Cancer rise in Fallujah

[bit_pattern]

Many objections have been made in this thread concerning the methodology in the paper.

The authors were critical of their own methodology and went to great lengths to spell out the problems and limitations of their survey, which is indicative to me of good, objective research.

No, the fact that they'll publish anything so long as the check clears.

Proof? Or is this just more slander and smear?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Or is this just more slander and smear?

Every time you hit the "Submit Reply" button.

 

[Virus]

Did you see their article on the The Mavi Marmara incident?
Oh my Gawd!!! 1.5 million people in Gaza are in a coma!!

That site really is about as hysterical as they come.

Check out the committee list: It's a who's-who of fruit-loops.

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/index.htm

 

[Mycroft]

Yup, character assassination and smear is all that you have, certainly nothing that calls into question the conclusions of the survey, I thought as much.

And what exactly makes IJERPH a "vanity publisher"? The fact that they publish conclusions and authors the political implications of which you happen not to like?

No, "vanity press" means the people who are published have to pay for the privilege.

ETA: You also might want to have a look at the other thread on Fallujah I started and watch the report, there are very real allegations that the reason the Iraqi government isn't "getting on it" is due to pressure from the American forces. Make of that what you will, but it suggests that the only people willing to even acknowledge the problem are independent researchers.

Sometimes "independent" is a euphemism for "kooky."

 

[Mycroft]

Check out the committee list: It's a who's-who of fruit-loops.

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/index.htm

All your links to brusselstribunal goe to the same page.

 

[bit_pattern]

No, "vanity press" means the people who are published have to pay for the privilege.

Evidence that IJEPH is a "vanity" publication? Or is that too much to ask?

Sometimes "independent" is a euphemism for "kooky."

Sometimes it is. In this case, however, you guys have provided zero evidence to show that the survey was in anyway "kooky", other than the fact that you happen not to like the politics of one of the lead authors. Seems to me it is YOU guys who are politically motivated, not the author.

This desperate need you people have to vilify anyone that raises a conclusion you don't like really is most unbecoming

 

[bit_pattern]

Every time you hit the "Submit Reply" button.

Well, allow me to hit the "Report Post" button this time

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, allow me to hit the "Report Post" button this time

Hit it twice, then.

I wasn't aware that pointing out your smears and slander against US and allied military personnel was against JREF rules.

 

[Mycroft]

Evidence that IJEPH is a "vanity" publication? Or is that too much to ask?

Already been done.

Sometimes it is. In this case, however, you guys have provided zero evidence to show that the survey was in anyway "kooky", other than the fact that you happen not to like the politics of one of the lead authors. Seems to me it is YOU guys who are politically motivated, not the author.

Not just one of the authors. We also went over Dr Chris Busby as well as the journalist Patrick Cockburn who wrote the article you first cited.

This desperate need you people have to vilify anyone that raises a conclusion you don't like really is most unbecoming

Why would you assume I don't like the conclusion? If there is something going on in Faluja that is causing deformities in children then I want people to know about it and I want something done about it. I have no political motive to want to doom random children to needless suffering. If somehow the study turns out to be absolutely true, I don't lose anything.

 

[bit_pattern]

Already been done.

No, McHronzi simply showed that they charge a publishing fee, but that doesn't mean papers are going to be accepted uncritically. The BMJ uses the same model, it gives the added bonus of papers being available online without subscription, but nobody is calling thm "vanity press". Again, the lengths you guys go to in order to denigrate anyone who voices an opinion you don't like is really quite breathtaking in its audacity.

Not just one of the authors. We also went over Dr Chris Busby as well as the journalist Patrick Cockburn who wrote the article you first cited.

Huh? I cited Cockburn? Either you have me mistaken with someone else or you're just making **** up

Why would you assume I don't like the conclusion? If there is something going on in Faluja that is causing deformities in children then I want people to know about it and I want something done about it. I have no political motive to want to doom random children to needless suffering. If somehow the study turns out to be absolutely true, I don't lose anything.

Because you guys tend to display the attitude that America can do no wrong, and that every criticism is evidence of some vast academic conspiracy against America.

As I said, you'd make a great climate denier!

 

[Mycroft]

No, McHronzi simply showed that they charge a publishing fee, but that doesn't mean papers are going to be accepted uncritically. The BMJ uses the same model, it gives the added bonus of papers being available online without subscription, but nobody is calling thm "vanity press". Again, the lengths you guys go to in order to denigrate anyone who voices an opinion you don't like is really quite breathtaking in its audacity.

Alright, I'll give you that the quality and reputation of the journal is unknown.

Huh? I cited Cockburn? Either you have me mistaken with someone else or you're just making **** up

You're right. It was Firegarden that cited that article. The OP.

Because you guys tend to display the attitude that America can do no wrong, and that every criticism is evidence of some vast academic conspiracy against America.

As I said, you'd make a great climate denier!

What part of "children are being born with mysterious birth-defects and nobody know why" implies the United States is at fault in any way? Didn't you already agree you didn't know the cause?

 

[bit_pattern]

What part of "children are being born with mysterious birth-defects and nobody know why" implies the United States is at fault in any way? Didn't you already agree you didn't know the cause?

I don't know the cause, but I suspect very strongly that there is a direct correlation and causation between US military activity and the alarming spike in defects and cancers. To be fair, the paper didn't "throw any light upon the identity" of the cause, so it is a bit of stretch for my conclusion that you are afraid of anything reflecting badly on America. So, rather than leaving me to speculate, why not just come out and explain why you are prepared to go to the lengths of slandering the journal and the authors on the flimsiest of evidence? Why the need to play down the issue, not by providing contrary evidence, but rather by engaging in the most base of attacks like character assassination?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know the cause, but I suspect very strongly that there is a direct correlation and causation between US military activity and the alarming spike in defects and cancers.

Do you think the tone of this report had anything to do with the formation of your suspicions?

To be fair, the paper didn't "throw any light upon the identity" of the cause, so it is a bit of stretch for my conclusion that you are afraid of anything reflecting badly on America.

Look, unless the US military is deliberately poisoning people, then if the issue is real and it is cause by something the US did, it still doesn't reflect badly on the US. Why? Because it was inadvertent.

Follow?

So, rather than leaving me to speculate, why not just come out and explain why you are prepared to go to the lengths of slandering the journal and the authors on the flimsiest of evidence? Why the need to play down the issue, not by providing contrary evidence, but rather by engaging in the most base of attacks like character assassination?

What is there to say that hasn't already been said? Your authors are suspect due to their political affiliations and the journalist reporting it was Patrick Cockburn. It's not going to lengths to point out it's highly suspect.

 

[bit_pattern]

Do you think the tone of this report had anything to do with the formation of your suspicions?

No, because I found the survey as a result of investigating my suspicions which were raised after a report by the Dateline programme on Australian TV.

Look, unless the US military is deliberately poisoning people, then if the issue is real and it is cause by something the US did, it still doesn't reflect badly on the US. Why? Because it was inadvertent.

Follow?

Inadvertent wouldn't mean piss in a court of law, criminal negligence is still criminal negligence. And how many times can you get away with "inadvertent" excuse before the claim loses all credibility? These sorts of incidences have been documented everywhere that America has gone to war at least since the first Iraq invasion yet there has never been a serious attempt at identifying the problem beyond trying to disprove that DU could possibly be the cause. It's like saying that a repeated drunk driver only "inadvertently" killed a bunch of people on the road, after all, how the heck was he supposed to know that drunk driving could result in fatalities? It's a piss poor excuse that doesn't stand when it comes to the actions of individuals and shouldn't stand when it comes to governements.

What is there to say that hasn't already been said? Your authors are suspect due to their political affiliations and the journalist reporting it was Patrick Cockburn. It's not going to lengths to point out it's highly suspect.

Yes, I know, all you have is smear because you can't actually fault the report itself, much easier to denigrate the authors and cast scurrilous and entirely unfounded aspersions against the publication in which it was published. As you readily admit, it's not the science that is the problem here, it is YOUR own political bias, you disagree with their politics, the results don't fit your ideological weltanschauung, so instead of discussing the issue, or anything actually raised in the report, your first resort is to slander everybody associated with it. That in itself speaks more about your mentality than anything I could ever say.

 

[Mycroft]

No, because I found the survey as a result of investigating my suspicions which were raised after a report by the Dateline programme on Australian TV.




Inadvertent wouldn't mean piss in a court of law, criminal negligence is still criminal negligence. And how many times can you get away with "inadvertent" excuse before the claim loses all credibility? These sorts of incidences have been documented everywhere that America has gone to war at least since the first Iraq invasion yet there has never been a serious attempt at identifying the problem beyond trying to disprove that DU could possibly be the cause. It's like saying that a repeated drunk driver only "inadvertently" killed a bunch of people on the road, after all, how the heck was he supposed to know that drunk driving could result in fatalities? It's a piss poor excuse that doesn't stand when it comes to the actions of individuals and shouldn't stand when it comes to governements.

Okay, so you think the United States is bad.

Yes, I know, all you have is smear because you can't actually fault the report itself, much easier to denigrate the authors and cast scurrilous and entirely unfounded aspersions against the publication in which it was published. As you readily admit, it's not the science that is the problem here, it is YOUR own political bias, you disagree with their politics, the results don't fit your ideological weltanschauung, so instead of discussing the issue, or anything actually raised in the report, your first resort is to slander everybody associated with it. That in itself speaks more about your mentality than anything I could ever say.

Except this whole thread is full of people finding fault with the report. Who wrote it and who reported it may not seem significant to you, but that's likely because you revealed your own biases in the previous paragraph. I give you a dictionary definition of "inadvertent" and you're practically foaming at the mouth asking me how many times *I* can get away with it, which is kinda irrational since *I* am not the US military, and *I* am not trying to get away with anything.

 

[bit_pattern]

Okay, so you think the United States is bad.

No, America just is. It is capable of both good and bad things. But, hey, why let subtle nuances get in the way of dumbing down an argument to its most basest level - just like you do when you fall back on the ol' "anti Semite" accusation

Except this whole thread is full of people finding fault with the report. Who wrote it and who reported it may not seem significant to you, but that's likely because you revealed your own biases in the previous paragraph. I give you a dictionary definition of "inadvertent" and you're practically foaming at the mouth asking me how many times *I* can get away with it, which is kinda irrational since *I* am not the US military, and *I* am not trying to get away with anything.

Haha! You're really running out of arguments now, aren't you?! I doubt you *really* think that I am referring to you personally when I say "how many times can you get away with (the) "inadvertent" excuse", I'm sure you have a better grasp of rhetorical devices than that, you just need something to fall back on because your attempts to actually argue the point at hand have fallen so flat on their face. Nice try though!

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Coal Power Plants:

A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.​

This is interesting. It does appear (from the way it's phrased) that it's at the high end of the estimate for the emissions of uranium from coal burning. Are there other studies that look at emissions of uranium from burning coal, or is the study linked the only one? I'd be interested in the dispresion and concentration of the trace uranium.

Interetingly, a google search on coal and birth defects finds numerous articles claiming a link between the uranium emitted by the coal fired plant and birth defects.

http://www.rfa.org/english/energy_watch/china-coal-02092009141628.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/india-punjab-children-uranium-pollution

 

[bit_pattern]

That's all good and well but Iraq doesn't have any coal-fired power plants!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is interesting. It does appear (from the way it's phrased) that it's at the high end of the estimate for the emissions of uranium from coal burning.

And I live in on the Canadian praries, which has the richest uranium deposits in the world. Our coal plants will be those on the high end.

Kosovo was 9 tons in 1995, well 15 years times 5 is 75 tonnes. The level of cancer and birth defects around here must be astro-frakking-nomical.

Interetingly, a google search on coal and birth defects finds numerous articles claiming a link between the uranium emitted by the coal fired plant and birth defects.

http://www.rfa.org/english/energy_wa...009141628.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...nium-pollution

Great... let us know when these code pinkers do a control study on populations around Saskatchewan and Alberta coal plants... assuming the ever get tired of chasing the US army around.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't know the cause, but I suspect very strongly that there is a direct correlation and causation between US military activity and the alarming spike in defects and cancers.

"I don't know what's wrong, I just know America is behind it!"

Proving once again that Politics is the last refuge of woo on JREF.