From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Vietnam to Fallujah

[Shol'va]

Looks like I have to do everything around here :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah
Bottom of the link, under Health

In 2010 it was reported that an academic study[37] had shown "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer." since 2004.[38] In addition, the report said the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", and an 18% fall in the male birth ratio (to 850 per 1000 female births, compared to the usual 1050) was similar to that seen after the Hiroshima bombing.[38]

Citations are available to all. So it looks like there are two presently available sources as far as I can tell.

I only had time to read the first one
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf
And I went straight down to the conclusion

This study was intended to investigate the accuracy of the various reports which have been emerging from Fallujah regarding perceived increases in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population and to examine samples from the area for the presence of mutagenic substances that may explain any results. We conclude that the results confirm the reported increases in cancer and infant mortality which are alarmingly high. The remarkable reduction in the sex ratio in the cohort born one year after the fighting in 2004 identifies that year as the time of the environmental contamination. In our opinion, the magnitude of these effects make it difficult to question them on the basis of any of the hypothetical shortcomings of the study type which we have considered although these must be borne in mind. However, owing to the various constraints placed by circumstance on the methods employed, we must emphasise that the results of this study should be interpreted with those aspects in mind. Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah.

Second link is not an actual scientific study; it is a journalistic article. From it, I cite:

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation and I do believe further investigation is warranted. What I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

[Moriarty]

Looks like I have to do everything around here :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah
Bottom of the link, under Health

In 2010 it was reported that an academic study[37] had shown "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer." since 2004.[38] In addition, the report said the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", and an 18% fall in the male birth ratio (to 850 per 1000 female births, compared to the usual 1050) was similar to that seen after the Hiroshima bombing.[38]

Citations are available to all. So it looks like there are two presently available sources as far as I can tell.

I only had time to read the first one
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf
And I went straight down to the conclusion

This study was intended to investigate the accuracy of the various reports which have been emerging from Fallujah regarding perceived increases in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population and to examine samples from the area for the presence of mutagenic substances that may explain any results. We conclude that the results confirm the reported increases in cancer and infant mortality which are alarmingly high. The remarkable reduction in the sex ratio in the cohort born one year after the fighting in 2004 identifies that year as the time of the environmental contamination. In our opinion, the magnitude of these effects make it difficult to question them on the basis of any of the hypothetical shortcomings of the study type which we have considered although these must be borne in mind. However, owing to the various constraints placed by circumstance on the methods employed, we must emphasise that the results of this study should be interpreted with those aspects in mind. Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah.

Second link is not an actual scientific study; it is a journalistic article. From it, I cite:

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation and I do believe further investigation is warranted. What I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

That's the simple thing here, I never disagreed with what she had said, yet I got attacked. :P I merely pointed out that anyone/nation is capable of it so highlighting potential U.S. "errors in judgement" is relatively hypocritical. Might have just thrown out the term "Great Satan" and be done with it.

[josephpalazzo]

Tell me something, when US army bombed a surrendered Berlin and killed massive amount of people, was it trying to save Germans and prevent loss of lives again?

Absolutely not. It is a matter of record that the Allies deliberately wanted to cause as much damage as possible. However what you don't know is the rationale behind. For better or for worse, the thinking at the times was that after WW1, the vast majority of Germans did not believe that Germany had lost the war - they were fed constantly they were winning, and hardly any destruction had taken place on German soil. Hitler was of that opinion, most of the card-carrying nazi members believed so, and so other Germans. So the massive bombing that took place at the end of WW2 was exactly to send the message to the Germans that this time you will know that you have lost the war.

That was sarcasm about referring to some statement made earlier that 'Americans nuked Japan to save Japanese lives.'

However, the explanation you are making here, like the whole picture context aileron offers or the one Moar keeps parroting can't simply be a body of information that was had at the time of war to be used operated under for a goal as a toughtfully carried out military strategy.

Whether that rationale was morally right is a matter of endless debate. But that was the rationale at the times, before the actual decision was made to bomb Germany to smithereens.

This is the problem about history of wars in this scale. Most of the information that is seen as a simple direct justification is gathered in years after the war written and speculated with what ifs, compensating - completing set of backward working reasonings filling in between and they become reality with a huge literary body.

Again the rationale was not made years after the bombings were made, but before that. And that's in the public record if you care to inform yourself.

Arguing from the conclusion to justify its means and basically history WWII is the most suitable war to be manipulated, it is the source of most effective major propaganda since it happened. And this is understandable in a political level.

Perehaps that's true but irrelevant to this discussion.

Highly likely the reason was extreme fear. But that's not very fashionable to say, I guess. Forgive my bad Hollywood reference, a 'double tap'.

Fear is a motivation for many of our actions, but not very relevant to this discussion.

[Shol'va]

That's the simple thing here, I never disagreed with what she had said, yet I got attacked. :P I merely pointed out that anyone/nation is capable of it so highlighting potential U.S. "errors in judgement" is relatively hypocritical. Might have just thrown out the term "Great Satan" and be done with it.

My post was not addressed to anyone specifically, I was attempting to supplement the OP which should have had citations to begin with. Nevertheless, you and I both know it wouldn't be the first time drunkenshoe overreacted and/or misunderstood something :)

We have a saying in my language. When two people tell you that you're drunk, you go to bed.
This roughly translates to if more than one person makes an observation of a particular something, you should take a hint that they may be right.

[Moriarty]

The term "parroting" presumes talking without knowing, or just accepting what is told to you. Unless hundreds of publications and opinions, even Japanese ones were all fabricated over the course of the last 60 years, it is historical record.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The trick is distingishing fact from opinion. In the course of 60 years a lot of opinion has been tossed about. I'm not making the assumption that anyone here is any better than I am at making those distinctions.

[aileron]

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation...

Correlation?  Between what two things?  

The authors' stated intent was not trying to find a correlation.  They were trying to corroborate anecdotal reports of elevated cancers and birth defects.  Their methodology was, by their own admission, lacking in scientific rigor.  In fact it was much worst than that.  Self-reported surveys, especially when the participants can infer the reasons why they are being surveyed are pretty useless.

...and I do believe further investigation is warranted.

I agree.  These kinds of reports should be investigated.  

What I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

Lots and lots of communities worldwide claim that they have an elevated cancer rate / birth defect rate / morbidity rate from X, Y, and Z causes.  Sometimes they're right; sometimes we can't know for sure; but often times they're just flat-out wrong.  

Until there's reliable evidence of increased cancer rates / birth defect rates / morbidity (there may be, but Noam Chomsky's word for it and a profoundly flawed survey don't establish it), there's nothing to deny.

[aileron]

Most of the ones from Chomsky, as is the norm for him, are either wildly exaggerated or patently false.

Yeah, now you wrote this, I am totally convinced. Because basic intelligence suggests that I should automatically give credit to someone who has been throwing basic American propaganda at me

Pointing out easily verified mistakes in fact is propaganda?  Admitting that the US has committed atrocities and should make restitution is propaganda?  You have a very strange view of what propaganda is.

...instead of someone who has not just studied almost every aspect of what we are talking about here...

Oh, yes... Chomsky really knows what he's talking about when it comes to physics for example, such as when he claims that the weapons used in Fallujah were "highly radioactive".  That's a verifiable fact that is trivial to disprove.  

...considering he turned 85 a few months ago- and lived a difficult life...

Appeal to authority much?

But the things he says generally, esp. for USA foreign policy (I don't mean the OP article) must be very alien to any 'patriotic' ears.

Factually inaccurate or wrong is factually inaccurate or wrong.  Genetic fallacy much?

[josephpalazzo]

Perehaps that's true but irrelevant to this discussion.

And if that's 'perhaps true' then how is that irrelevant to this discussion or any discussion about history of some war that could be built some history on it; that was transformed into a collective identity of some nation and the propaganda its policy runs on?

Fear is a motivation for many of our actions, but not very relevant to this discussion.

They are not your actions. They are political decisions made by governments. You or American people had/have no power to shape or change those actions.

Fear is irrelevant to US WWII policy.

Why am I even having a conversation with you?

You don't have to have any conversation with anyone but your claim that members of this forum are parotting propaganda made up by the US government is nonsense as I have indicated to you that in the case of Germany, the message was clear and the action that followed - bombing just about any German city - was in line with that message. That was no propaganda, just a promise faithfully delivered.

Similarly, in the case of Japan, there was no propaganda. If you do any reasonable estimation, thousands of Americans would have died, and many more times that for Japanese lives. That is simple logic, not propaganda.

Yet, you keep insisting that members of this forum have succombed to American propaganda is not only nonsense but also pathetic.

[stromboli]

The article you linked does not support this position. Unfortunately, even if true it would not be surprising since Vietnamese cities have some of the most polluted air and water in the world. To date scientific studies investigating a link between Agent Orange exposure and human health effects could best be called inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects.[68] According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[69] Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, as did livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, and pigs.[70] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to contaminated Agent Orange.[71] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable and unrealistically high.[72][73]
Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.[74] In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. military personnel who had served in Vietnam.[75] The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in substandard conditions with many genetic diseases.[76]
About 28 of the former U.S. military bases in Vietnam where the herbicides were stored and loaded onto airplanes may still have high level of dioxins in the soil, posing a health threat to the surrounding communities. Extensive testing for dioxin contamination has been conducted at the former U.S. airbases in Da Nang, Phu Cat and Bien Hoa. Some of the soil and sediment on the bases have extremely high levels of dioxin requiring remediation. The Da Nang Airbase has dioxin contamination up to 350 times higher than international recommendations for action.[77][78] The contaminated soil and sediment continue to affect the citizens of Vietnam, poisoning their food chain and causing illnesses, serious skin diseases and a variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate.[74]

http://www.vva.org/veteran/1207/agent_o ... ature.html

Some 2.8 million Americans served in the Vietnam theater of operations. Three-to-six percent of Vietnam veterans' children are born with some kind of birth defect (Emory University School of Medicine reports a 3-4 percent birth-defect rate among the general population). An impressive body of scientific evidence points to increases in birth defects and developmental problems in the children of Vietnam veterans and others exposed to dioxin-like chemicals.

Preponderance of evidence. You may write this off as pollution or whatever, but considering that there is a comparable correlation between both US soldiers children showing birth defects and a high rate of cancers among veterans, and then to say that the same situation in Vietnam is different, does not meet the apparent facts. Regardless of denial by the US, it is a fact Dioxin is found not only on bases but all over the country, and to date the US has first disputed the "findings" of others, and done a paltry job of cleanup at best. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Chomsky either, but there is more than enough reason to believe that Agent Orange is the cause of these birth defects.

[Moriarty]

I just hope DS doesn't take debate personal or think I don't <3 her~ Debate is good for the soul~

[Shol'va]

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation...

Correlation?  Between what two things?  

Correlation between the reported drastic increase in those issues listed and military action. But it want to underline the fact that I was pointing out they said correlation, NOT causation. Essentially I was pointing out they did not say they found evidence of causation

[Shol'va]

I stated that the only reason US nuked Japan is because they managed to launch a sneak attack on US soil and that is the simplest logical truth

This follows after the historical facts already presented by others here. Yes, it was a dick swinging action by US.
*facepalm*

This^ is simple, realistic logic. Not "We had to nuke them, because we had to save the world". That is not logic. That is propaganda and it is bullshit.

... because this follows from a string of unsupported assertions. I realize this'll never get through since I'm on her ignore list, nevertheless I will call out said unsupported assertions for the audience

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I mean, I had two daughters about—when they were about the age of your daughter, they would come home from school telling us how in school they were taught to hide under desks in case there was a nuclear war.

Chomsky, you're an idiot. You know very well that the desk maneuver was to protect the children from flying glass, not to protect them from all aspects of a nuclear blast. This is why I don't respect you even a little bit.

[aileron]

Preponderance of evidence.

Wikipedia and an article on VVA aren't exactly what I look for in terms of scientific evidence.  

You may write this off as pollution or whatever, but considering that there is a comparable correlation between both US soldiers children showing birth defects...

The scientific papers I read refer to "weak statistical associations."  I've not seen one with a stronger association.  That means a relative risk of 0.2 to 0.5.  Scientific standards consider a relative risk less than 3.0 suspect.  The scientific standard is to ignore statistical associations between 0.2 and 2.0 because they are so easily caused by statistical noise.  So a weak statistical association doesn't even raise 1/4 of the way to the level that science considers all too easily statistical noise.  It's a nice way of saying we don't know.

This doesn't mean Agent Orange exposure isn't still causing health problems.  What it means is that for now science can't confirm that it's probable.  

What I will say is this:  There's a clear disparity between how American and Vietnamese exposed to Agent Orange have been treated.  Even though science can't confirm if there's a risk of long-term health effects, the US government provides coverage for certain health issues that could possibly be from Agent Orange exposure.  Of course, they will only do this for Americans who were exposed, not Vietnamese who were exposed.