Cancer rise in Fallujah

[Captain.Sassy]

Wow. You just don't like the US Military. What a freaking surprise.

lol

I think you missed the point of the joke.

 

[McHrozni]

1. Nobody is saying it was definitively depleted uranium. I have maintained that I'm open to alternative explanations- so far, no evidence has been provided in support of any of these hypotheses (running the gamut from 'Fallujah was always full of dying babies' to 'they started smoking' to 'Al Qaeda fudged the survey')

What is the support in favor of DU hypothesis?

2. Several studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, have been cited in this thread showing the genotoxic properties of uranium as a chemical; the apparent radiological effects of depleted uranium on human precursor bone cells; and the toxic effects of depleted uranium on mice reproductive organs (I believe, it might have been on mice period). So the 'truther' label is misplaced in this instance.

Sure. At a high enough concentration, it is genotoxic and it might be able to explain the said symptoms. However the studies were conducted at massively higher concentrations of Uranium and, furthermore, with Uranium compounds that are unlikely to form in the body in the first place. This could have a drastic effect on the results.

It's similar to saying carbon is a potent poison, because it is contained in Ricin in large quantities. This situation is not as extreme, but the reasoning is essentially the same.

Again, uranium has been shown to have non-radiological genotoxic effects. It's a gene poison even if it isn't radioactive.

Yes, but is it a gene poison at exposure levels that are reasonably achievable by living on a modern battleground? Evidence we've seen thus far says no, it is not.

This is not directly related, but could prove illuminating for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemochromatosis_type_1

Iron is an essential metal, but it's also quite toxic to cells if your body absorbs too much of it.
It's called a dose-dependent relationship, you should look it up.

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

What is the support in favor of DU hypothesis?

Admittedly, largely circumstantial. That is, I suppose, what is allowing this discussion to take place, and why every ''DU tRuTHeR'' in here has actually said 'give us another explanation'.

 

[FireGarden]

Or you are wrong.

WHOs parent organization, the UN, is hardly a bastion of reactive pro-americanism. If you can convince them that they really are babies deformed by US foreign policy, their website will be changed in about ten minutes.

I'm not terribly interested in your faith-based statements.

Did you read this statement made by your source?: "No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

Are there reports, published studies, of such effects? Yes. How do you explain your source's ignorance of that? Note: your source does not refute the reported studies -- it says there aren't any. How do you explain that?

Truthers = purveyors of anti-american propaganda in the form of scientifically unsupported conspiracy theories portraying the United States as pointlessly and unnecessarily bloody mass murderers.



You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of radiation hormesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
An unproven theory, expecially "outside the laboratory, or in humans". The article goes on to say:

Proponents of radiation hormesis accept that high radiation levels are harmful; that intense artificial radiation, for example, is toxic. But they believe that low levels of radiation, comparable to the natural background level of radiation are not harmful.

[...] In popular treatments of radiation hormesis, a study of the inhabitants of apartment buildings in Taiwan has received prominent attention. The building materials had been accidentally contaminated with Cobalt-60 but the study found cancer mortality rates 96.4% lower than in the population as a whole.[33] However, this study compared the relatively young irradiated population with the much older general population of Taiwan, which is a major flaw. A subsequent study by Hwang et al. (2006) found a significant exposure-dependent increase in cancer in the irradiated population, particularly leukemia in men and thyroid cancer in women, though this trend is only detected amongst those who were first exposed before the age of 30.

So can you explain the discrepancies between the Ramsar and Fallujah studies or not?

A simple yes or no should suffice.

Yes. First of all, it's not DU's radioactivity which is thought to cause the birth defects -- it's the chemical properties of Uranium.

Secondly, even if all we were concerned about was radiation...
Your own source gave you an explanation: "There was no increase in all cancer mortality, all cause mortality or decrease in longevity in native populations exposed to high levels of background radiation when compared with low-dose regions "

Notice the words I highlighted. Do they say that visitors to Ramsar also show signs of "more rapid DNA rapair"?

Creationist: one who denies that populations change due to selection pressures in the environment.

 

[FireGarden]

Oh, I do find it reasonably likely that some DU rounds were used in Fallujah. However for the alleged effects to be caused primarily by DU, Fallujah would have to be practically razed to the ground with DU munitions. Since this didn't happen we're left with one implausible and one impossible explanation.

Sure, the smoking hypothesis probably isn't correct (though it could be), but neither is the DU one.

Are we supposed to take your word for all that?

Then we don't have anything to discuss in the study.

Because no conclusion has been reached, there is nothing to discuss? That is very strange.

The rest is fine and can be summarized as: birth defects and other health problems rose in Fallujah and something caused them.
Not very interesting at all.

You don't find it interesting unless DU caused the problems? I can think of reasons for that lack of interest, but none I have come up with are flattering to you.

What are these symptoms again?

Start here;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242351/

 

[Captain.Sassy]

it's not DU's radioactivity which is thought to cause the birth defects -- it's the chemical properties of Uranium.

...though there is evidence of radiological damage to human osteoblasts from exposure to DU....

 

[McHrozni]

Admittedly, largely circumstantial. That is, I suppose, what is allowing this discussion to take place, and why every ''DU tRuTHeR'' in here has actually said 'give us another explanation'.

And, in typical truther fashion, hand waved every other explanation away, often using logical fallacies, I might add.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Are we supposed to take your word for all that?

There were plenty of studies posted here, not one showed such low levels of intake of Uranium could possibly explain the results. In fact most showed that exposure to Uranium from environment will be significantly greater than exposure from munitions, even in crews of the hit vehicles, let alone of people living in that area.

You're free to try to find something else.

Because no conclusion has been reached, there is nothing to discuss? That is very strange.

Well, you did request to eviscerate the study you know. That could produce very strange results.

You don't find it interesting unless DU caused the problems?

As stated countless times before, there is no evidence Fallujah is worse off than it was before the battle. In case this is true, the causes are probably very mundane: someone mentioned water treatment was essentially non-existent for quite some time. If the water got contaminated by something poisonous, maybe from the chemical plants, maybe from pesticides, or whatever, then all the study showed that the city of Fallujah sustained severe damage in the fighting. We knew that before. It didn't even hint as to what it could be, even though it tried hard to pin the blame on DU munitions. In other words, it's utterly useless on at least two levels.

I can think of reasons for that lack of interest, but none I have come up with are flattering to you.

Argument from ignorance dully noted. I did explicitly say the study is worthless several times up to now. It would have marginal value if it told us something new, like that DU munitions are dangerous in ways not previously known, but it didn't do that, not by a long shot. It was a wasted opportunity.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

...though there is evidence of radiological damage to human osteoblasts from exposure to DU....

... at acutely toxic concentrations of Uranium ...

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

There were plenty of studies posted here, not one showed such low levels of intake of Uranium could possibly explain the results.

What do you mean by "such low levels"? What was the level of intake of people in Fallujah?

Well, you did request to eviscerate the study you know. That could produce very strange results.

I said: "Because no conclusion has been reached, there is nothing to discuss? That is very strange."

As stated countless times before, there is no evidence Fallujah is worse off than it was before the battle.

Yes there is, because the comparisons to other cities is evidence. Also, they have the sex-birth ratio for the years before 2004.

I can think of reasons for that lack of interest, but none I have come up with are flattering to you.

Argument from ignorance dully noted.

Your only interest seems to be DU. Because you have already ruled out DU, you are left uninterested in the matter.

Like I said, this doesn't flatter you.

It would have marginal value if it told us something new, like that DU munitions are dangerous in ways not previously known, but it didn't do that, not by a long shot. It was a wasted opportunity.

McHrozni

It wasn't a study into the effects of DU. That you don't seem to know this yet is worrying.

 

[McHrozni]

What do you mean by "such low levels"? What was the level of intake of people in Fallujah?

Low enough not to cause kidney aliments, apparently, which is problematic for the DUers because that's the first organ to be damaged by Uranium. Either that or the researchers were incompetent enough not to look for symptoms associated with Uranium exposure while looking for evidence of damage due to Uranium exposure - which renders their entire study suspect in itself.

I said: "Because no conclusion has been reached, there is nothing to discuss? That is very strange."

That's your misinterpretation of what I said. There is nothing to discuss about the study but:
a) was their methodology sound and
b) if it was, can we learn anything about DU? We can't learn anything about anything else, because the study was focused on only aliments they believed could be used to show DU exposure is dangerous.

Yes there is, because the comparisons to other cities is evidence.

If, and only if, the other cities had comparable circumstances. Else we only know something happened in Fallujah in 2004 that caused people to die ... but we knew about that before.

Also, they have the sex-birth ratio for the years before 2004.

This is the only thing in the study that is evidence of something being wrong with Fallujah. Assuming the study was legit, of course, and there is no reason to believe it was. Methodology was very problematic.

Your only interest seems to be DU. Because you have already ruled out DU, you are left uninterested in the matter.

I'm not uninterested in the matter, but if DU is ruled out even if the study is accurate, the study doesn't tell us anything at all. I'll cheer on you if you go perform a better one yourself.

It wasn't a study into the effects of DU. That you don't seem to know this yet is worrying.

Why does DU feature so prominently in the study?

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Low enough not to cause kidney aliments, apparently, which is problematic for the DUers because that's the first organ to be damaged by Uranium. Either that or the researchers were incompetent enough not to look for symptoms associated with Uranium exposure while looking for evidence of damage due to Uranium exposure - which renders their entire study suspect in itself.

You seem confused, still, as to what they were looking for.

Here's the title: "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq"
Here's a quote from their conclusion:

This study was intended to investigate the accuracy of the various reports which have been emerging from Fallujah regarding perceived increases in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population and to examine samples from the area for the presence of mutagenic substances that may explain any results.

[...] 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 and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah.

The focus of the study isn't DU.
It is the birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in Fallujah. Those were reported to have increased, but no detailed study had been conducted. They conducted it and found the reports confirmed.

If, and only if, the other cities had comparable circumstances.

Apart from the war, you mean?

Else we only know something happened in Fallujah in 2004 that caused people to die ... but we knew about that before.

We know that something happened which increased the cancer rate, the birth defects rate and changed the sex-ratio of newborns -- the latter since 2004.

For cancer, the study does consider the cause could be older than 2004 as one possibility. But doesn't come to a conclusion. Page 8 says: "The origin and time of introduction of the carcinogenic agent causing the effects found here will be the subject of a separate report." Don't know when that's due.

This is the only thing in the study that is evidence of something being wrong with Fallujah. Assuming the study was legit, of course, and there is no reason to believe it was. Methodology was very problematic.

So you keep saying. Yet you can cite no expert opinion on it.

I'm not uninterested in the matter, but if DU is ruled out even if the study is accurate, the study doesn't tell us anything at all.

Even if DU is not a factor in the cause, the study does tell us plenty. That you can't see this is your problem.

Why does DU feature so prominently in the study?

McHrozni

Because, as said in the abstract, that is what some people blame the cancers etc on. The study itself does not do that.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why, do airplane workers inhale aerosolized depleted uranium dust?

Aircrews have the highest exposures to radiation of any professionals in the world.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

...though there is evidence of radiological damage to human osteoblasts from exposure to DU....

And your explanation of the discrepancies between Fallujah and Ramsar is...?

 

[McHrozni]

The focus of the study isn't DU.

Yes, keep saying that. Maybe if you say it 98 more times it will become the truth!

It is the birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in Fallujah. Those were reported to have increased, but no detailed study had been conducted. They conducted it and found the reports confirmed.

First of all I wouldn't call this a detailed study. It's a very superficial glance at what may be going on in Fallujah.

Secondly it is very clear that DU and radiation both received an undue amount of attention in the fields where the evidence was supposedly in favor of it causing the trouble. It's the only possible (according to the study anyway) cause that made it into keywords.

Moreover, the study only mentions radiation as a possible source of genetic damage, which is simply ridiculous. There are many possible mutagens in any environment and many (probably most) are chemical mutagens, not sources of radioactivity.

Apart from the war, you mean?

No, I meant the fighting as well. Fallujah was a scene of heavy fighting, more so than any other Iraqi city. If you ignore that you already made a significant error.

We know that something happened which increased the cancer rate, the birth defects rate and changed the sex-ratio of newborns -- the latter since 2004.

As stated countless of times before, the latter is the only thing that I consider credible in the study.

Even if DU is not a factor in the cause, the study does tell us plenty. That you can't see this is your problem.

It tells us that if the study is accurate, there may be something wrong with living conditions in Fallujah and that should be investigated. That's pretty much it. The problems with methodology don't even allow us to state that with certainty.

Because, as said in the abstract, that is what some people blame the cancers etc on. The study itself does not do that.

It blames some of the cancers in Hiroshima on Uranium and may be the first source ever to state that. I don't know. It cites something from 1953, something titled "N.Atomic bomb injuries". I suspect that source isn't all that concerned with what caused the injuries, but rather what the injuries were, but I have no way of verifying that.

All other sources that I've found blame the problems primarily on the radiation caused by the nuclear blast and to a lesser extent other unstable isotopes associated with the blast. In fact some go so far as to claim the effect of the fallout was minimal.

Incidentally, you might want to read this:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

McHrozni

 

[Childlike Empress]

Chris Busby, co-author of the epidemiological study “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009,” discusses the difficulties of carrying out a door-to-door survey of skeptical and hostile Fallujah residents, the severe birth deformities in regions where depleted uranium munitions were used, the study’s focus on infant mortality rates, the military’s outdated risk modeling for battlefield uranium exposure and why a dramatically lower male birth rate is a telling sign of regional genetic damage.

MP3 here. (19:19)

...

 

[Mycroft]

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

If you're going to make an argument from authority, don't you think the quality of your authority is relevant?

 

[Travis]

I can't help but point out that the best way to have protected the people of Falluja would have been for the Insurgency to not turn it into a fortress and invite an attack in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

What do you mean by "such low levels"? What was the level of intake of people in Fallujah?

Good point: What was the DU intake of the people of Fallujah, FireGarden? Captain.Sassy? Anyone?

Any DU in Fallujah, anywhere? Anywhere at all?

 

[McHrozni]

Good point: What was the DU intake of the people of Fallujah, FireGarden? Captain.Sassy? Anyone?

Any DU in Fallujah, anywhere? Anywhere at all?

There is no evidence of DU use in Fallujah, other than US Army refusing to state they didn't use any. This is hardly evidence, but I do find it reasonable to believe some was used. The nature of the fighting in Fallujah leads me to believe the amount used was somewhere between minor and minimal.

McHrozni