|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:00 pm Post subject: Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah worse than Hiroshima |
 |
|
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
| Quote: |
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait. |
| Quote: |
In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.
He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside." |
| Quote: |
The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people. |
| Quote: |
| Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah worse than Hirosh |
|
|
[quote="Big_Bird"]Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
| Quote: |
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
] |
Assuming that this is indeed correct it can be explained by a simple factor. In a gun battle for a city vs an atomic bomb being dropped on a city....there are usually likely to be far more survivors in the former then in the latter situation. Hence an increase in diseases and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not evacuate the area entirely and resettle the people elsewhere? A bit like they did after Chernobyl.
They should also do the same in Bhopal, India btw. Those people are still suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah worse than Hirosh |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
| Quote: |
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
] |
|
Assuming that this is indeed correct it can be explained by a simple factor. In a gun battle for a city vs an atomic bomb being dropped on a city....there are usually likely to be far more survivors in the former then in the latter situation. Hence an increase in diseases and the like. |
They used more than guns, mate. Don't you remember the hue and cry over the use of white phosporus in Falluja, for one thing? And the rest of you paragraph makes no sense. Can you expand on it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting findings which should be investigated, but I have a hard time believing it. I just can't imagine anything more toxic than a nuke. White phosphorus has been used for decades. If these findings are legit, I would bet it is either depleted uranium, or that their was something there beforehand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah worse than Hirosh |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
| Quote: |
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
] |
|
Assuming that this is indeed correct it can be explained by a simple factor. In a gun battle for a city vs an atomic bomb being dropped on a city....there are usually likely to be far more survivors in the former then in the latter situation. Hence an increase in diseases and the like. |
They used more than guns, mate. Don't you remember the hue and cry over the use of white phosporus in Falluja, for one thing? And the rest of you paragraph makes no sense. Can you expand on it? |
I remember the hue and cry...I also remember how quickly it died down due to the fact that WP effects were over-exaggerated.
http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/factsheets/whitephosphorus.html
Anyway back to my point. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki (according to the Manhattan Engineer District's figures), 66000 and 39000 respectively were killed by the bombs for a total of 105000.
Contrast that with Fallujah where around 6000 civilians were killed and around 1200 insurgents for a total of 7,200 (according to a heavily sourced Wiki link).
Pre-war the population was 425,774 which was bigger than the populations of 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were estimated to be 350,000 and 240,000 respectively.
So you have a substantially bigger population in Fallujuh and a enormously bigger group of survivors. In any sizable group there are bound to be some members with diseases (cancer and the like). The bigger the group the bigger the instances of diseases.
It stands to reason that Fallujah would naturally have a higher cancer rate given its larger population and much larger survivor rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Interesting findings which should be investigated, but I have a hard time believing it. I just can't imagine anything more toxic than a nuke. White phosphorus has been used for decades. If these findings are legit, I would bet it is either depleted uranium, or that their was something there beforehand. |
I doubt the depleted uranium-tipped ammunition caused this. Probably some nasty chemical agent used, if anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Interesting findings which should be investigated, but I have a hard time believing it. I just can't imagine anything more toxic than a nuke. White phosphorus has been used for decades. If these findings are legit, I would bet it is either depleted uranium, or that their was something there beforehand. |
I doubt the depleted uranium-tipped ammunition caused this. Probably some nasty chemical agent used, if anything. |
Yes, that is right. When looking for something to blame for an increase in cancer and birth defects, people are always too quick to jump onto radioactive materials such uranium.
One time, I was having a conversation with a few people about nuclear power. I was arguing for nuclear power. Then, this one lady said, "But what about Love Canal." She was claiming that the large rate of birth defects there was due to buried nuclear waste. But later on, I looked what she was talking about and she could not have been more wrong. It was in fact due to buried chemical waste which had been buried there long before the advent of nuclear power or the atom bomb for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Interesting findings which should be investigated, but I have a hard time believing it. I just can't imagine anything more toxic than a nuke. White phosphorus has been used for decades. If these findings are legit, I would bet it is either depleted uranium, or that their was something there beforehand. |
WHite phosphorus is only supposed to be used a flair, not against people or populated areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
