Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

Source: The Independent

The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

---

Breaking UnCensored Alternative News! - http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

Bush threw every toxic munition into that senseless slaughter including depleted uranium. But, hey! He probably had a really good orgasm!

:puke: makes me vomit. Probably true, too. May 43 burn forever...

"Me and my big, swinging dick."

Oh man, you're probably right.
Disgusting.

the actual data was gathered from paper flyers filled out with no medical backing. No mass spec testing of environmentals or human samples (piss). So when a person makes absurd claims it seems like the "followers" jump right in.

Reading some of the posts gives better understanding into the Jim Jones mindset.

Science is not as orgasmic as a good rant. I give you that.

DU does not cause illness.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059
Rate claimed far exceeds cancer in people who were actually exposed to toxic gamma dose.
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf

with no references on a random link the free library and state as fact that depleted uranium does not cause cancer- sorry but that is just moronic - absolutely moronic.

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/08/cancer.medicineandhealth

WHO - World health organisation suppressed study
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5749.htm

BBC - The risk was already known and confirmed from the first gulf war where they were also used
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6105726.stm

New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426033.300-depleted-uranium-weapons-linked-to-lung-cancer.html

The fact of the matter is that the particles are so fine they lodge in the lungs permanently where they cause DNA break down and here fore do not show up in URINE TEST - URINE TESTS are the only test UK and US governments will do - HOW FING CONVENIENT....

But thanks for taking the time to put up an obvious red herring - the good thing about people putting up lies like yours is that they are so incredibly easy to expose as utterly ridiculous - have some common decency and humanity.

the who, and others. The link I posted is to a Journal Nature article. They are not the us military...

Here are the DU protocols..
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf


As for "fine partlicles" you are just full of shit. DU (plutonium and other metals) is detectable on mass spec for years.

Do actually believe that the cancer rate is higher in falluja than in chernobyl.. For Real?

Did you read the study? no, then stop thanking me and read.

Edit:

hey hey hey here is an article linking urine testing of uranium using mass spec.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10524504

I have no words...

www.countercurrents.org/jomaa030310.htm

cancer rates here... You REALLY think the rate in Falluja is much higher than chernobyl? WP is not a carcinogen.

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:cry:

The gift that goes on giving.

detestful and disgusting. :grr: All because of an unjust war. :grr: There simply HAS TO BE a special hell for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rum-Dumb and all the rest.
What's even more disturbing is the certainty that some citizens of this nation will look upon those figures with approval.

this was a feature, and not a bug?

Let us not forget that the military of several nations, plus contractors and
mercenaries and slave labor from all over the world, drank the same water, breathed the same air, as Iraqi citizens.
Since this country STILL denies benefits to victims of Gulf War "syndrome"
I don't see our government moving towards any acceptance of the horrific damage they have done to the people and environment in that area, or Bosnia, or anywhere else we have "spread democracy".

I also was within the same range for Uranium exposure as people who had never left the US when I was tested 2 years later for a job working around nuclear materials. Science does NOT back this crap up. It is an invention, a lie.

People in the balkans who were exposed and ate DU showed a higher range in mass spec testing which is cheap and easy. That is the standard used to establish exposure. Those people were the foundation of the WHO studies that documented NO causation with DU exposure and cancer.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059

This is the same as saying no jews came to work on 9/11.

Gulf war syndrome is real, this disgusting lazy study has nothing to do with that and actually makes it harder for vets. Who wants a fake study tied to your real cause.

cases of cancer and babies being born with deformities went up 600% when we used DU munitions. Uranium 236 (DU) stays radioactive for 4.5 BILLION YEARS.

THAT is the proof behind it.

And by the way, 9-11 WAS ON A JEWISH HOLIDAY! OF COURSE THEY DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR WORK.

Your argument is invalid.

core. Those guys got the LD50 for gamma radiation in a minute. I did not make an argument I posted FACT the rate claimed is bullshit, because the method is bullshit. Use the same no data fill out a survey on a college baseball team and everyone will have 15 inch pricks and be getting laid 4 times a day, no control of the sample.

EDIT:clarity

First it did not establish we used DU munitions, which would be simple. It did not back up findings with medical exams. It did not test people for uranium exposure by testing them like real studies did.

I linked to real articles. Other than faith what are you thinking?!

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(00)00208-4/fulltext

Here is the link to the trash study used to bamboozle you folks. Read it. Compare to the above findings..
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/

All I was saying is that there have been direct links between Depleted Uranium 236 and cancer/birth defects in Iraq. And it’s not OK. It’s a WAR CRIME.

I would only compare it to Agent Orange in Vietnam. It’s scarily similar.

Journal Nature hosted this one. Register for the full content. (edit)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059

We actually used DU in the Balkans and they do not show that pattern.

The study did not actually determine DU was present in people or the environment. It is a turd.

then I guess you’re correct; You’re the first-hand witness.

Nonetheless, Bush is still responsible for crimes against humanity.

Easy enough answer.

There was one on 8/29 and then New Year's started the evening of 9/17.

well what we were doing. Has anyone tested the soldiers who were doing the fighting - did they somehow escape the after effects? And yes I am against the war but it is still my country that is doing this so I say WE.

against the impending war, and then against the wear when it happened. I bet you also campaigned for peace-minded candidates. I don't think we need to carry the can for the actions of our supposed representatives in government. It's on their heads, not on the heads of the people who tried to stop them.

It's what keeps us shrinks in business.

the message!

that is then run through a gas chromatography system. That system detects tiny amounts of residual from radionuclides. This test is the STANDARD used by the WHO to test in the balkans and by nuclear facilities that reprocess fuel of handle more risky parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. IE you go get a job at Idaho Falls or Pantex.

This test was done with a paper form and NO DATA collection.

It is obviously false on its face. The rate claimed is orders of magnitude than the cancer rates around chernobyl now.

not.

"What there ain't no weapons of mass destruction there....."




.....he he he ain't I funny!





just a little piece of history to make you vomit in your throat.

By Jerry Mazza


To all those and their associates who remain in denial about the ill-effects of DU in order to keep it as a deadly nuclear tool in the DOD arsenal, let me submit for their and everyone else’s edification some recent documents gathered from reliable government and non-government sources. I have relied on these impeccable sources partially to provide totally independent information for study.

snip

Why is it a problem?

The DU oxide dust produced when DU munitions burn has no natural or historical analogue. This toxic and radioactive dust is composed of two oxides: one insoluble, “the other sparingly soluble. The distribution of particle sizes includes sub-micron particles that are readily inhaled into and retained by the lungs. From the lungs uranium compounds are deposited in the lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes. Hard targets hit by DU penetrators are surrounded by this dust and surveys suggest that it can travel many kilometres when re-suspended, as is likely in arid climates. The dust can then be inhaled or ingested by civilians and the military alike.

It is thought that DU is the cause of a sharp increase in the incidence rates of some cancers, such as breast cancer and lymphoma, in areas of Iraq following 1991 and 2003. It has also been implicated in a rise in birth defects from areas adjacent to the main Gulf War battlefields.

snip

Hazards of uranium weapons: Radioactivity

The chief radiological hazard from uranium 238 is alpha radiation. When inhaled or ingested, alpha radiation is the most damaging form of ionising radiation. However, as U238 decays into its daughter products thorium and protactinium, both beta and gamma radiation are released, increasing the radiation burden further. Therefore DU particles must be considered as a dynamic mixture of radioactive isotopes.

Inside the body alpha radiation is incredibly disruptive. The heavy, highly charged particles leave a trail of ionised free radicals in their wake, disrupting finely tuned cellular processes. In one day, one microgram, (one millionth of a gram), of pure DU can release 1000 alpha particles. Each particle is charged with more than four million electron volts of energy; this goes directly into whichever organ or tissue it is lodged in. It only requires 6 to 10 electron volts to break a DNA strand in a cell and these emissions cover a sphere with a radius of 6 cells.

Novel effects from internal emitters are highlighting the hazards posed by exposure to internal alpha radiation. This includes the Bystander Effect - whereby cells adjacent to those struck by alpha particles also exhibit signs of radiation damage, and Genomic Instability, where the descendants of radiation damaged cells show increased rates of mutations: the precursor to cancer growth. Ionizing radiation is a human carcinogen at every dose-level, not just at high doses; there is no threshold dose and any alpha particle can cause irreparable genetic damage.

snip

Hazards of uranium weapons: Chemical toxicity

“Detailed research into uranium’s chemical toxicity began in the 1940s, since then it has become clear that, like many other heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, nickel and mercury, uranium exposure can be damaging to health. While many studies have only investigated the possibility of kidney damage, since 1991, and triggered by concerns over DU, dozens of papers have highlighted other, more worrying effects of uranium toxicity. Repeated cellular and animal studies have shown that uranium is a kidney toxin, neurotoxin, immunotoxin, mutagen, carcinogen and teratogen. Compared to the uranium naturally present in the environment and the ore in mine workings, DU dust is a concentrated form of uranium.

Uranium has been shown to cause oxidative damage to DNA. Recent studies in hamsters found that uranium formed uranium-DNA adducts (bonds),these make it more likely that the DNA will be repaired incorrectly. If this occurs, adducts can lead to genetic mutations that may be replicated leading to carcinogensis. In mice, uranium has been shown to irreparably damage white blood cells and alter gene expression. In 2007 DU compounds were shown to damage experimental human lung cells and disrupt DNA repair.

Such findings, and others, suggest that not only is DU highly toxic, but that its toxicity and radioactivity may combine to create a synergistic effect, amplifying each other, and thereby increasing the damage caused to cellular structures and mechanisms - which in turn express themselves as tumours or a range of whole-body symptoms.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6144.shtml
(embedded links in the original)

are examples of such sources. However they do not support the advocacy crap posted. You serve no purpose by posting things that make people sound like clowns when they repeat them.

These nice people study oncology.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(00)00208-4/fulltext

This nice man wrote the Nature article and actually is a scientist.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8800429

But it seems that there were many DUers that unrecced it for some reason..Makes me think there are many closet REpugs out there in DU land doing what they can to influence our discussions.

who hate to see people making them selves look like ass clowns.

Claiming that the cancer rate in Falluja is greater than chernobyl is INSANE and very very stupid.

It gives people who actually think the Iraq war was valid a fat rolled up newspaper to hit you with.

The question of "why were there in the first place" is then lost in your humiliation.

Link to Chernobyl cancer rates. (one of DOZENS of studies than destroy this meme)
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf

yes there is no proof that du is causing cancer. it`s totally save so i expect the chinese to start mixing it into their products to replace the lead they have used.

in literally seconds. More toxic than cesium 137. Use your critical thinking skills.

Unless you want to treat this like a church service, then your personal faith will overcome logic.

Neither Kuwait or Jordan (depending on area) are current battlefields, with compromised food systems, compromised sanitation, compromised water supplies, targeted depopulation (young, presumably healthy, males), open human decomposition, munitions byproducts (DU and white phosphorus are mentioned in this thread), military-grade vehicle exhaust, foreign infection vectors (think: smallpox blankets and Native Americans), disrupted ecosystems (fleeing fauna, damaged flora), etc...

There's no such thing as fighting a hygienic war.

which is why we do not need to be there or Afghanistan. That, and the fact that the minute we roll out they will both revert to what they really are. That being said, are senseless wars ok as long as the CIC is a democrat?

...after those Blackwater mercenaries got what they deserved. A little cancer here and there is a small price to pay for the self-esteem of Middle America.

do you really believe a rate claimed that VASTLY exceeds the residents around chernobyl and the people who were actually exposed to ionizing radiation?

This topic should serve as a teachable moment. CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS are important, use them.

Here are some nifty links. The survey was conducted by flyer with ZERO medical backing. In the balkans where we did use DU the WHO tested for it.

Here is what reputable work looks like:
Lancet:
http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470204500002084.pdf
Rates for Thyroid cancer for Liquidators (men who shoveled exposed reactor core) at chernobyl.
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf
and the who findings...
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/index.html

No wonder it gets spit out.

Doesn't fit the narrative.

2. Method
2.1. The Survey and Questionnaire
Between Jan 20th and Feb 20th 2010 a team of 11 researchers visited houses in an area of Fallujah Iraq. They administered a questionnaire in Arabic on cancer and birth outcomes including infant mortality.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

I bet you will get some highly accurate data. But you cant actually verify the data with actual data.

You are aware there are protocols for diagnosing and testing for Uranium.
(page 3, WHO document)
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf

Do you actually believe a 600% increase?

Did I miss something in the report?

than that suffered by the residents around chernobyl? REALLY?

You furiously point out that the study is faulty because it was conducted by flier. In fact it was conducted door to door by 11 researchers. You seem to have read the report, so you must know this, but you trumpet your "fact" over and over as proof of the study's unscientific approach.

It doesn't seem to be an honest way to present your argument.

on my baseball team and the flyers filled out by surveyors. Do you think the results would vary on the "size" and frequency questions based on the surveyor:

1)grandmotherly lady
2)attractive female
3) navy seal testosterone laden dude..(gotta one up someone)

Its faulty because the findings are full of shit insane. And i fail to see the difference in a person filling out a flyer and a person writing down responses to a subject on a FLYER. Other than adding error or skewing outcome.

I find it DISHONEST that you will not comment on the results. Do you agree with the findings?

It was a door-to-door survey carried out in a scientific manner.

So why are you lying about it? Did you even read the report?

none of the protocols defined by the WHO were conducted.

You want to call me a liar, knock yourself right the fuck out.

You show CLEARLY what you are by refusing to answer the question.

Is the 12x rate reported in the survey, which far exceeds that of chernobyl accurate?

Yes I read it. thats why I am able to elegantly destroy the thing with a simple bit of common sense.

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

Why are you misrepresenting this survey?

the simple question on the findings.

Since my temper isn't in overdrive -- yet -- as Pavulon's obvioulsy is, let me try to explain ----


Flyers/surveys are the same thing essentially. Whether the data is collected by house-to-house people with clipboards or by flyers sent out in the mail with SASE, the results are unreliable. The responses are unsubtantiated claims made by the respondents.

Example #1

Q: Doctor, have you seen an increase in birth defects since the American assault on Fallujaj?
A: Yes, I have! Three or four times as many! Horrible deformities! Babies with two heads! Babies with six arms! Babies with stomachs on their shoulders, hearts behind their knees!

If this is merely the response of the doctor being surveyed -- whether via a flyer he received in the mail or a survey asked by a knocker on her door -- and it's not backed up with scientific research such as examination of hospital records, death certificates, etc, then it's not valid. It's little more than hearsay.

Example #2

Q: Doctor, what do you attribute this increase in birth defects to?
A: The Depleted Uranium weapons the Americans used.

If the surveyor doesn't even confirm that DU weapons were used or that the DU weapons contribute to increased levels of birth defects, the doctor's response doesn't change reality. He/she may BELIEVE (or merely want to believe) that DU weapons used by Americans contributed to the rise in birth defects, but in the absence of scientific research, the conclusions are completely invalid.


Example #3

Q: Madame, has there been an increase in childhood cancers in your neighborhood since the Americans attacked Fallujah?
A: Yes, many many more children are being diagnosed with all kinds of cancers. Dozens of them.

Now, it could be that the mother responding has heard rumors of children in another neighborhood dying of cancers at a higher rate, but her reporting of a rumor as FACT doesn't make it so.



I know absolutely nothing about DU weapons, so I'm not going to weigh in on that argument. But when it comes to collecting "data," a survey is not a good way to collect anything other than impressions, anecdotes, rumors, beliefs, etc.

The worst part of something like this is that by laying the blame on DU and the Americans without sufficient valid evidence, the true nature of health hazards in Fallujah may be going undetected and unresolved. Could there in fact be a rise in the incidence of birth defects and cancers? Without a valid scientific assessment, it's not really possible to say. And if there is such an increase, what's the real cause? Is it DU? Or is it something else? Chemicals leached into the water system from old Saddam Hussein era chemical weapons? Other toxins from American weapons? In the absence of a reality-based study, we'll never know.


TG, NTY

1. You say fliers and surveys are the same. Nonsense. Flyers mailed out and dor-to-door surveys of this quality are not comparable at all. I'm astounded you would say they are.

2. You say the results are unreliable. In fact, this type of survey has been done in the UK and Ireland and is considered reliable by experts in the field. Interesting that you call it unreliable when you haven't even read the report.

3. You say the responses are unsubstantiated claims. In fact, the questionnaire asks for details of all cancers in the household (sex, age at diagnosis, site or type of cancer, name of clinic or doctor which diagnosed and survival. No independent confirmation of the cases was made, but the authors point out that "in principle it would be possible to do this since the individuals give their identity numbers and names of the doctors or clinics where they were treated."

4. You give examples of possible hearsay from doctors. This was a survey of households in the target area, not 'hearsay' from the target households OR doctors. Doctors were not interviewed. The only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that (a) you obviously did not read the report and (b)you're just making up nonsense to substantiate some sort of belief you have unrelated to science.

5. About this fixation on DU. The survey questions did not appear to mention DU at all.

6. Your example 3: The questions related only to the specific household being interviewed, not general impressions. Why not just read the study before making ridiculous assumptions.

7. You wrote, "a survey is not a good way to collect anything other than impressions, anecdotes, rumors, beliefs, etc." This is just such nonsense, I don't know where to start.

8. You wrote "by laying the blame on DU..." Of course if you read the report you will find the authors did no such thing. They only mentioned it as one potential relevant exposure, but they concluded: "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness". So again, I can't understand why you would say this without reading the report.

I did read the report (or article, which is not the same as the actual "report").

1. Whether a survey conducted door to door or flyers mailed out is quite irrelevant. What's relevant are the data collected and how reliable they are. The article said the data was unverified. It's anecdotal and self-reported. There's no back-up for it. Yes, it substantiates what the doctors were reporting, but as someone else suggested, just because you report you have a 12-inch penis and your girl-friend says the same thing, if it's really only 4 inches, the "data" are still false. Truth isn't determined by votes.

2. "In principle" it's possible to substantiate the claims, as the article said, but saying it's possible doesn't make it happen. If and when the claims ARE substantiated, then this discussion can have some meaning.

3. My examples were examples of the types of questions that might have been asked in surveys to illustrate how answers can be very different from researched facts. Your criticism of my hypothetical questions is really quite ignorant, since I of course never stated that these were the questions asked. I was merely showing how questions, regardless how detailed they may be as far as types of cancers, age at onset, age at death, etc., etc., etc., are still not the same as collection of serious data. Had the researchers for the study gone to the hospitals, gone to the vital records, studied the phenomenon for months or years and THEN released a study with conclusions based on facts, then we could have a reasonable discussion. But too much of this article is little more than conjecture. (If answers to surveys and anecdotal evidence were all we needed to "prove" anything, alien spacecraft would be as "real" as pigs in Iowa.)

4. *I* never laid the blame on Depleted Uranium. Various posters in this thread did, and I was responding to that.


Your #7 -- A survey IS a good way to collect impressions and anecdotes, but those should not be used as the sole basis for a scientific study of this nature. And if there are so many things wrong with my statement that you can't even think of where to start, why don't you try? Tell me, and all the other people who may be reading this post, what's wrong with my statement?



Tansy Gold

I don't feel like looking it up and whatever numbers you present here are suspect, so there is no way I can answer that question. You have proved to be a dishonest contributor to this discussion.

citing the rates of thyroid cancer in chernobyl workers. Your ignorance is being compounded by laziness. READ

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf

But you are wasting your time. People are looking for information that backs up their emotions, and this story has supplied it in spades.

in science. WTF is wrong with you?

thats what the fuck is wrong with you.

On par with:

do you believe all black people eat watermelon and chicken.
all american cars are shitty.

The finding of that survey are ABSURD to anyone who slept through any college level science class.

That wasn't the point of the study.

They seemed to think a 4,5 billion year half life is a bad thing.

The toxicity of the material is known. Claiming it caused cancers at rates multiple times the meltdown and explosion at chernobyl is absurd. They never even baselined radiation in Falluja.

They just lied.

The WHO has protocols for diagnosing and classifying uranium exposure. These were not followed.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf

Thank you for adding some common sense to this story.

chernobyl was a real radiological disaster. DU is a low level alpha emitter safe to handle, like lead, dont eat it. Google the MSDS.

So this person sent flyers to people with no medical background verification. No mass spec testing of urine to show people were exposed (the standard used in the balkans).

From handouts they determined a cancer rate outstripping chernobyl victims, liquidators and residents. People who literally eat cesium 137 for breakfast.

This thread casts a light on the weakness of people. Rather than applying critical thinking and seeing this for a steaming turd it is adopted as fact. Even with an outlandish finding..

Sources.
cancer in liquidators (the ones who did not die within months from lethal gamma exposure from uranium fuel and reactor moderator). EDIT clarity.
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/837/937.pdf
DU study (summary Journal Nature requires registration)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Study+finds+low+battlefield+hazard+in+depleted+uranium.-a0135663059
WHO findings and protocols for diagnosing DU exposure (ie the shit this study did not do)
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf

Finally the mother of all sources.. common sense and www.google.com.

The authors mention it as only one potential relevant exposure. At no point do they say with any certainty that the cancer and mortality are due to DU.

Yet you seem almost crazed over DU.

the author passed off a steaming pile of turd with absurd numbers. What were the keywords listed?

A: Mystery
B: New York Yankees
or
C: DEPLETED URANIUM.

ruh ro. Man you guys cant let this stupid drop.

"Keywords: Fallujah; Iraq; cancer; leukemia; depleted uranium; gulf war"

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/08/cancer.me...

WHO - World health organisation suppressed study
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5749.ht...

BBC - The risk was already known and confirmed from the first gulf war where they were also used
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6105726.stm

New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426033.300-depl...

Depleted Uranium will not show up in Urine samples - so your tests are useless. Secondly I have provided links to studies which have proven the link - you are talking with a belligerent tone, arrogantly and worst of all erroneously - seriously - its time you stopped crapping on about how there are no effects when the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming and the objective evidence is - and has been for along time - very, very clear.

You sound like a total tool.

falluja has a higher cancer rate than chernobyl. Right. I assume you are a non retarded adult who knows what chernobyl was?

Oh for your urine comment.

You sound like and IGNORANT ASS. I pissed in a cup before going to work on a contract at Idaho Falls, I pissed again after I left. They use mass spec to make sure i did not get dosed, in addition to dosimeters. I assume this is to prove I was not dosed there so I dont sue them if I develop super powers (or cancer)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10524504
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf (page 3 on elevated uranium in piss)

Use post 28 to post something intelligent..


Urine uranium concentrations measured in 1995 were consistent with those measured in 1994/1993, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9. Spot urine measurements of uranium excretion were also well correlated with 24-h urine collections (r = 0.95), indicating that spot urine samples can be reliably used to monitor depleted uranium excretion in the surveillance program for this cohort of soldiers. The presence of uranium in the urine can be used to determine the rate at which embedded depleted uranium fragments are releasing biologically active uranium ions. No evidence of a relationship between urine uranium excretion and renal function could be demonstrated. Evaluation of this cohort continues.

The DU then leaves the body through urine. The process of DU naturally leaving the body can occur for years. How long the DU stays in the body depends on where it is, the DU particle size, how much DU there is, and how easily it dissolves. While the DU taken into the body is moving through the body, some of the DU particles settle in other parts of the body and may remain in the bones, kidneys and other soft tissues.

http://www.warrelatedillness.va.gov/docs/du-for-veterans.pdf

not informed.


The studies concluded that the particles were so fine that they were infusing themselves in the lungs and not passing through - hence the failed urine samples - due to the prolonged contact through being lodged in the lungs it was causing the DNA break down.

My second link provided the details of consistent cover up being implemented by BOTH the UK and US defense - the WHO report was even surpressed. So consistently linking to military and government research is pretty much ridiculous. Imagine the consequences if they were shown to be in violation - that is why the new scientist report, along with the guardian report showed independent test had shown a CLEAR LINK !


AS for your ongoing pa-lava about Chernobyl - the death rate was actually very low - there was a very high initial death rate from the workers who knowingly sacrificed themselves - and actually died from radiation. The reactor melted through the base floor and was covered with thousands of tonnes of concrete - the cloud plumed and went up into the atmosphere. The entire region was evacuated as well.

Fallujah on the other hand was not evacuated - the residents were left breathing depleted uranium DUST which did not rise up into the atmosphere, which was not dispersed over massive continental distances and was not covered with tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete - instead they were left in a highly concentrated highly breathable form in the middle of an urban district. There is no denying Chernobyl was devastating - however consider this - the concentration of uranium on a single bullet is going to be higher than in Chernobyl - why - because its concentrated, hence with Iraq.

Do you have any idea how much uranium is in a reactor ? Seriously do you ? No you dont. Let me inform you that all the spent uranium from nuclear reactors in the US - that have ever been would not fill a small school library. You know who that comes from ? James Hansen - know who that is ? Find out.

The purpose of using depleted uranium is that it represents an excellent way of disposing of the stored waste - so what comes out of a dozen or so plants was spent in Fallujah - why don't you think about that for a second - CHAMP!

And get over your pissing in a cup routine - its irrelevant as I have pointed out.

If I were you I would stop insisting on the safety of depleted uranium (which is just hilarious)- and get yourself checked out by someone INDEPENDENT - i.e NOT THE GOVERNMENT - in case you haven't noticed the Gulf of Mexico is perfectly fine - so is Corexit - according to the government. So too were several dozen anxiety drugs which caused people to kill their families, so too was agent orange, so too was DDT, so too was Nestle Child Infant Formula.......inf act the EU just banned 30,000 - yes thats right THIRTY THOUSAND chemicals used in food production which were known carcinogens and had been in use for decades - which the GOVERNMENT said were safe. FFS - grow a brain.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

DU is detectable like any uranium in urine. Source WHO. (page 3)
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf

Chernobyl was and is an unmitigated disaster. People were exposed to massive amounts of radiation. Lethal doses of Gamma from uranium. Cesium 137 is still there and in their food supply.

Any comparison of DU in a "single bullet" to chernobyl workers exposed to Nuclear Fuel and Graphite moderators is absurd and would only be made my a moron. DU is an Alpha emitter, you can hold it in you hand.

Enriched Uranium is lethal in less than a minute from exposure. Ingestion is lethal. Might as well put a 357 in your mouth if you get HEU in your body. Beats the agony of the death that you would suffer.

I KNOW EXACTLY how much fuel is in a reactor. I worked as a civilian contractor for a company that designed reactor support systems for the Navy. That publicly traded company had employees test via urine analysis with mass spec before work and upon termination. Dosemeters were kept and tested for each shift for every person who walked in the facility.
My guess it was to provide proof that I was not dosed there and could not sue them if I get spidey powers (or lymphoma).

And lastly my ignorant friend DU used in munitions is not supplied from nuclear fuel, It is (generaly) made from uranium (a metal you dig out of the dirt) that has never been in a reactor. Why you ask, because it is cheaper to handle non enriched uranium than highly radioactive nuclear fuel.

Lastly I will state any person who thinks that the rate of cancers in falluja (as determined by survey with no medical data) should be forced to attend a class in critical thinking skills.

The researchers assume a number of unknown contributors to the increase in cancer and mortality rates. At no point did they say it was definitely due to DU or any other source. They are just comparing rates to those pre-2005 and to neighboring countries and make an assumption that the increase in Fallujah was due to the use of novel weapons

Your cursing and insults don't seem to be warranted.

From their Conclusion
Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities

Lets be real clear. DO YOU BELIEVE FALLUJA has a cancer rate EXCEEDING Chernobyl? Answer please.

Unless someone detonated a nuclear weapon in Falluja or there was an exposed core melt down (several to correlate with chernobyl) they clearly focus on DU.

Search the word and see how many hits are in the paper.

And they do not imply that the results show any evidence of DU as a causal factor. They only point out that others have blamed DU and similar munitions for the increase in cancer and mortality. They leave causeal factors for another paper.

So it seems that your hissyfit, namecalling and cursing was unwarranted.

they implied it. They mentioned it directly. I took the time to read that trash.

They have just handed turds to monkeys with their shitty paper. They have no data (scientific), and present rates far far greater than other real radiological disasters.

People to stupid to work in context will be citing this trash for YEARS as gospel.

Their method was flawed and is just bad "science" The ignored the protocols used by the WHO for diagnosing exposure.

I will take PLEASURE in stomping this meme into the dirt every time some moron posts it. Only a person incapable of telling their asshole from their earhole would stand behind the conclusion of that study.

Sorry (not really) I tracked dog shit in all over you meme. Hey did you hear they used a nuke to cause that tsunami and we made the earthquake in haiti happen so we could steal their gold...

You caught shit, I said they filled out flyers with no medical backing. That is JUST what they did.

I hope the moron who wrote this actually tries to present it. It would be worth the air miles to go watch them laughed at by their peers.

ever read the data from the real sources?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Which basically means Eisenhower would consider him a right-wing nutcase and a provocateur. The fact that nobody is responding shows how very many people have him on ignore.

This may be evidence of other unforeseen effects of DU.

was FAR less of a risk than the majority of fabrication facilities that I visit that handle "common" materials like stainless steel or aluminum.

by those in chernobyl. Ignore all you want, you say this to a person with an education and they will laugh in you face before telling you how stupid you are.

People don't want to respond to somebody who has a basic understanding of the scientific process.

By Thomas Fasy MD Phd

Dr. Fasy is an Associate Clinical Professor of Pathology at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. He has longstanding interests in carcinogenesis and environmental toxicology. In the past two years, he has lectured at conferences and university campuses on the toxic effects of inhaling uranium oxide dusts derived from depleted uranium weapons.

snip

It is now clear that uranium has multiple toxicities. This slide summarizes some of the major toxicities of uranium.

By the early 1900s, uranium was well recognized to be a kidney toxin. By the mid-1940s, uranium was known to be a neurotoxin. By the early 1970s, uranium was recognized to be a carcinogen based on mortality studies of uranium workers and on experiments with dogs and monkeys. The first evidence that uranyl ions bind to DNA was reported in 1949 and by the early 1990s, uranium was shown to be a mutagen. Also, in the early 1990s, uranium was shown to be a teratogen, that is, an inducer of birth defects. The toxic effects of uranium on the kidney and on the nervous system typically occur within days of exposure and radiation probably plays little or no role in mediating these effects. In contrast, the carcinogenic effects of uranium have a delayed onset. The teratogenic effects of uranium might be due to exposure of one parent prior to conception as well as to exposure of the mother to uranium early in pregnancy.

Now let us briefly consider the routes of exposure to uranium. In the context of the dust particles derived from depleted uranium weapons, this means exposure to uranium oxides. By far the most dangerous route of exposure to uranium oxides is the inhalational or respiratory route. Absorption of uranium oxides through the gastrointestinal tract, the skin and the conjunctivae is possible but quite limited.

Following impact with hard targets, uranium metal undergoes combustion releasing large quantities of very small uranium oxide dust particles into the environment.

These dust particles derived from depleted uranium weapons are drastically different from the natural uranium that is normally present in rocks and soil.

Soil particles contain uranium at very low concentrations, typically less than 5 parts per million; the vast majority of these soil particles, however, are too large to be inhaled deep into the lungs. In contrast, the dust particles derived from depleted uranium weapons contain very high concentrations of uranium, typically more than 500.000 parts per million; moreover, most of the D.U. dust particles are sufficiently small to be inhaled deep into the lungs. Thus, compared to the uranium naturally present in the environment, D.U. dust contains uranium in a form that is vastly more bio-available and more readily internalized.

Uranyl ions bind to DNA; they bind in the minor groove of DNA. While bound to DNA, uranyl ions are chemically reactive and can give rise to free radicals which may damage DNA. Chemically mediated DNA damage of this type may contribute to the ability of uranium to induce cancers.

I would now like to present some epidemiologic data from the Basra governate in the south of Iraq. In February 1991, more than 300 tons (possibly much more than 300 tons) of D.U. weapons were used in South of Iraq. After 5-6 year latent periods, increases in childhood cancers and birth defects were documented in the Basra governate. The most recent data indicate a four fold increase in pediatric malignancies and a seven fold increase in congenital malformations compared to 1990, the year preceeding the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4124449

This is what the propagandist is attempting to distract from with his incessant cackling about Chernobyl.

but you read this trash and say yes. But i guess this is church for you. Belief in a myth is far more important than fact.

Any person who truly believes the falluja rate is so high the chernobyl rate could be divided into it and leave whole numbers in an unmitigated fool.

I posted DATA. Not oped note hopes and dreams, fact from sources that do good science.

Sorry if i fucked up you meme.

by David Swanson

The most massive and brutal crime committed on this planet during the past decade has been the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And we’re seeking to wash the blood off our hands without so much as an “Out, damn spot!” Nowadays “looking forward, not backward” is supposed to take care of everything, even as the crimes continue. What that takes care of is the leading perpetrators who begin to sense that the coast is clear and creep out of their holes to declare, as did Karl Rove this week, that their biggest mistake was not more aggressively attacking those who pointed out their crimes.

If there’s anyone who knows where that path leads, it’s probably Benjamin Ferencz, who served as Chief Prosecutor for the Einsatzgruppen Trial at Nuremberg in 1947 and who has just published the forward to a new book by Nicolas Davies, called “Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.” It’s a useful moment in which to be handed this masterful account of what we’ve done, not just because the liars have been ceded the floor, but also because the crime is ongoing and we will require the proper frame of mind as each deadline for withdrawal from Iraq is violated, and because the Washington Press Corpse has begun to notice the utter irresponsibility of the people we pay to tell us what is happening in the world (not to mention to spy on us, overthrow governments, kidnap, imprison, torture, and assassinate), and because we will not end the endless war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places unless there is accountability.

This is also the moment in which the International Criminal Court has done something Ferencz had long worked for, and determined that it will prosecute the crime of aggressive war. Even if the ICC cannot go back now and prosecute the most serious such crime of recent years, it can prosecute numerous US war crimes committed during the past decade, and we can address the invasion and occupation of Iraq through courts and legislatures in such a manner as to make its repetition elsewhere more likely to result in criminal charges.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6139.shtml

what american interests were served? NONE. What justified causing a civil war in Iraq, NOTHING. What are the root CAUSES of Gulf War symptoms?

The fact that NO PRESS organization called this out was a scary failure of the system.

By mixing in trash to the real topic these core issues are broken.

You must be one of those damned evil engineer types!

;)

In Gomel, the most contaminated region around Chernobyl studied, there used to be just one or two cases of children with thyroid cancer a year. It went up to 38 cases in 1991. So 19-38 times more than expected.

According to this study, most cancers in Fallujah were .5 to 14.7 times more than expected based on comparisons with Egypt and Jordan.

So I wonder what you are talking about.

Weird.