Cancer rise in Fallujah

[FireGarden]

Because if it were based in reality we wouldn't be having this discussion. There would be scientific evidence available, that that would end the matter.

The fear being discussed is, as JJ put it "Iraqi women being scared to have babies in case they're deformed". There is scientific evidence for increased risk of deformity, as given in the OP.

You can go on talking about DU, though that isn't blamed in the OP. You can talk about fraud, though you have no evidence to back that up.

Or, you can accept that the incidence of birth defects has increased in Fallujah. And, as evidenced by the sex ratio before and after, this began at the time of the 2004 attack on Fallujah -- near as can be measured.

 

[WildCat]

The fear being discussed is, as JJ put it "Iraqi women being scared to have babies in case they're deformed". There is scientific evidence for increased risk of deformity, as given in the OP.

You can go on talking about DU, though that isn't blamed in the OP. You can talk about fraud, though you have no evidence to back that up.

Or, you can accept that the incidence of birth defects has increased in Fallujah. And, as evidenced by the sex ratio before and after, this began at the time of the 2004 attack on Fallujah -- near as can be measured.

6 years later, and no soil samples?

Don't you think that would be Step A in testing the hypothesis? Why do you think this hasn't been done?

 

[FireGarden]

6 years later, and no soil samples?

Don't you think that would be Step A in testing the hypothesis? Why do you think this hasn't been done?

Step A in testing which hypothesis? The hypothesis that DU was used? That wasn't what the study was about. Finding 50 million tons of DU would not have answered the question the study set out to answer.

Step A is clearly to see if there is something to explain. In particular, the question they set out to answer was: has the rate of cancer/infant mortality/birth defects increased?


Suppose that future soil samples indicate that no DU was used? Is that the end? No. Unless you have entirely missed the point.

 

[McHrozni]

You can go on talking about DU, though that isn't blamed in the OP.

Why are Uranium and radiation singled out as causes for birth defects in the cited 'study' and why are no other possible causes for birth defects mentioned in the 'study'? The study also speaks of some symptoms of Uranium exposure and ignores other sources which show the exact same reported symptoms, which could be just as likely if not more likely causes. Why? I contend it's because the study tries to blame the observed results on DU without saying so explicitly. Do you have a comparable or better explanation?

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Why are Uranium and radiation singled out as causes for birth defects in the cited 'study' and why are no other possible causes for birth defects mentioned in the 'study'? The study also speaks of some symptoms of Uranium exposure and ignores other sources which show the exact same reported symptoms, which could be just as likely if not more likely causes. Why? I contend it's because the study tries to blame the observed results on DU without saying so explicitly. Do you have a comparable or better explanation?

McHrozni

"without saying so explicitly" while explicity saying they don't know the cause.

Quite simply, people have had concerns over DU since before 2003. Of course it gets addressed. But they actually say that they don't know the cause.

 

[WildCat]

Step A in testing which hypothesis? The hypothesis that DU was used? That wasn't what the study was about. Finding 50 million tons of DU would not have answered the question the study set out to answer.

Would finding only the smallest trace amounts of DU answer the question?

 

[McHrozni]

"without saying so explicitly" while explicity saying they don't know the cause.

Of course they don't. They sure do like to drop not-so-subtle hints as to what they would want to be the real cause, though.

To repeat myself:
The study also speaks of some symptoms of Uranium exposure and ignores other sources which show the exact same reported symptoms, which could be just as likely if not more likely causes. Why? I contend it's because the study tries to blame the observed results on DU without saying so explicitly. Do you have a comparable or better explanation?

If you don't please admit my explanation is the best there is ...

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Would finding only the smallest trace amounts of DU answer the question?

Which question?

Of course they don't. They sure do like to drop not-so-subtle hints as to what they would want to be the real cause, though.

To repeat myself:
The study also speaks of some symptoms of Uranium exposure and ignores other sources which show the exact same reported symptoms, which could be just as likely if not more likely causes. Why? I contend it's because the study tries to blame the observed results on DU without saying so explicitly. Do you have a comparable or better explanation?

If you don't please admit my explanation is the best there is ...

McHrozni

I've already given my response: They discuss DU because there was concern about DU in the media and elsewhere.

They do not say that DU is to blame. You reading that into the discussion is your inference. They explicitly say they do not know the cause.

 

[McHrozni]

I've already given my response: They discuss DU because there was concern about DU in the media and elsewhere.

If that were true, they would have to mention other effects of Uranium exposure, which they have not observed. So that's not an explanation at all, more like a very weak excuse.

I admit there is one more plausible explanation: the researchers were incompetent. If your excuse holds any water, this is most certainly true. I don't see why we should discuss it then, however.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

If that were true, they would have to mention other effects of Uranium exposure, which they have not observed. So that's not an explanation at all, more like a very weak excuse.

I admit there is one more plausible explanation: the researchers were incompetent. If your excuse holds any water, this is most certainly true. I don't see why we should discuss it then, however.

McHrozni

The plausible explanation is that you refuse to understand what they mean when they say they don't know what the cause is.

 

[McHrozni]

The plausible explanation is that you refuse to understand what they mean when they say they don't know what the cause is.

No, I know what they mean: they have no evidence of what they want to be true, so they're just dropping heavy hints. This was pointed out to you before.

McHrozni

 

[Mycroft]

So lack of research means that the observations of ordinary people are automatically "woo"?


Weird!

Well, yes.

Ordinary people "observe" Bigfoot, UFO's, ghosts, dowsing, homeopathic healing, and all kinds of things unsupported by science. Just because lot's of people report seeing UFO's doesn't mean our planet really is being visited by aliens from other planets, or that fear of being abducted by them is a rational fear.


At the same time FireGarden did make a good point. When you initially asked, "How will you approach the problem of Iraqi women being scared to have babies in case they're deformed, scientifically?" I reacted as if you had said, "scared of DU" which was wrong.

An elevated risk of birth defects is certainly an issue that can be addressed scientifically. Education should be stressed so people make their decisions based on solid information rather than fear. Hearing rumors about lots of babies having birth-defects is scary, but learning that the number of birth-defects has risen from 4 in 1000 to 7 in 1000 puts the risk in perspective. On the other hand, if the science shows the number has risen from 4 in 1000 to 168 in 1000, that would validate fears and be a call for intervention from the governments of Iraq and the US.

But the important thing is to use science throughout the whole process of decision making in order to make the best and most informed decisions. If there is a problem with birth-defects, and honestly I personally would want a whole lot more than a news article written by the highly biased Patrick Cockburn about a study done by the kooky Dr. Chris Busby, then the correct action isn't to make assumptions about the cause that are shaded by your preconceptions and political biases, then the correct thing to do is to gather as much information as you can in order to start forming hypothesis that can be tested and eliminated.

 

[FireGarden]

No, I know what they mean: they have no evidence of what they want to be true, so they're just dropping heavy hints. This was pointed out to you before.

McHrozni

It means they don't know.
Maybe it's your lack of desire to face up to the consequences of war that makes you focus on refuting claims which have not been made.

 

[McHrozni]

It means they don't know.

For someone who doesn't know they sure don't make an effort to find what it was.

Maybe it's your lack of desire to face up to the consequences of war that makes you focus on refuting claims which have not been made.

Or maybe it's my lack of capacity to ignore a substantial amount of the 'study' that leads me to believe it's desire to show the symptoms were only explainable by DU contamination is just coincidental.

Again. If the study wanted to discuss DU because people were concerned about DU, why didn't they point out some symptoms of Uranium poisoning which would show before genetic damage were not present in the population? You already know my theory, what's yours?

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

For someone who doesn't know they sure don't make an effort to find what it was.

Do you think people who can't explain events shouldn't report them? I don't see the logic behind that. The search for an explanation follows the realisation that there is something to explain. That is natural.

Or maybe it's my lack of capacity to ignore a substantial amount of the 'study' that leads me to believe it's desire to show the symptoms were only explainable by DU contamination is just coincidental.

Where do they say that the symptoms can only be explained by DU? Nowhere. That would contradict their statement that they don't know what the cause is.

Again. If the study wanted to discuss DU because people were concerned about DU, why didn't they point out some symptoms of Uranium poisoning which would show before genetic damage were not present in the population? You already know my theory, what's yours?

McHrozni

I take it that you want them to say, for instance, that the rate of kidney damage has not increased. But where in the study do you find that they looked into the rate of kidney problems in Fallujah? As far as I can tell, they didn't look into kidney damage statistics. Because this wasn't about testing for DU. It was about checking if anecdotal reports regarding cancer, infant mortality and birth defects were based on a real change in the rates of occurrence. They found there was a real change.

There have been no anecdotal reports regarding kidney damage. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other -- unless you want to argue that anecdotal reports always get there first.

 

[Virus]

Remember that Iraq is squalor, with garbage and all sorts of **** dumped onto the street and lakes.

Regarding birth defects, cousin marriage is common in Arab countries. Half of all marriages in Iraq are between cousins. It's had high birth defect rates for ages.

 

[McHrozni]

Do you think people who can't explain events shouldn't report them? I don't see the logic behind that. The search for an explanation follows the realisation that there is something to explain. That is natural.

If they were indeed searching for explanation, how come they failed to explore different plausible explanations and only focused on Uranium?

Where do they say that the symptoms can only be explained by DU? Nowhere. That would contradict their statement that they don't know what the cause is.

They only explored DU as a possible cause and only where it suited them, they ignored the issues which effectively rule out DU, and other more plausible explanations. Why?

I take it that you want them to say, for instance, that the rate of kidney damage has not increased. But where in the study do you find that they looked into the rate of kidney problems in Fallujah? As far as I can tell, they didn't look into kidney damage statistics.

Of course they didn't. It would falsify their (unstated) conclusion.

It was about checking if anecdotal reports regarding cancer, infant mortality and birth defects were based on a real change in the rates of occurrence. They found there was a real change.

And claimed DU exposure would explain the symptoms:

(...) although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure (...)

It's only relevant because they ignored the parts where it wouldn't be relevant at all.

There have been no anecdotal reports regarding kidney damage. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other -- unless you want to argue that anecdotal reports always get there first.

Well, I would say that if there was a significant change, it would be expected to see anecdotal reports of that. Seeing as the kidney aliments would have to far outstrip birth defects in occurrence, it would be unlikely the doctors would only complain of a marginal increase in birth defects, but fail to notice a staggering increase in kidney aliments that would be unavoidable if Uranium was the cause.

I could be wrong, but since the study did intend to link the DU to the effects, it's something it would have to check out.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

If they were indeed searching for explanation, how come they failed to explore different plausible explanations and only focused on Uranium?



They only explored DU as a possible cause and only where it suited them, they ignored the issues which effectively rule out DU, and other more plausible explanations. Why?



Of course they didn't. It would falsify their (unstated) conclusion.

Their "(unstated) conclusion" needs no defence. Only stated conlcusions need defence. They clearly say they do not know what the cause is. Now that people know there is something to explain, there is a chance it will be explained. That's a natural way to investigate things.

And claimed DU exposure would explain the symptoms:

(...) although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure (...)

Quote mining, then? Who do you think is still reading this other than you and me? And I can easily look up the context of that quote: "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."

See how clearly they state it: they don't know the cause.

That is what an honest person would be discussing: the stated conclusion rather than the "(unstated) conclusion".

Well, I would say that if there was a significant change, it would be expected to see anecdotal reports of that. Seeing as the kidney aliments would have to far outstrip birth defects in occurrence, it would be unlikely the doctors would only complain of a marginal increase in birth defects, but fail to notice a staggering increase in kidney aliments that would be unavoidable if Uranium was the cause.

I could be wrong, but since the study did intend to link the DU to the effects, it's something it would have to check out.

McHrozni

Your expectations are neither here nor there. For instance: kidney ailments may be harder to diagnose correctly and so be under-reported.

Maybe a future study will check out things like that and give us actual data -- now that there is something to explain. Hardly cause to condemn the study which tells us there is something to explain.

 

[JihadJane]

Well, yes.

Ordinary people "observe" Bigfoot, UFO's, ghosts, dowsing, homeopathic healing, and all kinds of things unsupported by science. Just because lot's of people report seeing UFO's doesn't mean our planet really is being visited by aliens from other planets, or that fear of being abducted by them is a rational fear.

That's an example of the Elvis-on-the-Moon fallacy.

People can also perceive things in a way that accords with scientific reality.

Just because ordinary people observe something does not make it automatically "woo".

 

[McHrozni]

Now that people know there is something to explain, there is a chance it will be explained. That's a natural way to investigate things.

This is a separate problem which we covered earlier. We don't know that, since the study was so poorly conducted. It's corroborating evidence, though I doubt it is much better than anecdotal evidence we had before.

That is what an honest person would be discussing: the stated conclusion rather than the "(unstated) conclusion".

Which we did, earlier on. However, there is more to the study than just it's conclusions and it's methodology. It placed an undue amount of attention to DU, trying to link it to the allegedly observed effects, but not trying to falsify that claim. There is every reason to criticize the study over this.

Your expectations are neither here nor there. For instance: kidney ailments may be harder to diagnose correctly and so be under-reported.

I'd say acute kidney failure and death is no harder to diagnose than an unnamed birth defect, but whatever rocks your boat

McHrozni