Holocaust In Iraq
You can be thankful you didn't have the misfortune of being born in Iraq so you could be used for target practice and have Depleted Uranium dropped onto your head. We will never be able to repair the damage we've done already. Over 1 million civilian deaths - and that's not taking into account those who died from lack of food, medicine, ect. caused by the war. An unconstitutional war fought against people who didn't do anything to you and who's deaths make you no safer. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who promises to end the war. If you vote for anyone else your allowing the death to continue.
Excerpt:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's flirtation with those who deny the reality of the Nazi genocide has rightly been met with disgust. But another holocaust denial is taking place with little notice: the holocaust in Iraq. The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.
This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.
The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.
Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.
The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by MOS— 2007/11/23 @ 11:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Damjan— 2007/11/24 @ 02:07 AM — (Reply)
We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 09:48 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Damjan— 2007/11/24 @ 12:44 PM — (Reply)
perhaps an education is due
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/11/24 @ 01:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by MOS— 2007/11/24 @ 06:58 PM — (Reply)
Who got paid off at WHO to come up with different findings than everyone else in the world?
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 02:44 PM — (Reply)
WHO says DU didn't effect me. I must be my imagination.
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 02:48 PM — (Reply)
Are we all crazy? Or war crime victims??
Do we make you feel safer?
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 02:56 PM — (Reply)
WHO 'suppressed' scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq?
"There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed."
Rob Edwards
Sunday Herald (UK)
February 22, 2004
Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf War pose long-term health risk
An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq's civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret. The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.
Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year's war, and to clean up afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.
"Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population," Baverstock told the Sunday Herald.
"There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed."
Baverstock was the WHO's top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government's newly formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management.
While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant . Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more powerful pro-nuclear UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn't like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power," he said. "That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq."
These allegations, however, are dismissed as "totally unfounded" by WHO. "The IAEA role was very minor," said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. "The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of inter national experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium," he added.
Baverstock's study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald, pointed out that Iraq's arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that, when inside the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant tumours.
The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as "the bystander effect". This undermines the stability of the body's genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses.
In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.
"The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to create a ‘cocktail effect' that further increases the risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation," he said.
Baverstock's anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. "It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that," he said.
UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a lot more.
Haavisto's greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the ministry of planning building in Baghdad.
He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as scrap in Iraq. "It could end up in a fork or a knife," he warned.
"It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong."
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
End the War!!
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/24 @ 05:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/24 @ 10:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2007/11/25 @ 10:04 AM — (Reply)
Well EB, we wont forget it, but i must inform you that you got wrong and false pictures.....u should post a picture of vatica, rockafellers, bush. dinasty, and europian blue blood...aand u r right elmer..we wont forget
Comment by Damjan— 2007/11/25 @ 02:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2007/11/25 @ 10:02 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 09:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/11/25 @ 10:15 AM — (Reply)
from the WHO
About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.
The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.
Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.
I suggest you go right to the source, which is what I did. When I was in the Navy we used DU as a shield against other types of radiation (beta and gamma isotopes).
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/11/25 @ 10:28 AM — (Reply)
I don't know, Elmer. Seems pretty obvious.
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 01:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/11/25 @ 01:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/11/25 @ 01:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 03:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/11/25 @ 04:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/11/25 @ 02:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 03:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/25 @ 04:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/11/25 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
How come no on has addressed Barry G.'s point:
"Just out of curiosity, where does Colin Powell fit in? Today, Powell is respected as Americans as a truth teller and has not changed his opinion. He says the same thing as the so called neo cons yet is respected for his integrity. Why is that? It seem contradictory to my simple mind."
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/24 @ 10:26 PM
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/11/25 @ 06:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/11/25 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)