Cancer rise in Fallujah

[McHrozni]

I think I showed it doesn't invalidate the survey's results by using the most extreme case of how the non-response could bias the result and demonstrating that the death rate is still higher in Fallujah. But I could be mistaken so if I am please show me how.

There are other reasons the report's conclusions could be invalid, but I don't think the response rate is one of them.

You think wrongly. I explained you why three times already.

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Hmm I have a feeling there's a miscommunication here somewhere.

I think this might be one instance where you explained why you didn't agree with my dismissal of the response rate:

Because it compares a war-ravaged town in an impoverished country which has been at war on and off with it's neighbors and itself for 20 years or so with three peaceful and significantly wealthier countries. This was pointed out to you before.

Yes, this could be true. But the specific issue with the response rate is that a low response rate could bias the survey's results if non-respondents have characteristics in common with each other that set them apart from respondents.

In the case of the report's finding that Fallujah had a high death rate for babies, non-response would affect this finding if non-respondents had a lower death rate than respondents.

Using the hypothetical possibility that every non-respondent surveyed had 0 baby deaths, and incorporating this into the survey's results, it seems that Fallujah still has a higher death rate than other places.

Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujahns smoke more.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujahns are all lying about baby deaths just to make America look bad.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujah is full of insurgents who were making chemical bombs when the US liberated the city.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because wizards cursed the city.

BUT

It means that the report's findings of higher rates of baby death in Fallujah are not invalidated due to the response rate to the survey, unless I did something wrong with the math.

 

[Trantor]

About 11 years ago, the company I work for was invovled in a project at a military range base. During that operation, I got to know some of the military personel in charge there and I was even invited to witness two training excercises; one was with 155mm canons and the other was with A-10's.

During the A-10 training excercises, they targeted armored vehicles and also other types of military vehicles. They also had several types of structures at the range for targeting practice. These buildings were concrete block and the A-10's used the 30mm guns on them during the training. I saw a concrete block building shreaded to pieces with the 30mm canon. A very impressive sight indeed.

I'm not saying that the military did use the A-10's against structures in Iraq, but I know that they did train for that possibility. One of those 30mm DU rounds(without it's powder charge) sits on a shelf in my office at home. A gift from the Major that I worked with, while doing work at the base.

 

[McHrozni]

H
Using the hypothetical possibility that every non-respondent surveyed had 0 baby deaths, and incorporating this into the survey's results, it seems that Fallujah still has a higher death rate than other places.

Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujahns smoke more.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujahns are all lying about baby deaths just to make America look bad.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because Fallujah is full of insurgents who were making chemical bombs when the US liberated the city.
Yes, this could hypothetically be because wizards cursed the city.

BUT

It means that the report's findings of higher rates of baby death in Fallujah are not invalidated due to the response rate to the survey, unless I did something wrong with the math.

It could also be because a few Fallujans are lying about baby deaths just to make America look bad. This would need a grand total of 20 or so "houses", out of over 700 interviewed, to be a part of a fairly minor plot ... or they could do it just on their own accord. There was no penalty for doing so. Given that the operation was announced in advance and there was ample time to prepare, I really don't see a need for anything remotely associated with a conspiracy.

On the other hand, you might be correct in that the lower response rate doesn't invalidate the result showing the child mortality was higher in Fallujah than in other Arab states. But you're just as incorrect as the author of the 'study' in making the comparisons to those places in the first place. Child mortality in Basra, for example, is said to be roughly 50 per 1000 by USAID - fairly close to your estimate.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Are we seriously going to act like there is nothing else that may be responsible for this?

You see, for the people who are still protesting the Iraq war, even though it's all but over (our involvement in it anyway), Fallujah is the symbol for some reason. Probably because it was the greatest stronghold of al Qaeda and its allies the valiant Iraqi freedom fighters and had to be retaken one block at a time and it was well documented. Lots of pictures for the people who need pictures to give a damn.

But since we took Fallujah and rebuilt it, they have to find something ongoing about how the imperialist warmongering USA is still causing havoc on Fallujah. Thus, they latch on to this shady report like a drowning man clutches a twig.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

It could also be because a few Fallujans are lying about baby deaths just to make America look bad. This would need a grand total of 20 or so "houses", out of over 700 interviewed, to be a part of a fairly minor plot ... or they could do it just on their own accord. There was no penalty for doing so. Given that the operation was announced in advance and there was ample time to prepare, I really don't see a need for anything remotely associated with a conspiracy.

Fallujah's doctors and 20 houses getting together to fake results is a conspiracy.

Sure, conspiracies sometimes do happen. Is this your explanation for the apparent elevated death rates in Fallujah?

Child mortality in Basra, for example, is said to be roughly 50 per 1000 by USAID - fairly close to your estimate.

Doctors in Basra started complaining about larger numbers of birth defects showing up right after Gulf War 1. Basra was the scene of heavy fighting in both gulf wars.

 

[McHrozni]

Fallujah's doctors and 20 houses getting together to fake results is a conspiracy.

There is no need for coordination between the two.
The Fallujah's doctors could well be coincidental - fewer doctors to treat a similar number of patients could easily be seen as a rise in cases for the doctors. As I said, there are many possible scenarios which can happen simultaneosly. That's one of the reasons why you need some factual numbers behind the whole thing.
Similar for families lying: some may sympathize with insurgents. Some may be paid off by them. Some may hate US and say whatever to make them look bad. If there is nothing at all to verify their statements, we can't take them at face value, period. There are just too many possibilities that explain away the situation. You don't need to show each of them is incorrect, but that the end result has verifiable backing.

This is not hand-waving it away. It's proper skepticism. I wouldn't believe a story that said the average life expectancy in Fallujah increased by 15 years since the battle, based on an anonymous and unverifiable study with a self-selecting sample either.

Sure, conspiracies sometimes do happen. Is this your explanation for the apparent elevated death rates in Fallujah?

It's at least as good as any other I've seen so far.

Doctors in Basra started complaining about larger numbers of birth defects showing up right after Gulf War 1. Basra was the scene of heavy fighting in both gulf wars.

Of course this couldn't possibly be because Saddam wanted a propaganda tool against the West, or, in case it was true, maybe because Basra was heavily impacted by oil well fires?

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

If there is nothing at all to verify their statements, we can't take them at face value, period. There are just too many possibilities that explain away the situation. You don't need to show each of them is incorrect, but that the end result has verifiable backing.

Ah, so you don't believe in surveys period.

This is not hand-waving it away. It's proper skepticism. I wouldn't believe a story that said the average life expectancy in Fallujah increased by 15 years since the battle, based on an anonymous and unverifiable study with a self-selecting sample either.

Ahh ah ahhhh...

Do you see what you did there?

self-selecting sample either

Thought we had an understanding?


[/quote]Of course this couldn't possibly be because Saddam wanted a propaganda tool against the West, or, in case it was true, maybe because Basra was heavily impacted by oil well fires?[/QUOTE]

Oil fires seems at least somewhat more plausible than a doctor's plot or al-qaeda bribes or cigarettes.

 

[theprestige]

Saying 'we can't trust the doctors cause Al Qaeda' is conspiracy theory.

No more so than saying 'DU did it cause America'.

Indeed, to paraphrase the pro-DU argument , symptoms of Al Qaeda propaganda are evidence of Al Qaeda propaganda. How did that line of reasoning go?

Oh, yes:

Not conclusive, but not all evidence is conclusive.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Depleted Uranium issue has already been conclusively dealt with

DU is safe when...you roll it around on a baby's face.
DU is not safe when...it is exploding in a baby's face.
DU is safe when...you walk over a patch of depleted uranium dust.
DU is not safe when...you do the naked centipede over a patch of depleted uranium dust.
DU is safe when...you wear a DU vest when you get an x-ray.
DU is not safe when...you wear a DU vest when you get set on fire.
DU is safe when...you are performing a dance routine on the wreck of a tank.
DU is not safe when...you are performing open-heart surgery on the wreck of a tank.
DU is safe when...you are stacking three-ton sheets of DU on a forklift.
DU is not safe when...you are stacking three-ton sheets of DU on your chest.

Unless someone can come up with a source that's better known and respected than Something Awful, we can safely put this issue to rest.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

Because they make him look like a kook.

Do you disagree?

 

[JihadJane]

No more so than saying 'DU did it cause America'.

Indeed, to paraphrase the pro-DU argument , symptoms of Al Qaeda propaganda are evidence of Al Qaeda propaganda. How did that line of reasoning go?

Oh, yes:

What kind of presence did "al Qaeda" have in Fallujah?

 

[McHrozni]

Ah, so you don't believe in surveys period.

No, I believe surveys are useful, but shouldn't be regarded as evidence. There is a reason why public surveys taken two days before the elections aren't used to determine the election winner to save money you know

Ahh ah ahhhh...

Do you see what you did there?



Thought we had an understanding?

Well, even if you scrap the self-selecting part you're still left with both "anonymous" and "unverifiable", either of whom is more than enough to call the study into question.

Oil fires seems at least somewhat more plausible than a doctor's plot or al-qaeda bribes or cigarettes.

So you do agree the evidence used to support DU hypothesis is not evidence of problems with DU at all, but rather evidence that exposure to certain chemical elements and compounds is bad for you and your unborn children?

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

No more so than saying 'DU did it cause America'.

Nobody's saying that though. Dying babies seem to be much more common in Fallujah than elsewhere, and the doctors in Fallujah complained that babies started dying more post- 2004 battle. Numerous researchers (cited above) have done studies which suggest that depleted uranium could have the kinds of effects we're seeing in Fallujah.

Not all evidence is conclusive

Despite your dismissal of this statement, it's accurate. Not all evidence is conclusive; in the case of what's going on in Fallujah there are several streams of evidence that all seem to point in the same direction. This doesn't mean that the conclusion drawn from these pieces of evidence is unequivocal, but the phrase 'the balance of evidence' exists for a reason.

Has the US ever categorically denied using depleted uranium in Fallujah?

Not that I would take this as definitively meaning that DU was not used, but given the 'egg on face' cost of being caught lying I would take an official statement denying the use of DU in Fallujah as at least some evidence that it was not used (so far none has been presented).

 

[Captain.Sassy]

"anonymous" and "unverifiable", either of whom is more than enough to call the study into question.

Actually anonymity in a survey would, I think, lend the results more credibility.

So you do agree the evidence used to support DU hypothesis is not evidence of problems with DU at all, but rather evidence that exposure to certain chemical elements and compounds is bad for you and your unborn children?

Yeah, it's totally possible. I've got an open mind here. If someone can point out some other agent that might be responsible (preferably with evidence or at least a plausible backstory) then I'm all ears. I don't think your cigarettes bucket holds this kind of water.

 

[McHrozni]

Nobody's saying that though. Dying babies seem to be much more common in Fallujah than elsewhere,

*sigh*

Babies dying in a war zone isn't doesn't require anything mysterious to explain.

Numerous researchers (cited above) have done studies which suggest that depleted uranium could have the kinds of effects we're seeing in Fallujah.

Yeah? Can you cite a study that showed that?

Despite your dismissal of this statement, it's accurate.

Oh it's true all right. The point is the evidence also inconclusively points to a hugely increased prevalence of smoking. So which do you think is more likely:
a) smoking in Fallujah greatly increased after the war, owing due to stress and availability of tobbaco products or
b) everything we know about Uranium safety is false, including all studies made on Uranium refinement workers

If you're going to claim b) cite me the studies showing Uranium can produce the said effects and show the mechanisms that are at work there and explain why what we believe is true is actually false. An in-depth study of what was wrong would be warranted as well.
If it's a) you're claiming my explanation of smoking was better than anything having to do with DU.

Has the US ever categorically denied using depleted uranium in Fallujah?

No and I doubt it would be much different if it did for the 'researchers' that made this study. If the amount of Uranium in the environment is sufficient to be a hazard it should be relatively easy to prove.

Not that I would take this as definitively meaning that DU was not used, but given the 'egg on face' cost of being caught lying I would take an official statement denying the use of DU in Fallujah as at least some evidence that it was not used (so far none has been presented).

Uranium has been used extensively for decades and many people were exposed to far greater amounts of Uranium for longer than anyone in Fallujah was, irrespective of the amount of DU munitions used there. You have to explain why the symptoms commonly associated with Uranium exposure aren't seen in Fallujah and explain why a different set of symptoms, possibly consistent but never associated with Uranium exposure are present before the conclusion DU is dangerous can be reached.

You may begin.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

A
Yeah, it's totally possible. I've got an open mind here. If someone can point out some other agent that might be responsible (preferably with evidence or at least a plausible backstory) then I'm all ears. I don't think your cigarettes bucket holds this kind of water.

Why not? The symptoms are at least as consistent with increased prevalence of smoking as they are with effects of Uranium exposure, if not more so.

As for other possible causes, the city was a scene of heavy fighting. There are metals far more toxic than DU found in both the military hardware and in the city itself. There is also a significant number of other chemicals (e.g. pesticides) that could also be present. Since there is no coherent study as to what the "increased number of birth defects" entails there is no way to pinpoint a cause. It may well be that there is no single cause at all. A few people may well be contaminated with DU and other toxic compounds and elements found in military hardware, a few may get exposed to pesticides, a few may get exposed to a variety of organic chemicals from different sources, a few babies might die from the wide variety of causes and you can easily have your results.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Because they make him look like a kook.

Do you disagree?

I'm not familiar with the books. The titles are little weird, but I don't see how that is relavent to the discussion.

Are we seriously going to act like there is nothing else that may be responsible for this?

No. Neither should we pretend that Uranium is off the suspect list.

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.

So why were smokers selected for this survey? Why did the people of Fallujah, in 2004, begin smoking more heavily than Egyptians? You're simply making things up.

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?

It does mention other sources of radiation which can cause this effect. But you should know, as it was pointed out in the article in the OP, that the study doesn't actually reach a conclusion as to what the cause was. It's aim was to find out if there was anything to explain. They found that there is something to explain. They don't give the explanation.

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

So, yes, quite a few?

McHrozni

That doesn't mention the study.
Perhaps you should spend a little longer googling.

 

[McHrozni]

No. Neither should we pretend that Uranium is off the suspect list.

Why are you so dismissive of smoking, but accept Uranium as a possible cause? There is at least as much evidence smoking caused the changes as that Uranium did - namely, some of the symptoms match.

It does mention other sources of radiation which can cause this effect. But you should know, as it was pointed out in the article in the OP, that the study doesn't actually reach a conclusion as to what the cause was. It's aim was to find out if there was anything to explain. They found that there is something to explain. They don't give the explanation.

So I guess we should just ignore this:
"similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionizing radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout"
and other references to Uranium and DU?

That doesn't mention the study.
Perhaps you should spend a little longer googling.

No, it addresses the concerns and dangers of DU. Unless the study shows there are some new concerns about it I see no need to get something specific on this. You'd probably get the same response if you'd ask me to come up with a scientific response to a new idea of Flat Earth Society.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Why are you so dismissive of smoking, but accept Uranium as a possible cause? There is at least as much evidence smoking caused the changes as that Uranium did - namely, some of the symptoms match.

Because I find it hard to believe that Fallujah became a smoking hot-spot in 2004. But I don't find it hard to believe that DU was used in Fallujah in 2004.

So I guess we should just ignore this:
"similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionizing radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout"
and other references to Uranium and DU?

Ignore it? No. But we don't treat it as a conclusion when it isn't.

No, it addresses the concerns and dangers of DU. Unless the study shows there are some new concerns about it I see no need to get something specific on this. You'd probably get the same response if you'd ask me to come up with a scientific response to a new idea of Flat Earth Society.

McHrozni

When was that IAEA page published?
Here's a quick google of my own, a study published 2005:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242351/

Conclusion
In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.