The pics of deformed babies presented as coming from a Dr Gunther have been propogated widely on the net.
The Doc claims birth defects have risen after the Gulf wars. The Dr also claims that DU caused them.
Assuming the good Dr and his images are genuine I have to say i think he has made a classic scientific blunder here. How can he know that DU is the cause of an increase in the rate of deformities? In a war zone there are multitudes of possible causes - one of the most obvious would be poor maternal nutrition (and vitamin D deficiency of women too scared to go outside!), but I imagine the other cadidate causes would be legion.
A UN group went to Kosovo to investigate claims that DU had caused birth defects there and found no evidence that it had. People tend to focus on DU because it *sounds* dangerous but many other more apparently mundane things are in reality more dangerous. Many things in a war zone could lead to birth defects and the focus on DU may be preventing us from finding out what the actual causes are.
Horrible birth deformities are more common even in healthy populations than most people realise - pictures of deformed babies are evidence of nothing.
Statistical evidence of increased birth defects is a cause for concern but it says nothing about cause of the defects. The Dr in question (if he did make the claim about DU as reported) has made a huge leap of faith - you cannot make such a statement (eg that DU causes defects) without eliminating other potential causes, of which there are many possibilties.
PeakOil is You
Depleted uranium slugfest
by killJOY » Sat 14 May 2005, 07:42:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know what I mean, I wont get into an argument of semantics for your personal amusement
Well, no I don't know what you mean, but if you want to psychoanalyze me, that's your business, of course.
People often fight to the death for things that have no meaning, including terms like "liberal media."
I've already told you: I have not be in touch with mainstream(liberal?) media for twenty years. All of them--Dems and Repubs--are propagandists for corporations.
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
-
killJOY - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: ^NNE^
by Specop_007 » Sat 14 May 2005, 07:55:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know what I mean, I wont get into an argument of semantics for your personal amusement
Well, no I don't know what you mean, but if you want to psychoanalyze me, that's your business, of course.People often fight to the death for things that have no meaning, including terms like "liberal media."
I've already told you: I have not be in touch with mainstream(liberal?) media for twenty years. All of them--Dems and Repubs--are propagandists for corporations.
Ok, I thought we were being facetious on some weird level. To bring up the post again......
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')rust me Killjoy, in terms of weapons the media is HIGHLY liberal. In their eyes, EVERYTHING is extremely dangerous and should be banned.
I don't know exactly what those loose terms mean--"liberal", "media," so a huge block like "liberalmedia" escapes me.
May I assume the "liberalmedia" taught you this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he Geneva Convention doesnt apply to us when fighting terrorists, but we've been through that one.
I also assume that "liberals" wanting "everything" banned as "extremely dangerous" includes television? If not, then damn them. Television is a "weapon," too, a weapon of mass deception:"Peak Oil? Ohhhh, look at Michael Jackson's nose! It's growing!"
The "liberalmedia" must be just saturated with depleted uranium coverage, I assume, since you keeping blaming it for the likes of Leuren Moret?
By "liberal media" (in terms of weapons, not TV's) I mean exactly that. Theres been a huge gun ban movement since around the 80's and the only way the liberals (And along those lines, such groups as Brady Campaign) could win was to portray guns in the worst light possible. Its another appeal to our emotions and not our logic.
A perfect example is an Assault Weapons Ban. The previous ban which recently expired didnt really BAN assault rifles. It only banned certain features. In fact, my current post-ban Bushmaster is about 2 parts away from a Pre-Ban configuration. It banned such things as collapsable stocks and bayonet lugs. But, Joe Average thought it banned the whole damn gun. "No more AK-47's on our streets!" he yells, declaring the streets safer for all!
Bullshit.
All those guns were still 100% completely available, just in a slightly different configuration. So what happens when the ban comes around for re-vote or expiration? Appeal to emotions again. Rampant talk by the media about how are streets would be flooded with Uzi's and AK-47's. These guns were already available! But rather then discuss it on a logical level, the liberal media decided to throw as much mud and disinformation as possible at Joe Average and create an emotional repsonse based on fear.
I would be willing to bet the same thing is happening with DU, only on a slightly different level. Rather then admit DU does have its uses and drawbacks, the liberal media posts pictures of horrid deformations and uses scare tactics to create a negative emotional reaction to the use of DU. One prime, glaring example is posting pictures of deformities that are most certainly not caused by, or at the very least isolated to, the use of depleted munitions.
A perfect example of the disinformation smear campaign against the use of DU munitions was posted by our very own Oils.
Click
Beautiful use of disinformation. Absolutely NO proof or references ANYWHERE. Simply statistics pulled right out of thin air and horrid pictures of birth defects.
Ultimate goal? Create an emotional reaction, completely bypassing any form of logic.
Forgot to add....
The Geneva Convention doesnt apply because we're not fighting a standing army or the conscript army of a nation. The Geneva Convention was never written to cover such warfare as counter terrorism. In fact, if you look the term "insurgent" isnt used once anywhere in the GC, and the term "terrorism" is only used once to describe treatment of prisoners.
And on a simpler note... "Do unto them as...." Hey, you cut off the heads of our prisoners, dont expect cable Tv and hot baths for yours.
As to Leuren Moret, as I said earlier shes something of a rogue scientist. While highly educated, she seems to be a minority voice and her track record leaves me with a few questions. Having walked out on a job in the past (By her own admittance even) I have to question how much she cares about science vs doing what she feels is the "right" thing.
Last edited by Specop_007 on Sat 14 May 2005, 08:04:10, edited 1 time in total.
