Is that stuff that JTT says about America true?

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote;

Quote:

Nonsense right up there with we never land on the moon or Obama is not a US citizen.

First I heard of it, Bill. Check out the following links. All are saying the same thing.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=21049

Quote:

US enriched uranium weapons caused Fallujah cancer, study finds

22-10-2011

London, (IRNA): The cause of congenital anomaly and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq, has been identified as Enriched Uranium from novel weapons systems deployed by the US.

A new study found that both in the hair of the parents and in the environmental samples in the Iraqi city, the ratio of isotopes was significantly low, implying the presence of man-made Enriched Uranium and not Depleted Uranium as previously thought.

With the high level dating back to 2005, it concludes that a uranium based weapon of some type was employed by the US in its notorious in Battle of Fallujah.

“What we have found makes it perfectly clear that a new generation of Uranium based weapons exists, is being employed in all modern battlefields,” said Professor Chris Busby, one of the authors of the joint UK-Iraq report.

Busby said the result has been “shocking increases in cancer and congenital illness in innocent civilians and soldiers alike, and is the main cause of the high levels of cancer and congenital disease,”

Remarkably high levels of congenital anomaly at birth, together with high cancer rates in Fallujah, Iraq, were previously found in an earlier joint UK-Iraqi epidemiological study published in the International Journal of Environment and Public Health in July 2010.

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3685

Quote:

REGINA—Radioactive armaments used by the US army in Iraq have been highlighted in a recent study as a probable cause for the region's increase in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer. Unavoidably, some of the uranium that made these weapons radioactive came from Saskatchewan.

"Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009," a report in the July 2010 issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, compared data gathered in Fallujah to data from the Middle East Cancer Registry. The infant death rate in Fallujah during the period of study (2005-2009) was found to be four times the rate in Egypt and Jordan and nine times the rate in Kuwait. Furthermore, the death rate in Fallujah has increased in recent years; and “the results for cancer show some alarming rates in the five-year period.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/302052

Quote:

Authors of the study, which focused on the genetic health of Fallujah, found deformities in the babies are almost 11 times higher than average rates. Those deformities spiked in the first half of 2010, the Guardian notes.
Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, an environmental toxicologist, said: “We suspect that the population is chronically exposed to an environmental agent. We don’t know what that environmental factor is, but we are doing more tests to find out,” according to the Guardian.
The new study names metals as being a potential source of contamination in Fallujah, especially affecting pregnant mothers. “Metals are involved in regulating genome stability,” the study states. It added: “As environmental effectors, metals are potentially good candidates to cause birth defects,” the Guardian reported.
Long an issue of denial, or no response, by the US military, uranium-laced weapons were used extensively in the two battles of Fallujah, in April and yet again in November 2004. It does, however, acknowledge the controversial use of white phosphorous during the assaults.

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.

1 Reply

I don't have a dog in this fight, but i thought i'd point out that not a single one of your sources here mention depleted uranium. In fact, the first one says it was not depleted uranium, as previously thought, but enriched uranium, which is the opposite of depleted uranium. The second sources says radioactive armaments, and depleted uranium is not radioactive. Your third source says they don't know what the environmental factor is. The last source doesn't list a suspect source, other than possible ionizing radiation--once again, that's not a description of depleted uranium.

So, essentially, you've taken wing from a discussion about depleted uranium to allege some sinister other source for these cancers, but one which you have been unable to identify. I don't have a problem with blowing the whistle on something like this, but i do have a problem with changing the terms of a debate in the middle of the debate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

On page 20 of this thread, my last post was of the same ilk.

There's been no denying the deformities, and DU was the prime suspect, Setanta. New evidence has now emerged.

Should I have started a new thread, you think?

1 Reply

@Builder,

No, it's an appropriate part of this discussion. The problem is, the four sources you've just quoted aren't talking about depleted uranium, and the first source points out that depleted uranium is not the source of the cancers reported. No one disputes that the United States used depleted uranium, both in the armor of its AFVs and in the APCR rounds fired off at enemy AFVs. But what you've just posted is not talking about depleted uranium, and if you intend to allege that the United States knowingly, but secretly used weapons containing radio-active uranium, you assume a burden of proof.

The main problem, though, is that you've gone hog-wild from a discusison of depleted uranium to these reports, and from your last resonse, it appears that you want to link these to depleted uranium. That's either dull-witted or dishonest.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

So you're basically saying that as new information comes to hand, it should be shelved, rather than added to the debate?

To not do so is dishonest and/or dull-witted. It can't be both, you realise?

I did also say that this information is new to me. It surprises me. It would probably also surprise those who are firing these new weapons.

But, you don't have a "dog in this fight", so back to the DU for you? Or are you going to digest this new information, and put a "dog" in the fight?

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

So you're basically saying that as new information comes to hand, it should be shelved, rather than added to the debate?

To not do so is dishonest and/or dull-witted. It can't be both, you realise?

Jesus fuckin' Christ . . . strawman much? No, i've said nothing of the kind. However, in your last post, you implicated depleted uranium on the basis of reports, none of which mention depleted uranium, except for the the one which denies that depleted uranium is the cause.

Quote:

I did also say that this information is new to me. It surprises me. It would probably also surprise those who are firing these new weapons.

But, you don't have a "dog in this fight", so back to the DU for you? Or are you going to digest this new information, and put a "dog" in the fight?

That's right, i don't have a dog in this fight. I do have an interest in honesty, and i see precious little of it coming from you. Your sources, for example, haven't identified a weapon as a source for the contamination which they infer, yet you are talking about ". . . firing these new weapons." Which new weapons would those be? That's what i meant about a burden of proof.

You're also trying to have it both ways. In the post you made prior to this one, you attempted to implicate depleted uranium. Caught and charged on that example of dishonesty, you try to robe yourself in moral superiority by falsely alleging that i want to "shelve" new information.

You're all over the road. It's hardly worth talking to someone who is so dishonest, and while making phony moral appeals, and who is, apparently, so confused about managing a rhetorical exchange.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

There is no mention of DU in the post where I linked to reports of enhanced uranium. Check your comprehension skills, and get back to me. Dullard.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

There is no mention of DU in the post where I linked to reports of enhanced uranium. Check your comprehension skills, and get back to me. Dullard.

Liar . . .

Builder's previous source wrote:

A new study found that both in the hair of the parents and in the environmental samples in the Iraqi city, the ratio of isotopes was significantly low, implying the presence of man-made Enriched Uranium and not Depleted Uranium as previously thought.

More significantly . . .

In his very next post, Builder wrote:

On page 20 of this thread, my last post was of the same ilk.

There's been no denying the deformities, and DU was the prime suspect, Setanta. New evidence has now emerged.

Should I have started a new thread, you think?

So don't call me a dullard, ****-wit.

Why don't you get back to me when you've improved your reading comprehension skills, and resolved to eschew dishonesty and stop lying.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Fixated much lately?

Get a new hobby.

Hanging off my arse is getting lame.

1 Reply

@Builder,

New information?

This had the same kind of format as the moon landing is a hoax internet nonsenses.

Wild claims with no backing and theories pull out of someone rear end to explains claims facts that does not exist.

Secret weapons also pull out of someone asshole where there is no indication that such a weapon exist or had a reason to exist.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Posting bullshit and then lying about it is what's lame around here. I see you have no defense for your bullshit claims. No surprise there.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Says he who has "no dog in this fight".

I've cut you a few times now setanta.

Perhaps you'd like to join this discussion?

Or perform your usual stance of barking from
behind your fence? Your choice.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Cut me? You're hilarious. You attempted to link depleted uranium to allegations of increased cancer rates and birth defects, while your own source stated clearly that what it alleged was not related to depleted uranium. You're the one who was "cut," and they were self-inflicted wounds. You were lying, you were caught, and you can't deal with it. You've abandonded trying to support your claims, because your sources don't support your claim.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not denying that the United States government is culpable in Iraq. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, publicly, at this site, before the invasion took place. I have always maintained that the invasion was illegal, and that it's alleged justifications were just a cover for the implementation of the plan laid out by the Project for a New American Century at least as early as 1997, and probably formulated long before that.

That, however, is not a basis for making wild accusations which cannot be substantiated. I'm not into hysteria, as you appear to be. You really should put up or shut up. If you make claims about the dangers of depleted uranium, but can't substantiate your claims, you get what you deserve when you get slapped down for peddling your hysteria.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Aaaah, and the spittle starts flying.

Nice to see that despite the doom and gloom, you're still in fine form, Setanta.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Make all the silly attempts to insult me that you want, it won't change that you've made a claim which you can't support, and that in that circumstance, your only resort is snotty personal remarks. You're pathetic, Dullard.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

BillRM wrote;

Quote:
Nonsense right up there with we never land on the moon or Obama is not a US citizen.

First I heard of it, Bill. Check out the following links. All are saying the same thing.http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=21049

Quote:
US enriched uranium weapons caused Fallujah cancer, study finds

22-10-2011

London, (IRNA): The cause of congenital anomaly and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq, has been identified as Enriched Uranium from novel weapons systems deployed by the US.

A new study found that both in the hair of the parents and in the environmental samples in the Iraqi city, the ratio of isotopes was significantly low, implying the presence of man-made Enriched Uranium and not Depleted Uranium as previously thought.

if all of your references are saying (as you suggest) the same thing, then you need to find other sources to support your claims re depleted uranium

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Was always looking for reasons for the proven increase in deformities and abnormalities, and it would appear that the reason has now been found.

Obfuscation is rather pointless now that rationale has been established.

Nice pile-on, btw.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

You needn't have wasted your time. I've already pointed that out to him, but he is dedicated to invincible ignorance.

1 Reply

@Builder,

I tend toward terrier v pile-on.

~~~~

You didn't prove the point you were attempting to make re depleted uranium.

There are good, reliable sources out there that can help you make the point about the health risks associated with depleted uranium. For some reason you haven't used them.

Give it another try.

I recommend WHO, the Health Canada website, and the website of the National Institute of Health. It's all about good key-wording.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

What did you "point out" to me Set?

The conversation shifted from DU to EU and you missed the bus, right?

Should there have been a chapter break or some kind of Setanta-recognised shift in the paradigm so you didn't get left behind in the debate?

By your own admission you didn't have a "dog in the fight", but the reality is, you're a lurker and stalker, and you've got nothing better to do than to stalk this Aussie bloke, because I've handed you your own arse (that's how we spell it in English, Set) several times on this board.

Get over yourself. I found new information regarding an ongoing debate, and added it in as I found it. WTF that has to do with you, sitting on the sidelines, attempting to obfuscate the obvious, is beyond the pale.

Stick to knitting. Watch for dropped stitches. *winks*

1 Reply

Is that stuff that JTT says about America true?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know