequences of their use. Between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles and dust have been scattered over the ground and the water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people, both civilians and soldiers, have suffered the effects of exposure to these radioactive weapons.
Of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. Symptoms include respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure. There are birth defects among their newborn children. DU is a leading suspect for a portion of these ailments. The effects on the population living in Iraq are far greater. Under pressure, the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they are still stonewalling any connection to DU.
**Communities near DU weapons plants, testing facilities, bases and arsenals have also been exposed to this radioactive material which has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. DU-weapons are deployed with U.S. troops in Bosnia. The spreading toxicity of depleted uranium threatens life everywhere. DU weapons are not conventional weapons. They are highly toxic, radioactive weapons. **
All international law on warfare has attempted to limit violence to combatants and to prevent the use of cruel and unfocused weapons. International agreements and conventions have tried to protect civilians and non-combatants from the scourge of war and to outlaw the destruction of the environment and the food supply in order to safeguard life on earth.
Consequently, DU weapons violate international law because of their inherent cruelty and unconfined death-dealing effect. They threaten civilian populations now and for generations to come. These are precisely the weapons and uses prohibited by international law for more than a century including the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols Additional of 1977.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
There seem to be a ton of conflicting reports about cancer and DU. I don't know what one is right and what one is wrong, proabably somewhere in between. With such questions existing it's use should be halted.
[/QUOTE]
When the U.N. Environmental Program has stated on record that "Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, studies show it can remain in human organs for years", also the radioactive material has a half-life of 4.4 billion years, also that thousands of children have contracted cancer in areas contaminated with DU shells... than you would have to be very silly to ignore this research. Agreed with your last comment that the UN must be allowed to implement a WORLDWIDE BAN on the use of DU shells.
Material Breach : US Crimes in Iraq](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1130-01.htm) Commondreams, Maine. 30 Nov 03 by Heather Wokusch
Exerpt from article follows:
"Then there’s the depleted uranium (DU) weaponry the United States and its allies used on Iraq during the Gulf War, despite foreknowledge its radioactivity would make food and water in the bombed regions unsafe for consumption on an indefinite basis (DU remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years). Add in the fact that trails of carcinogenic dust left in a DU bomb’s wake spread in the wind to be absorbed by plants and animals, thereby devastating a region’s food chain. Of course, humans inhale and absorb DU dust as well, which has most likely led not only to dramatically elevated levels of birth defects and cancer cases among Iraqi civilians, but also to a wide litany of suffering among Gulf War vets; a recent study, for example, found that even nine years after the war, veterans afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome ailments still had DU traces in their urine. This while there has yet to be any US governmental study on the effects of DU inhalation…
We can expect DU to be used in the next attack on Iraq too, in spite of the inhumane risks to civilians and military personnel alike. According to a Defense Department report, “the US Military Services use DU munitions because of DU’s superior lethality” adding, “Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU’s chemical toxicity or low-level radiation.” With more than one out of six American Gulf War vets having reported health problems since their service, and over 9,000 having died since the war ended, not to mention the marked increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer cases in DU-bombed regions, denial like that is nothing short of material breach, an affront to both human rights and common sense."
“it was “disgraceful” that the United States allowed use of depleted uranium munitions. He called it a war crime that ranked alongside nuclear destruction.”
US use of depleted uranium ‘a war crime’, bishop tells rally](Stuff) Independant Newspapers, New Zealand
More than 14,000 people in towns and cities around the country took to the streets on Saturday to voice their opposition to the war with Iraq. In Auckland, about 5000 people marched through the city and the crowd swelled to about 10,000 at a subsequent rally in Myers Park. Anglican Bishop of Auckland Richard Randerson told the crowd it was “disgraceful” that the United States allowed use of depleted uranium munitions. He called it a war crime that ranked alongside nuclear destruction.
It was blasphemous for President Bush to seek the blessing of God for such activities, said Bishop Randerson. Green Party MP Keith Locke said it was a time of sadness for the community of nations which had their efforts for peace swept aside by the lust of corporate America for the Iraqi oilfields. He said the frigate HMNZS Te Mana was escorting United States warships entering the Persian Gulf war zone and must be brought home.
Mr Locke also demanded the closure of the Waihopai spy base in Marlborough to prevent it assisting the United States war effort. A march leader, John Minto, said he was pleased with the turnout. Marchers included families, high school student groups, people from Middle Eastern countries and trade union groups. Police looked on as a group of 80 youths, some with faces covered by black balaclavas, held an impromptu sit-in rally on the road opposite Myers Park. Auckland Central Police said no protesters were arrested.
Anti-war protests were also made Saturday afternoon in Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch. In Wellington, about 4000 protesters gathered in the central city’s Civic Square before marching to Parliament and on to the United States embassy. Three people were arrested for throwing objects at the embassy, and will appear in Wellington District Court on Monday. However, Wellington area controller Inspector Marty Grenfell said the crowd was generally well-behaved. A minute’s silence was observed outside the embassy.
A peace vigil in central Christchurch was attended by about 100 people and a Peace and Music Festival was held at the Riverside Community, near Motueka. However, an anti-war inter-faith prayer service at Ponsonby Mosque in Auckland failed to attract large crowds. Dr Anwar Ghani, president of the Islamic Association of New Zealand, said he was disappointed only two other faiths attended, but added they intended holding another meeting in two weeks.
Re: Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium
Please read children, the issue of DU is an old one, and one that is scientifically well understood.
Re: Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium
I am against putting limits on DU. Pakistan's use of depleted uranium gives us an advantage over the Indian army in terms of our anti-tank weaponry. Pakistan must defend the right to use DU or risk becomes more vulnerable to India. To give one example, the anti-tanks shells fired by our latest Al-Khalid tanks are 125mm APFSDS depleted-uranium tipped shells.
If action is taken against the USA for using DU, then it would be inevitable that pressure would be applied to Pakistan to cease using it as well.
Re: Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium
All is fine in Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
Re: Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium
That’s really the problem. People hear “radioactive” and freak out. They presume to know precisely what will happen as a result of radiation, but unless there is some rigorous science applied, you really cannot isolate a cause and effect.
Whats more, the politically motivated can prey on the ignorant by generating a number of propaganda falacies. The fact that you have a thread here where Guppies don’t ask a single question before they swallow the presumption that DU caused specific birth defects is testimony to the power of this propaganda aimed at the ignorant.
Re: Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects blamed on U.S. depleted Uranium
Whats more, the politically motivated can prey on the ignorant by generating a number of propaganda falacies. The fact that you have a thread here where Guppies don't ask a single question before they swallow the presumption that DU caused specific birth defects is testimony to the power of this propaganda aimed at the ignorant.
I see it working well with "all is well" :-|