Cancer rise in Fallujah

[Mycroft]

My understanding is iraq is now a "goodie" so if we have messed up a city by leaving behind toxic carcinogens do you think we should bear some responsibility for a cleanup...or reparations?

its a fairly straightforward question. Are you game?

You mean above and beyond the billions we're already spending on that country?

 

[The Fool]

You mean above and beyond the billions we're already spending on that country?

well, I didn't think you had the courage to adress this simple question.....would have required expressing an opinion after all.

 

[The Fool]

I think the word you're looking for is "good guy", or "friend" or "ally". Colloquially, "goodie" in English means a small treat, such as a piece of candy or an amusing trinket; a chocolate bar in a Christmas stocking, for example (on the low end), or an iPod in a gift bag at a celebrity publicity event (on the high end).

sorry, its a common term....goodies...baddies...

In my opinion, reconstruction and reparations are always a moral obligation of the aggressor, regardless of the righteousness of the war, and whether or not the vanquished enemy ever becomes a friend of the victor.

But how does answering this question get us any closer to validating the study, determining whether or not DU was used in Fallujah, or finding out how much DU exposure is necessary to produce the alleged effects?

Well we could find out in 10 minutes if DU was used in falluja....but for some reason the US won't say.

the effects are not alleged, they have not fabricated deformities. The cause is not proven and depending on your standards of proof may never be. Some other cause can virtually never be completely ruled out Its how OJ got off.......like some of the silly alternatives I've read on here like maybe people there all started smoking like crazy around the same time that (completely coincidently...the war blew through).

 

[theprestige]

sorry, its a common term....goodies...baddies...

"baddies" is common enough. "Goodies" not so much, in any English I've encountered in the past 30-odd years.

Well we could find out in 10 minutes if DU was used in falluja....but for some reason the US won't say.

the effects are not alleged, they have not fabricated deformities. The cause is not proven and depending on your standards of proof may never be. Some other cause can virtually never be completely ruled out Its how OJ got off.......like some of the silly alternatives I've read on here like maybe people there all started smoking like crazy around the same time that (completely coincidently...the war blew through).

So you can't rule out any causes, and you have no evidence that the cause you prefer is the real cause... and you still haven't explained how asking my opinion about reparations gets you any closer to solving this basic problem you have.

And you still haven't actually proven the allegations made in the study. It was a poorly-conducted study, and its results are not reliable without corroboration. Do you have any? Or are you going to continue pretending that allegations are proof?

Captain.Sassy, are you paying attention? Here The Fool is saying, essentially, "DU did it cause OJ Simpson". So don't tell me nobody in this thread is making this DU argument. The Fool is, and you are, too. Only, your "reasonable" hypothesis is nothing of the sort.

 

[Puppycow]

This is all based on self-reporting. I frankly don't believe it. These are the same methods that got the obviously wrong results in previous surveys of mortality.

In Jan/Feb 2010 the authors organised a team of researchers who visited 711 houses in Fallujah, Iraq and obtained responses to a questionnaire in Arabic on cancer, birth defects and infant mortality.

Even if over 90% of respondents were honest, it only takes a few liars to really skew the results.

 

[The Fool]

So you can't rule out any causes, and you have no evidence that the cause you prefer is the real cause...

thats right, can't absolutely rule out any causes....its what keeps global warming threads running.

There is evidence supporting the case that the cause ids DU usage....its just not conclusive....quite circumstantial but really doesn't deserve to be wished into neverland.

and you still haven't explained how asking my opinion about reparations gets you any closer to solving this basic problem you have.

just trying to move on....you know, the whats next thingy. I have concluded that many are not going to move on with me and are going to sit down and repeat the same chant over and over.....not much I can do about them.

Captain.Sassy, are you paying attention? Here The Fool is saying, essentially, "DU did it cause OJ Simpson". So don't tell me nobody in this thread is making this DU argument. The Fool is, and you are, too. Only, your "reasonable" hypothesis is nothing of the sort.

actually I have no Idea how you framed what you think i am saying in such a way so I wouldn't hold your breath hoping sassy is going to figure it out either.

what I'm saying is that your argument is the same sort of argumant that got OJ off the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" case and my sort of argument that found him guilty in the civil case "ballance of probability" case.

maybe if it was the baddies that had the DU weapons you would be able to see the ballance of probability case a little clearer.


sadly I have been through a similar thing with the US military in the past when they were very keen on spraying people with 245T and 24d telling us it was harmless, you could drink the stuff etc etc....through the various stages of denial, apologia and fringer pointing when people started to get reactions.....no conclusive prooof, could have been many things..... I didn't get sick but I know a few that did.....some got very sick indeed...The more things change the more they stay the same eh? There is still, even today, a little group of slogan chanters that have not progressed past the initial denial phase

 

[Mycroft]

well, I didn't think you had the courage to adress this simple question.....would have required expressing an opinion after all.

What, asking for clarification is lacking courage?

It seems to me the United States is spending a ton of money to put Iraq back together. Whether or not we're obligated to do this is a matter of opinion, but we're doing it and I support it.

So...does that mean we should chase down each and every bullet fired in combat?

No, I don't think that's reasonable. The efforts we are making seem reasonable.

Do I think we should be cleaning up Depleted Uranium who's existence is only documented in the imaginations of certain lefty types who subscribe to that particular type of woo?

No.

 

[Mycroft]

There is evidence supporting the case that the cause ids DU usage....its just not conclusive....quite circumstantial but really doesn't deserve to be wished into neverland.

Unless it was wished into existence to begin with.

 

[McHrozni]

There is evidence supporting the case that the cause ids DU usage....its just not conclusive....quite circumstantial but really doesn't deserve to be wished into neverland.

The problem that you face is that there is some evidence of it being due to DU usage, there is at least as much evidence of it being due to a simple increase in prevalence of smoking: namely, some of the symptoms match. I know there is no evidence of an increased prevalence of smoking, but there isn't any for DU usage either, so both possibilities are at least comparable.

The problem that you face next is that DU is effectively ruled by by a lack of evidence that would prove Uranium was a significant problem.

If you can't find something to get around the second issue, you have no evidence of DU causing the problems. You have evidence of problems which are consistent with DU and other causes. Since DU would also cause other problems it is ruled out as a cause.

McHrozni

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Captain.Sassy, are you paying attention? Here The Fool is saying, essentially, "DU did it cause OJ Simpson". So don't tell me nobody in this thread is making this DU argument. The Fool is, and you are, too. Only, your "reasonable" hypothesis is nothing of the sort.

Hi,

I think the tone in this discussion is becoming somewhat uncivil and furthermore there's a lot of repetition going on. It's turning into a 'mobius thread'.

I've actually read a few of The Fool's posts in here and elsewhere, and while I can understand that other posters might not agree with him I've seen the message/intent of many of his (or her) posts completely misconstrued either deliberately or otherwise. The Fool never said anything like how you characterize this post, they were using a court case to highlight certain parallels about the burden of evidence/proof. The analogy was a reasonable one.

I've outlined why I think the depleted uranium hypothesis is a reasonable one. Apparently the WHO is going into Fallujah to check things out for themselves, so it may be interesting to see what they say.

And the study's methodology is not as bad as it is being made out to be.

Cheerfully yours,

Captain.Sassy

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its relevant. If the Authority is genuinely an authority then its no fallacy. The name of the fallacy should really be "Argument from invalid authority".

The thing is that this really does not work. Why is Dr. Steve Novella a better authority than Dr. Mehmet Oz? They are both MD's and both with prestigious credentials. So really when they talk about say healing touch they are both equally credible?

This is getting into a no true scotsman issue with the idea of a valid authority.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

/\/\/\
The problem is unfortunately that many of us rely on authorities to understand what's going on.

Take history for example; few of us have the time or resources to actually pour (pore? poor?) over archival records ect. and piece together a coherent interpretation of something that happened a century ago. Sure, you can question certain methodological issues in an experiment (like McHrozni did re. the concentration of uranium), or you can review opinions from one or more authorities and see where they differ, or you can look at whether the balance of evidence provided by these authorities favours one interpretation or another... however, at a certain point, you have to take someone's word for it or just say 'I have no idea'.

And nobody but NOBODY likes saying the latter on here

 

[Beerina]

Take history for example; few of us have the time or resources to actually pour (pore? poor?) over archival records

Good question. Apparently "pore", which was news to me. Maybe distantly related to "peer"?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Good to know! You a fan of etymology?

 

[ponderingturtle]

/\/\/\
The problem is unfortunately that many of us rely on authorities to understand what's going on.

Take history for example; few of us have the time or resources to actually pour (pore? poor?) over archival records ect. and piece together a coherent interpretation of something that happened a century ago. Sure, you can question certain methodological issues in an experiment (like McHrozni did re. the concentration of uranium), or you can review opinions from one or more authorities and see where they differ, or you can look at whether the balance of evidence provided by these authorities favours one interpretation or another... however, at a certain point, you have to take someone's word for it or just say 'I have no idea'.

And nobody but NOBODY likes saying the latter on here

At a certain level sure, but it goes beyond simply stating X is an authority to having an understanding why X has a position that is valid here.

 

[FireGarden]

I've outlined why I think the depleted uranium hypothesis is a reasonable one. Apparently the WHO is going into Fallujah to check things out for themselves, so it may be interesting to see what they say.

Just to clarify a couple of things.
The WHO stated they would be doing a study at least as far back as April. Sky News claims the credit:
http://blogs.news.sky.com/editorsblog/Post:8bdef323-f89e-42ec-a7be-e9ec29775b58

Also, like the study in the OP, it isn't a study about DU. It is a study to find out if the incidence of birth defects has increased. In this case, Sky News pointed the finger at white phosphorus:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...e-Behind-Birth-Defects/Article/20080541317448

The article ends with:

We showed our findings from Fallujah to Alastair Hay, a professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University.

He is currently investigating injuries caused to children during the war in Iraq. He says without an independent medical study it is impossible to say for sure what has caused the deformities and how they may be linked.

But he says there has never been a study examining if there ARE links between white phosphorus and birth deformities.

So seems little to go on there.

And the study's methodology is not as bad as it is being made out to be.

Made out to be bad by whom? I don't recall any experts being cited.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

it isn't a study about DU. It is a study to find out if the incidence of birth defects

Oh.

Made out to be bad by whom?

People in this thread.

 

[McHrozni]

Also, like the study in the OP, it isn't a study about DU. It is a study to find out if the incidence of birth defects has increased. In this case, Sky News pointed the finger at white phosphorus:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...e-Behind-Birth-Defects/Article/20080541317448

Hm, I would consider white phosphorous a highly unlikely candidate. It is very unstable in air, which is precisely why it is used as a munition. The resulting phosphate in contact with any water or moisture rapidly turns into phosphoric acid, which is found in a very large array of very common drinks, like that of a certain Atlanta-based company ...

McHrozni

 

[The Fool]

What, asking for clarification is lacking courage?

It seems to me the United States is spending a ton of money to put Iraq back together. Whether or not we're obligated to do this is a matter of opinion, but we're doing it and I support it.

So...does that mean we should chase down each and every bullet fired in combat?

No, I don't think that's reasonable. The efforts we are making seem reasonable.

Do I think we should be cleaning up Depleted Uranium who's existence is only documented in the imaginations of certain lefty types who subscribe to that particular type of woo?

No.

ok, as you say...nothing wrong with asking for clarification so as you are tapdancing around the question can I ask you to clarify this post?

the question is should DU be found to be contaminating falluja should the US be obligated to clean it up. You appear to be on the surface saying no but leaving yourself plenty of roof to "clarify" it to something else...


any chance of a straight answer to a straight question once in a while?

 

[JihadJane]

Mycroft:

It seems to me the United States is spending a ton of money to put Iraq back together.

Details please.