Derec

Do you have a link for that?

Quote:

It's not just birth defects, but a very high incidence in general and some very rare cases like double breast cancer in 10-yo girls. (I believe they talked of some 50 times the normal rate of cancer victims, but I don't have the data handy.)

50 times more sounds very high.

Quote:

These areas are said roughly match zones where DU shells were used in big quantities against Iraqi positions. There is no knowledge of any chemical agent used or stored in the area.

Areas that "roughly match zones where DU shells were used in big quantities" would also correspond to the areas where major battles have taken place. There are a lot of toxic and carcinogenic things used in battle. Also a war-torn country would be have problems with things like clean drinking water.

Has anybody measured if the cancer patients had elevated uranium levels at all?

Quote:

But it seems clear that something happens and DU is present there. An extensive study ought to be done, but methinks this will not happen.

Maybe after a the situation in Iraq has stabilized and they have a civil government.

UMoC

Derec

Whose numbers are we talking about?

Quote:

How do you explain that?

I do not have a water-tight explanation but I can offer some possible reasons. Contaminated water supply, chemical weapons and other chemical toxin residue, chemicals from burning oil wells (HCs are carcinogenic), certain infectious diseases ...

Also we have to ask ourselves, if a pregnant woman were to be exposed to DU how would that affect the development of the fetus? Are the things we know (maybe from animal tests) consistent with that?

Quote:

And how do you explain the same happening in Kosovo, and to troops who were stationed in both of these theaters of operations?

Has there been an statistically significant increase in birth defects and/or cancers? Which cancers? Are those cancers the primary cancer that we would suspect would result from exposure to depleted uranium?

Besides, in Kosovo only very little DU was used as there was no ground war.

Quote:

Coincidence? I don�t believe in coincidences...

Neither should you believe in causation just because two things happen concurently.

Quote:

Besides, most of these abnormalities were concentrated in specific areas, wich clearly shows a direct cause-effect situation.

No it does not. Especially regarding some cancers such as leukemia existance of random clusters is well known.

Besides, the recent Iraq war used a lot more DU than the previous one. So if you are right there should be a lot more cancers and birth defects to observe in coming years.

Quote:

It usually takes a while for scientists to evaluate the consequences of new types of weapons.It happened with the A-Bomb, it happened with Agent Orange, and it�s happening with DU ordenance.

Except that effects of uranium are well known from studies that predate widespread use of DU in armor-piercing weaponry.

Quote:

In a few years, this discussion will be purely academic!

I sure hope not.

UMoC

Loren Pechtel

More than sounds high. Unless it's somehow qualified it's *IMPOSSIBLE*.

RLV

No, sorry, I don't have any source handy. It has appeared in the news and newspapers here a few times during the last years, but I never bothered to note down the sources or keep the paper.

I believe the source was an international organization such as the ones you cite (the Red Cross come to my mind, but I'm not certain). The number I gave could also be wrong, but it certainly was shockingly high. There was also the fact of these extremely rare (and shocking, too) cases of cancer, like the 10-yo. girl with cancer in both her breasts.

Note that we are talking about the first Gulf War and Iraq. There were no land battles inside Iraq, only aerial bombings. This restricts somehow the range of toxic materials involved.
DU is used in anti-tank and other penetration shells used in these bombings. Other toxic substances could exist, certainly.

I don't think any study has been performed during these years. With good reason: with that kind of sanitary situation, there are other priorities.
And I don't think any will be performed anytime soon, "after a the situation in Iraq has stabilized and they have a civil government."

I'm not establishing a causation between DU and these cases of cancer. I'm aware of the studies contrary to that link. But the correlation exists, and no other plausible explanation has been presented. Maybe it's the DU combined with other things, I don't know. But the situation is worrisome, considering that DU shells are still being used, and in ever greater quantities.


RLV