Iraqi Birth Defects Worse Than Hiroshima

DU

reply to post by intrptr

During a workshop on the project in February, Dr Hawrami Minister of Health of the Kurdistan Regional Government said: “There is a need for a comprehensive programme to learn more about birth defects in Iraq that could shed light on the incidence of various conditions, such as congenital heart defects and neurological defects, in different geographic areas over time in Iraq.”

ippychix-banuraniumweapons.blogspot.com...

As I said a statistical study is needed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage

Big difference between the weapons deployed in Hiroshima and Fallujah. The bomb in Hiroshima was one weapon, exploded above ground, the fallout carried aloft thousands of feet and drifted downwind.

Hundreds of tons of depleted Uranium penetrators were employed in Fallujah. The nature of the kinetic energy tips of the rounds from machine gun ammo to tank cannon rounds is to fragment into pieces as fine as dust. Carried short distances on the wind it spreads around on the ground local to the action where it was employed.

Sorted articles

RT

reply to post by intrptr

Big difference between the weapons deployed in Hiroshima and Fallujah. The bomb in Hiroshima was one weapon, exploded above ground, the fallout carried aloft thousands of feet and drifted downwind.

I understand that. The point was that a comparison to Hiroshima was pointless alarmism.

The point was also that without a statistical study it can't be established that the birth defects seen are outside of a normal range of incidence, much less if they are due to DU.

I am not making a statement about the use of DU. I am making a statement about coming to premature assumptions about a situation. I am making a statement about using sensationalistic photographs to induce others to come to premature conclusions.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Witness2008

 

Every one of us is allowing our military complex to commit these atrocities

It seems it is difficult to stop.. I remember seeing some of the biggest protests London has every seen. The antiwar sentiment was strong. This did not stop the war. It feels like this is not a democracy but a dictatorship. They found no weapons of mass destruction. That is like oops we went to war by accident and no one is held accountable for this.. It sucks..

We, the US and our buddy's, are the weapon of mass destruction. Depleted Uranium never goes away. The Military is the biggest generator of toxic contamination in the world. They are exempt from all environmental laws (not that any law would stop them).

Hey but we are safe from terrorists. Anything is worth that right, bankruptcy, early death, dead and dying children - yes - we must be safe from THEM.

reply to post by Phage

Got it. Thanks.

Found one interesting study...

Iraq is suffering from depleted uranium (DU) pollution in many regions and the effects of this may harm public health through poisoning and increased incidence of various cancers and birth defects. DU is a known carcinogenic agent. About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer, Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars.

Contamination sources range from military munitions used in conflicts from 1991 to 2003, as well as from military research and weapons testing. These pollution pathways may have serious impacts on the regions food chains and subsequently on human health across Iraq: largely through plant uptake into edible food crops. Soil contaminated with uranium poses a long-term radiation hazard to human health through
exposure via the food chain and other pathways

One of the epidemiological studies at Al-Basra, College of Medicine Fac-ulty (1995), found a correlation between DU radioactive contamination and the increase of incidence rates of malignancies in Basra. The studies clearly identi-fied a geographical correlation between DU radiological contamination and an increase of DU related diseases.
In 2004, Aladin Alwan, the former Minister of Health, indicated that the average annual numbers of cancer cases reported between 1995 -1997 were between 8000 and 9000. This rate rose to nearly 11,000 in 2000; most cases were detected at an advanced stage during this period (Alwan 2004). Yaqoub et al. 1998 and Yaqoub et al. 2002 analysed recorded cases of malignant diseases among children under 15years of age in Basra during the period 1990–1997.
This analysis reported a rise of 60% in children's leukaemia from 1990 to 1997. Additionally, a 120% increase in all malignant cases among children under the age of 15 was registered during the same period. The study also confirms the transfer of age distribution of leukaemia cases in 5-year-old children up to 13% in 1990 and 41% of the total cases in 1997, which shows a threefold increase in the registered cases of congenital malformations in 1998 compared to 1990.
Congenital heart diseases, chromosomal aberrations and multiple malformations all indicate exposure to the teratogenic environmental factor, and these studies indicated that there was a rise of about 160% in the reported cases of uterine cancer in 1997 compared to 1990, and an increase of 143% in thyroid cancer cases during 1997 when compared to the 1990 records. Furthermore, in 1997 a 102% increase in breast cancer was recorded, together with an 82% increase in lymphomas, compared to 1990

Must keep in mind, there may be significantly more..

Before getting into the issue of the statistics of cancer and birth deformities in Iraq compiled by many researchers, we must refer the following: (i) disparities between studies, some of which attributed the large numbers of birth defects and cancers to the effects of the two conflicts in 1991 and 2003, whilst other studies sought to explain the increases by way of the increasing population (as opposed to DU contamination); (ii) the actual number of birth deformities and deaths may be inaccurate – there may be significantly more, due to both poor hospital administration (although almost 70% of births took place outside hospitals) and cases of congenital malformations not being recorded officially (this due to social awkwardness, as families seek to ‘hush up’ such things and protect their reputations); (iii) these statistics are recorded only within the city centre hospitals, and there is a lack of data from rural health centres; (iv) cancer figures may be inaccurate due to misdiagnosis, or patients being treated outside of the region.
www.tandfonline.com...

They claim the gulf wars left heaps of DU in Iraq, that childhood cancers are 10 times higher in Iraq than in other industrial countries, and that the childhood cancers were five times more frequent after the wars than before.

This makes me rage, not just angry. Poor babies =(

It looks like the WMDs have been found -- when the Westerners used them against the Iraqis.

Originally posted by Phage
If there were one confirmed birth defect due to radiation in Iraq it would be worse than Hiroshima. Because at Hiroshima there were none.

No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. During that period, 76,626 newborn infants were examined by ABCC physicians.

www.rerf.jp...

Birth defects happen with or without radiation. Horrifying pictures of them does not demonstrate that they were caused by radiation. Statistical evidence showing a higher rate of birth defects might.

edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The study you cite used data starting in 1948 -- three years after the attacks. What about births in the first three years after the attacks? Moreover, it has been well documented that the US squelched much of the research that came out about survivors of the atomic bombings in order to avoid public resistance to US nuclear policies. It also fed false information to journalists who then wrote stories on the matter, using a a pro-US, pro-nuclear weapons spin. One such journalist got a Pulitzer for thus false propaganda.

In addition, with respect to the birth defects and survival rate of newborns in Iraq, the numbers have risen drastically from the pre-war norm -- by a factor of 10 or more.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

The study you cite used data starting in 1948 -- three years after the attacks. What about births in the first three years after the attacks?

Well I suppose they had their hands full. How old are the babies in the pictures we've been shown?

Moreover, it has been well documented that the US squelched much of the research that came out about survivors of the atomic bombings in order to avoid public resistance to US nuclear policies.

Perhaps, but you're looking at a study by Japanese physicians and scientists.

In addition, with respect to the birth defects and survival rate of newborns in Iraq, the numbers have risen drastically from the pre-war norm -- by a factor of 10 or more.

And it will take some in depth study to determine the reasons for that. Pre-war Iraq was a different place than it was during and after the war. A lot of factors come into play. Is prenatal care as good as it was before the war?

Again, I realize I have to stress this in a place like ATS. I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm just saying that jumping to conclusions about the cause(s) of the problem really doesn't help matters. I also realize that on ATS saying something like that is just pissing into the wind.

reply to post by purplemer


This is horrible. It would be good to see something done about this.. Those poor babies did not deserve to be born with such horrendous deformities. What right does the West think it has to go into a country and knowingly cause such atrocities.

It makes me very sad that I live in a society where things like this happen because our actions. It is also a crime that this is not covered in the mainstream media. Most peeps in the West do not have a clue what is going on..

Great spot for this and the MSM should be over this like a rash.

Glad to see it has made Al Jazeera which actually has some clout in the media and hopefully some of the others will repeat this story. The actual Al Jazeera story does link to the Guardian and the independent newspapers (UK) so hopefully this should cause more stink.

Haha, apparently some people never get tired of grasping at straws (hey, they have a reputation to defend, after all). The facts speak for themselves here, and the attitudes of the soldiers are the worst imho... deny responsibility, even as your hand is the one that physically drops the bomb... keep killing, keep siding with the tyrants... just remember, we won't forget this.

"oh but we liberated them" "Saddam was evil and had to go"

It's disgusting what was done just by repeating those two lines.
Over 1 million Iraqi's dead, many more poisoned and disfigured, generations to come doomed, infrastructure demolished, sectarian violence as bad if not worse than ever

Just an absolute disgrace.

reply to post by purplemer


Why are you comparing figures against Hiroshima, when there was no increase in birth defects as a result of the radiation?

reply to post by Humanity4Ever


Yep, and think about the other war crimes that have be committed that have gone unseen. I believe its higher than anyone could believe.

reply to post by Nevertheless

Even now, after over half a century later, many aftereffects remain: leukemia, A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars.

atomicbombmuseum.org...

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Even now, after over half a century later, many aftereffects remain: leukemia, A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars.

atomicbombmuseum.org...

Nowhere on the site does it state that this is the case.
They write:

Genetic surveys have not yielded positive evidence of genetic hazards due to atomic bomb radiation.

Here's some numbers:
Actual statistics

This isn't atrocious because we're the good guys. War crimes? Pshaw!

It will only matter if troops or someone important ends up being a victim......eff foreign kids.. we drop bombs on them anyways