Iraqi city has higher cancer rates than Hiroshima
TriumphantAngel
Posts: 1,760
the price of 'freedom and democracy"? i'm speechless.
A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are significantly higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs of 1945.
The survey found that in the five years following the 2004 attacks by USA-led forces there has been a four-fold increase in all cancer.
The types of cancer are similar to that in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors who were exposed to nuclear fallout.
Researchers found a 12 fold increase in child hood cancers since 2004.
In Fallujah the rate of leukemia is 38 times higher, the childhood cancer rate is 12 times higher, and breast cancer is 10 times more common than in populations in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. Heightened levels of adult lymphoma and brain tumors were also reported. At 80 deaths out of every 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Fallujah is more than five times higher than in Egypt and Jordan, and eight times higher than in Kuwait.
Strikingly, after 2005 the proportion of girls born in Fallujah has increased sharply. In normal populations, 1050 boys are born for every 1000 girls. But among those born in Fallujah in the four years after the US assault, the ratio was reduced to 860 boys for every 1000 female births. This alteration is similar to gender ratios found in Hiroshima after the US atomic attack of 1945.
The most likely reason for the change in the sex ratio, according to the researchers, is the impact of a major mutagenic event—likely the use of depleted uranium in US weapons. While boys have one X-chromosome, girls have a redundant X-chromosome and can therefore absorb the loss of one chromosome through genetic damage.
Fallujah is less than 65km from Baghdad....
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20241
video
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1307 ... Hiroshima-
A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are significantly higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs of 1945.
The survey found that in the five years following the 2004 attacks by USA-led forces there has been a four-fold increase in all cancer.
The types of cancer are similar to that in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors who were exposed to nuclear fallout.
Researchers found a 12 fold increase in child hood cancers since 2004.
In Fallujah the rate of leukemia is 38 times higher, the childhood cancer rate is 12 times higher, and breast cancer is 10 times more common than in populations in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. Heightened levels of adult lymphoma and brain tumors were also reported. At 80 deaths out of every 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Fallujah is more than five times higher than in Egypt and Jordan, and eight times higher than in Kuwait.
Strikingly, after 2005 the proportion of girls born in Fallujah has increased sharply. In normal populations, 1050 boys are born for every 1000 girls. But among those born in Fallujah in the four years after the US assault, the ratio was reduced to 860 boys for every 1000 female births. This alteration is similar to gender ratios found in Hiroshima after the US atomic attack of 1945.
The most likely reason for the change in the sex ratio, according to the researchers, is the impact of a major mutagenic event—likely the use of depleted uranium in US weapons. While boys have one X-chromosome, girls have a redundant X-chromosome and can therefore absorb the loss of one chromosome through genetic damage.
Fallujah is less than 65km from Baghdad....
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20241
video
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1307 ... Hiroshima-
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the fucking evil men do ... :(
i guess we know why :(
also ... apparently in the world's greatest democracy - if you whistleblow on your country, you get put in jail ... :(
people say they want truth and transparency, yet when brave people step forward to provide such truth and transparency they get prosecuted and shamed. it can not be both ways...
i guess that is what happens when your media cares more about the stupid fucking kardashians and justin bieber...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
there will never be an independent study ... for the same reasons why the US refuses to participate in the internation criminal court system ... it should be obvious to people that using radioactive rounds will not be good ... having it proven in a study would do two things: 1. prove the US has been using nuclear weapons and 2. will make them open to liability not only from victims but from all those vets they are currently denying assistance to ...
edit: i shouldn't say never as i do hope there comes a time when corporations don't rule the world but until then ... it's not likely ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
your leaders are but puppets of the large corporations ... the decision to go to war is not made because of any reason than placating certain industries ...
Freedom through Radiation.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/08/cancer.medicineandhealth
. . . researchers at the University of Southern Maine have shown that DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations. The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. "These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer," the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology . . .
. . . Prof Wise said it is too early to say whether DU causes lung cancer in people exposed on the battlefield because the disease takes several decades to develop . . .
. . . Funding for DU studies is very sparse and so defining the disadvantages is hard," he added.
really? ... if someone came by and said they want to store a few barrels of radioactive waste in your backyard - would you be ok with that? ... i don't mean to be facetious but of course the reports are going to be biased and funding sparse ... the military is not going to let anyone just do an independent study ... it would cost the gov't billions in compensation ...
it's radioactive waste they are lining the munitions with ... sure, you may not get cancer right away but it's gonna happen and i'd like to see the rates of birth defects in falluja these days as well ... guessing them to be above average too ...
a few years ago they posted graphic pics of what DU does on the battlefield. anyone that has been around gunfire from standard munitions knows that they are not capable of the all out devestation of what was shown in those pics of damage from DU and white phosphorus...i will never in my life forget the images i saw in that thread a couple of years ago...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
actually, the un has done at least 2 scientific studies, both have found these should be banned weapons of mass destruction but guess who vetoed doing anything about it?
this has happened in every country we have used them in starting with the first gulf war and we never clean the rounds up, clinton used and left them, too. cancer and birth defect rates skyrocket
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - 3 August 1998
the link i had for the other one no longer works but i'm sure you can search for it on the un's website, it's from the
UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - 14 July 2003
"We, of course, agree with the Sub-Commission that the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium in armed conflict is incompatible with existing human rights and humanitarian law. In our numerous oral and written statements on the issue of this weaponry we have set out four tests that all weapons must pass in order to be used in armed conflict: the weapons and their effect must be contained to the legal field of battle (the "geographical" test); the weapons and their effect must cease to function when the armed conflict is over (the "temporal" test); the weapons and their effect must not be unduly inhumane or cause undue suffering (the "humaneness" test); and the weapons can not unduly harm the environment (the "environment" test). Weaponry containing depleted uranium has been increasing in the news and subject of widespread international condemnation, especially as it was so widely used in the new war against Iraq. One study of children born of United States veterans of the first Gulf War shows a more than 60% incidence of disability, deformity and other serious medical problems. Another study shows that United States Gulf War veteran' children have a much higher likelihood of having three specific birth defects: two types heart valve abnormality to children of male veterans, and genito-urinary defects to children born of female veterans. "Gulf WarBirth Defects" in the Lexington-Herald Leader, 4 June 2003. A study of British veterans of the Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo reveals that they have 10 - 14 times the level of chromosomal abnormalities than usual. H. Schrader, A. Heimers, R. Frentzel-Beyme, A. Schott & W. Hoffmann, "Chromosome aberration analysis in perifiral lymphocytes of Gulf war and Balkan war veterans," in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol.103 no.3, pp. 211-220.
There is increasing evidence that troubling weaponry was also used in Afghanistan, as a Canadian medical research facility found that the urine of Afghani people near where the United States carried out military operations contained radioactive isotopes 100 to 400 times higher than Gulf War veterans from the United Kingdom tested in 1999. The report is posted at http://www.umrc.net. The maximum permissible level for members of the public in the United States is considered to be 12 nanograms per year. The Canadian team recorded an average 315.5 nanograms in people in Jalalabad, Tora Bora and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy near Kabul tested at 2,031 nanograms. After a second trip to Afghanistan, the Canadian team documented comparable results in a much broader area and larger population group. A prominent Afghani physician reports that there is a dramatic increase in birth defects in Afghanistan and people are experiencing catastrophic health consequences.
Regarding the use of weapons used against Iraq this spring, it is clear that much weaponry containing depleted uranium was used. For example Abrams tanks only use DU ordnance. The bombs fired on Baghdad and other cities as part of "shock and awe" are alleged to have had DU nosecones. Cluster bombs were admittedly used in urban areas in an attempt to protect British troops. Paul Waugh, "Allied use of cluster bombs illegal, minister admits," The Independent, 30 May 2003. While the amount of DU dispersed over Iraq for the second time in less than 15 years is unclear, it is clear that the United States does not intend to clean up the DU nor even fully disclose where it was used and in what amounts.
Our organization considers the Iraq situation an atrocity followed by a catastrophe. The international community simply must respond or risk being overtaken in every way by a power that did not and does not intend to abide by the principles of humanitarian law carefully carved out since the first Geneva Convention of 1864 and The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The weapons already in use are terrifying enough, without contemplating those planned in the future.
We urge the Sub-Commission to request Mr. Yeung Sik Yuen to continue his work on all these weapons. In the course of his work on this topic he has become one of the few experts in this field and the Sub-Commission is well advised to request him to prepare an additional follow up paper. Indeed, it would take years for another to catch up to his expertise. The importance of this endeavor cannot possibly be overestimated. The fate of the whole world lies in being able to carry out true disarmament. The smaller, poorer countries cannot possible keep up with "arm-chair" wars or they will bankrupt themselves. Even the other developed countries are far, far behind this technological madness. If the United States is allowed to use and develop these weapons, all other countries are reduced to peonage at the mercy of the United States. Therefore, it is essential that the international community find a way to truly rid the world of illegal weapons.
In our Memorandum we identify the four basic rules for weaponry under existing customary and treaty-based humanitarian law: (i) weapons must be able to be contained to legal military fields of action (the geographical requirement); (ii) weapons must be able to cease harming action when the armed conflict is over (the temporal requirement); (iii) weapons may not cause undue suffering (the humanitarian requirement); and (iv) weapons must not unduly harm the environment (the environmental requirement). We conclude that the use of most of the weapons listed in resolutions 1996/16 and 1997/36, especially weaponry containing depleted uranium, would constitute a per se violation of these requirements. We also conclude that production or threat of production, stockpiling and development of weapons whose use would constitute a per se violation of humanitarian law could be viewed as coercive, torture, a serious threat to peace, a threat to the right to self-determination and a threat to the right to life.
Mr. Yeung Sik Yuen's assessment of when weapons are to be considered banned by operation of law is stated somewhat differently but is essentially compatible with ours. However, he adds an essential element that we had not included -- the requirement that all weapons use must be in proportion to the legitimate military objectives. Thus even "legal" weapons might be used illegally -- as when using a large bomb against a small, lightly defended military outpost and causing injury and damage in excess of the actual military gain. This is an important addition, as several weapons systems are now being proposed that would severely tax this rule. One of these, being developed in the United States, would allow the United States to engage in an armed conflict anywhere in the world from its own territory. Code-named FALCON (for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States), weapons delivery systems are being planned that would carry 12,000 pound bombs anywhere in the world in less than two hours from a US launch. As the United States would not have any military personnel on site, it would be impossible to assess proportionality. And the "enemy" would have no way at all to defend itself as the "enemy" would not have the same weapons capability. The United States is also planning smaller bombs that can be launched into space, and when guided over its target, dropped to earth. These would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock. They are defended by United States officials because it "would free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries or terrorist organizations." From the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) invitation for bids, posted on its website, reported by Julian Borger, The Guardian, 1 July 2003. We call wars to be waged this way "arm chair" wars. The United State military will not have to leave home, but can effectively destroy a country from their homes. The United States "combatants" never have to see combat, nor the destruction they cause with the bombs they send from home. "
and let's not even get into the use of cluster bombs....they may not cause cancer and birth defects but a fair % doesn't explode on impact and are left to be found be kids or accident
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'