Cancer rise in Fallujah

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So, to clarify, is your hypothesis "they started smoking more after 2004"?

Was anyone looking at cancer rates in Fallujah before the political motivation was there?

 

[McHrozni]

So, to clarify, is your hypothesis "they started smoking more after 2004"?

No. It's one of the possibilities what could cause the results, under the assumption the results published in that study are accurate. You missed others completely. I don't believe the study is accurate though. My current hypothesis is "the study is wrong", and we discussed what that could be earlier: self-selecting sample and no objective control.

If you want to prove DU had anything to do with the increased death rate in Fallujah and you can't establish whether or not there indeed is an increased death rate (comparison with Egypt doesn't cut it), get a Geiger counter and an emission spectrograph and prove there is detectable amount of alpha radiation and DU in a sufferers' body. That would be inconclusive evidence. All else we have thus far is barely a hint.

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, further up in the thread I think this point was discussed. The local doctors have noticed a rapid increase in birth deformities and (I believe) childhood leukemia. Anecdotal, yes.

Do you agree with the cigarettes hypothesis?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

@ Hronzi

Hi

I'm not sure what kind of control group you'd want in this study other than what they've presented (other cities' birth defect rates in the region) or data on birth defects prior to the US invasion / 2004 battle.

Earlier up you suggested that the high birth defects were more likely caused by regular old rubble being blown up and aersolized. Are similar rates of birth defects present in other cities that were scenes of US actions prior to DU being used in shells and bullets?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, further up in the thread I think this point was discussed. The local doctors have noticed a rapid increase in birth deformities and (I believe) childhood leukemia.

Right.... locals have a habit of "noticing" such things after the Americans have been around. Especially when other agenda-driven foreigners show up looking for dirt.

Anecdotal, yes.

Yes.

And I notice we're back to "deformities" again. The swiss army knife of DU conspiracy theories. When nothing else sticks, cry deformity.

 

[McHrozni]

Well, further up in the thread I think this point was discussed. The local doctors have noticed a rapid increase in birth deformities and (I believe) childhood leukemia. Anecdotal, yes.

Yes, anecdotal. In other words, worthless.

Do you agree with the cigarettes hypothesis?

What do you mean by "agree"? I think it is a possible explanation, which would have to be ruled out before you can make a conclusion DU was the culprit.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

@ Hronzi

It's McHrozni.

I'm not sure what kind of control group you'd want in this study other than what they've presented (other cities' birth defect rates in the region) or data on birth defects prior to the US invasion / 2004 battle.

Well, an accurate record of cancer rates in the city and a complete rundown of diagnostic tools available would be a nice start. Also information on accessibility of such medical care would be vital.

Earlier up you suggested that the high birth defects were more likely caused by regular old rubble being blown up and aersolized. Are similar rates of birth defects present in other cities that were scenes of US actions prior to DU being used in shells and bullets?

Were such studies conducted? We do know that explosions can throw material in the air and we also know that some materials thus thrown into the air can be cancerogenus. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that explosions within a city where such materials are most likely to occur can result in a greater rate of cancer in an affected area.

McHrozni
(and not Hronzi)

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes, anecdotal. In other words, worthless.

I don't know, I mean it's a fine line between anecdotal evidence and expert testimony, no? Especially when there is evidence corroborating a higher incidence in Fallujah than in other regional cities.

What do you mean by "agree"?
McHrozni

Well, this was actually for Sword of Truth.

I think it is a possible explanation, which would have to be ruled out before you can make a conclusion DU was the culprit.

Or it could be that after the 2004 campaign when islamofascism was repealed pregnant women suddenly felt free to suntan again, exposing themselves and their phoetuses to harmful UV radiation.

Or it could be that the new openness of Fallujah meant that women could start eating unhealthy food imported from China.

Or it could be that after the battle, people decided to fix up their homes and used lots of lead-based paints.

Just like AGW. You can never fully discount every other possibility.



I kid, I kid, I get your point about the data pre and post 2004, but really I find the cigarettes explanation somewhat implausible.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Right.... locals have a habit of "noticing" such things after the Americans have been around. Especially when other agenda-driven foreigners show up looking for dirt.

Everyone has an agenda but the US and its army.

I wouldn't be surprised if those locals were poisoning their phoetuses on purpose.

And I notice we're back to "deformities" again. The swiss army knife of DU conspiracy theories. When nothing else sticks, cry deformity.

Odd use of the word ''conspiracy'' but whatever.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't know, I mean it's a fine line between anecdotal evidence and expert testimony, no? Especially when there is evidence corroborating a higher incidence in Fallujah than in other regional cities.

Not if the incidence was higher than in other Iraqi cities before the war, and what changed after the invasion was accessibility of doctors to children with such deformities, to name one possibility.

Just like AGW. You can never fully discount every other possibility.

Thus far you haven't discounted any other possibilities.

I kid, I kid, I get your point about the data pre and post 2004, but really I find the cigarettes explanation somewhat implausible.

Why? It would account for both additional birth deformities and abnormal sex ratio - you know, the only parameter that has anecdotal evidence / expert testimony in it's favor, and the only parameter for which we do know is abnormal for Fallujah.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Everyone has an agenda but the US and its army.

Of course US army has an agenda. Poisoning the people of Fallujah in an extremely expensive and extremely ineffective way isn't it, though.

McHrozni

 

[Travis]

But it is a good piece of evidence in the argument being made. It's just one piece, though. To prove that the cancer rise in Fallujah is due to depleted uranium, there are three things that need proving:

1. That there actually was a cancer rise in Fallujah.
2. That depleted uranium was introduced to Fallujah in the right timeframe.
3. That depleted uranium can cause cancer.

We need all three to make a reasonably strong argument.

We also need:

4. That there were not other carcinogens present.

As I noted the city had an industrial zone that was pretty much shredded by the multiple battles that occurred there releasing who-knows-what into the local environs.

Everyone has an agenda but the US and its army.

I wouldn't be surprised if those locals were poisoning their phoetuses on purpose.

We can't rule out they were doing it accidentally. How effective was their water treatment after the battles?

 

[Mycroft]

Symptoms of exposure to DU is evidence of exposure to DU. Not conclusive, but not all evidence is conclusive.

From the article in the OP:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

[...] Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form.

DU or something else, the cause is exposure to something in 2004.

Dr. Chris Busby, huh?

This same guy?

Busby is the author of the self-published Wings of Death[11] and Wolves of Water,[12] and according to CERRIE "articles and research papers on low level radiation."[4] However, according to a fellow CERRIE committee member, "much of Chris Busby’s work is self-published and difficult to access; he seems mainly to avoid publication in the recognised scientific literature, which presents difficulties for a proper review of the evidence underlying his conclusions."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

 

[FireGarden]

Except that some other materials have the exact same symptoms.

No. Really?

McHrozni

It's amazing how stating the obvious can often get the 'no, really' response. I'd hoped to avoid the response in your first line, but failed -- imagine if I hadn't stated the obvious! You have added nothing to my post: I stated the evidence wasn't conclusive and the quote I gave said it was difficult to pin down the cause.

But you cannot dismiss the evidence merely because it isn't conclusive.

Here is a study on sex-ratio changes due to cigarettes:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/470

How many people would have to have taken up smoking how many cigarettes to acheive the effect? And where is your evidence that they smoke more in Fallujah than in other parts of Iraq or in, say, Egypt?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10280900

Egypt, the biggest Arab consumer of cigarettes, is beginning an attempt to ban smoking in public places.

[...] Egyptians smoke some 19 billion cigarettes each year, prompting concerns for public health.

Traditional shisha water pipes are also found in many coffee shops.

It is common to find people puffing at cigarettes on the train, in offices, even in hospitals.

Your arguments amount to stating that the similarity to symptoms associated with Uranium exposure are coincidence. They may be. But I think we need more than hand-waving to dismiss Uranium as a cause.

The same for dismissing the symptoms -- you need more than hand-waving.

Dr. Chris Busby, huh?

This same guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

You can find a list Busby's peer reviewed papers in this PDF of his CV:
http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf

Is anybody claiming that the evidence in this particular study is difficult to get hold of? If not, then what is the relevance of Busby's non-peer reviewed publications?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Of course US army has an agenda. Poisoning the people of Fallujah in an extremely expensive and extremely ineffective way isn't it, though.

McHrozni

DU isn't very expensive; see above.

I don't think the US was necessarily trying to poison Fallujah, but they may have inadvertently poisoned Fallujah or operated without much regard for what the use of DU munitions (or other weapons) would do.

Also, I read that DU is used not only in 7.62mm bullets and 20mm bullets as well as the Abrams shells and the 30mm warthog guns but also that it is used as a counterweight in many US missiles. Does this include shoulder launched rockets? Or is this just for ballistic missiles?

 

[McHrozni]

It's amazing how stating the obvious can often get the 'no, really' response.

That may very well be because the "no, really?" response is intended to point out just how obvious the said statement was.

You have added nothing to my post: I stated the evidence wasn't conclusive and the quote I gave said it was difficult to pin down the cause.

I was pointing out that your post in itself was an attempt to redefine zero: either it was DU, or it was something else. How informative.

Here is a study on sex-ratio changes due to cigarettes:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/470

How many people would have to have taken up smoking how many cigarettes to acheive the effect?

According to the tables, about 1200 people would be enough.

And where is your evidence that they smoke more in Fallujah than in other parts of Iraq or in, say, Egypt?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10280900

What is your evidence of DU causing an anomaly with sex ratio at birth?

Your arguments amount to stating that the similarity to symptoms associated with Uranium exposure are coincidence. They may be. But I think we need more than hand-waving to dismiss Uranium as a cause.

Sure. If you can find something other than a very vague and very weak study I'll be glad to read it.

Is anybody claiming that the evidence in this particular study is difficult to get hold of? If not, then what is the relevance of Busby's non-peer reviewed publications?

Well, I do have one rather difficult question. According to them, the response rate was about 70%, with the majority of non-responders coming from one small area. How exactly is 30% "small"?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

DU isn't very expensive; see above.

It is, compared to lead or readily available chlorine

Also, I read that DU is used not only in 7.62mm bullets and 20mm bullets as well as the Abrams shells and the 30mm warthog guns but also that it is used as a counterweight in many US missiles. Does this include shoulder launched rockets? Or is this just for ballistic missiles?

I know it includes many air-to-air missiles and planes (like Boeing 747). But this is largely irrelevant, since it will tend to stay in large pieces and there will be (almost) no aerosol, which may form with kinetic penetrators. Uranium isn't a hazard if it's outside of your body. It certainly won't cause birth defects. Skin cancer, maybe, but that's already stretching it.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

That may very well be because the "no, really?" response is intended to point out just how obvious the said statement was.

I was pointing out that your post in itself was an attempt to redefine zero: either it was DU, or it was something else. How informative.

And yet you began your response by saying to me what I said to you. That's the funny part.
And, to those who have already written off Uranium as a possible cause (you, perhaps?), saying "it was Uranium or something else" might be informative.

According to the tables, about 1200 people would be enough.

Are you claiming that 1200 people taking up smoking would change the sex-ratio of a whole city's children? Or that smokers are inherently more likely to be selected for surveys?

What is your evidence of DU causing an anomaly with sex ratio at birth?

Here's the study cited in the OP:
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

A few studies linking radiation to sex-ratio change (from Uranium miners to Hiroshima) are cited, page 5.

The sex-ratio is not the only symptom. Others are given. One of the experts is quoted as saying the symptoms are consistent with exposure to Uranium. Find another expert or stop waving your hands.

Sure. If you can find something other than a very vague and very weak study I'll be glad to read it.

Can you quote any experts who have come out against this study?

Well, I do have one rather difficult question. According to them, the response rate was about 70%, with the majority of non-responders coming from one small area. How exactly is 30% "small"?

McHrozni

I don't know what your talking about here.
The only reference I can find in the PDF above which might fit is this:

However, it was found that in some areas there was considerable distrust and fear that the questions were part of some secret-service operation and householders refused to participate; on one occasion the interview team was physically attacked. Following this, the teams were always accompanied by a local person of some reputation or standing in the community. It is estimated that the final refusal rate per house visited was less than 30%. However this 30% was almost entirely from one single area where the locals were particularly suspicious and where the teams had visited early in the survey period without a local person to vouch for the study.

They don't describe the 30% or the area as small.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

k
so
30% non-response and you have 80/1000 babies dying at birth in Fallujah

"There were 34 deaths in the age group 0–1 in this period giving a rate of 80 deaths per 1,000 births."


So

Say that the 30% non-respondents all had NO baby deaths, thus giving you the maximum possible bias against the study's conclusion that the Fallujah death rate is elevated

(if I do something wrong please point it out here)

So (1000/0.7)=1428

So 80 dead babies per 1428 births

So your new ratio per thousand (including the 30% perfect health fallujahns) is 56/1000

From the study:
"This may be compared with a rate of 19.8 in Egypt (RR = 4.2 p < 0.00001) 17 in Jordan in 2008 and 9.7 in Kuwait in 2008."

It seems (to me) that even if you had no dead babies in the 30% of surveyed Fallujahns that didn't respond, you'd still have an elevated dead baby rate in Fallujah.

 

[McHrozni]

A
Are you claiming that 1200 people taking up smoking would change the sex-ratio of a whole city's children?

Seeing that there was only 600 or so births at the time, then yes, 1200 people, appropriately selected, would be plenty. This is, of course, the lowest possible number.

Here's the study cited in the OP:
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

A few studies linking radiation to sex-ratio change (from Uranium miners to Hiroshima) are cited, page 5.

Curiously enough, the 'study' doesn't cite other possible causes, such as:
- previously mentioned smoking
- maternal malnutrition
- xenobiotics, which are not yet conclusively proven to produce such effects, but with much more evidence behind them than behind DU

All of the three could be present in Fallujah. None of them were even discussed in the 'study'. Why not?

The sex-ratio is not the only symptom. Others are given. One of the experts is quoted as saying the symptoms are consistent with exposure to Uranium. Find another expert or stop waving your hands.

No. We have an alleged expert saying one of the symptoms is consistent with exposure to Uranium. Curiously enough, we do know the primary two organs damaged by Uranium in the environment (workers - inhalation hazard, same as here) are the renal tubes of kidneys and lungs. It's exceedingly unlikely to suffer from Uranium exposure, but not suffer from a kidney aliment, and yet the study doesn't even mention that. Why not? I won't ask the authors, I'm asking you.

This is a bit like saying a black guy in a red sweater committed a murder, and then arresting a Chinese girl in a reddish-gray sweater and saying there is "inconclusive evidence to support she did it".

Can you quote any experts who have come out against this study?

I googled this in two seconds:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml

So, yes, quite a few?

McHrozni