Thread: Cancer bombs
November 18th, 2003, 08:24 PM #1
I'm not advocating a political debate thread here.
I'm not a war protester.
I'm not a tree hugger either.
I am upset by this though:
Depleted Uranium weapons *WARNING* Graphic illistrations of deformities.
"Since the end of the first gulf war, cancer in Iraq has increased 700-1000% and deformities 400-600%"
All the Distributed Computing in the world isn't going to fix this.
November 18th, 2003, 08:40 PM #2
November 18th, 2003, 09:07 PM #3
Monkey muffins. While there is a slight increase in the probability of soldiers in a vehicle struck by DU rounds developing lung cancer, the risk to others is negligible. Try reading something scientific instead of hysterical rantings by someone who knows diddly.
Like this maybe.
Level I, scenario, in which a shell penetrates a vehicle, would be expected to cause 12 excess lung cancer deaths by age 75 if 10,000 soldiers were exposed to depleted uranium.
The second, Level ll, scenario, in which persons enter contaminated vehicles after combat, would cause 0.25 excess lung cancer deaths by age 75 also assuming 10,000 people were exposed.
The third, Level lll, scenario, which includes exposure to soldiers downwind from smoke plumes, would cause only 0.0037 excess lung cancer deaths by age 75 among 10,000 soldiers.
And as for the deformities; let us not forget that Saddam the Scumbag not only spread nasty chemicals all over his people, he ignited oil fields and committed who knows what other acts of pollution. It's too easy to blame the U.S and much harder to look at the real issue. I bet there's a thousand lawyers just itching to get over there and start the lawsuits rolling.You can't fix stupidity.
November 18th, 2003, 09:12 PM #4
One thing we were worried about when preparing to go into Iraq was oil fires. Not the smoke, but apparently the oil in Iraq has a sulfite compound in it that when burned is a carcinogen. BTW the biggest concern about DU is it is a heavy metal, so it has similar effects to lead.
-RADAR"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
November 18th, 2003, 09:27 PM #5
Very true. Just as inhaling or ingesting lead particles is dangerous, inhaling or ingesting DU particles would increase one's risk of cancer and other heavy-metal diseases. Unfortunately most soldiers face a far more immediate threat from other types of lead particles, if you get my drift.You can't fix stupidity.
November 18th, 2003, 11:28 PM #6
Until I see some actual factual statements... I call it.
Propaganda....No one dies a virgin, Life screws us all.
November 19th, 2003, 09:15 AM #7
Re: Cancer bombsOriginally posted by Heavy_Equipment
Since the end of the first gulf war, cancer in Iraq has increased 700-1000% and deformities 400-600%...
Seriously, though, since it takes a number of years for cancer to be manifested, even if these numbers weren't so exaggerated, you wouldn't expect the effects from the war to be seen for a few decades.
November 19th, 2003, 10:24 AM #8
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
Here is actual factual data:
The director of UMRC is a veteran doctor of the war in Iraq of 1991, his research centre is one of the leading institutes studying the effects of DU on the human body and health. I've seen interviews with him in numerous documentaries.
The negative effects of DU are evident based on the conditions of both US soldiers and the victims of bombings in wars where DU material has been used. It doesn't get anymore factual than that.
November 19th, 2003, 10:38 AM #9
Well I was certainly hoping the numbers I quoted were wrong.
Obviously it's not as dire as it was made to seem, although, you'll never convince me it's harmless.
At the same time, I see the data, and general concern here is about the soldiers. They weren't what I was concerned about. They made there own choices, and accepted the risks.
November 19th, 2003, 11:14 AM #10
Gee, I wonder if all those oil well fires Saddam set around that same time might have had something to do with this.
EDIT: Oh, SORRY, already mentioned.
Last edited by nomaxim; November 19th, 2003 at 11:17 AM.Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
November 19th, 2003, 12:04 PM #11
I think there's plenty to be concerned about here, for sure. But blaming an alarming increase in cancer and deformities on DU rounds without comprehensive studies is a bit premature. It would be nice to have an unbiased, trustworthy medical organization look into it.You can't fix stupidity.
November 19th, 2003, 12:16 PM #12
Thank you ClubMed.
There is argument on both sides about DU by reputable experts.
Some, such as Dr. Marvin Resnikoff (http://www.tacomapjh.org/du2.htm), suggest that the danger is great while others, such as, Dr. Frank von Hippel(http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eglobsec/...f/vonhippe.pdf) suggest that there is a risk, especially to unprotected persons entering objects hit by these munitians, but the risk is overblown. Interestingly, most do not discount that there is some effect. They argue about the amount of harm.
The military has been arguing that it has little or no effect. However, they also have no explanation for Gulf War Syndrome.
The danger is especially greater for Iraqi children that often play in the destroyed tanks. These tanks were frequently hit with DU shells.
Considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the amount of danger (although it is certainly greater than 0); and DU remains in the environment for hundreds of thousands of years; and DU is not a military necessity, it would be prudent to stop using these weapons.
Last edited by MTAtech; November 19th, 2003 at 12:25 PM.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 19th, 2003, 12:32 PM #13
I have friends who have GWS. Most of them feel it is caused by the untested anthrax shots they were given before Gulf War I. Many had symptoms within days of receiving the shot and haven't been the same since.You can't fix stupidity.
November 19th, 2003, 06:05 PM #14
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
M-Six that argument would probably be supported by the fact that other armies in the region did not get GWS near as I can remember.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)