November 8, 200322 yr http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8C...BBDF9E085C1.htm Iraq's real WMD crime By Lawrence Smallman in Baghdad Thursday 30 October 2003, 5:31 Makka Time, 2:31 GMT There are weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq and they were used this year. Iraqi children continue to find them every day. They have ruined the lives of just under 300,000 people during the last decade - and numbers will increase. The reason is simple. Two hundred tonnes of radioactive material were fired by invading US forces into buildings, homes, streets and gardens all over Baghdad. The material in question is depleted uranium (DU). Left over after natural uranium has been enriched, DU is 1.7 times denser than lead -?effective in penetrating armoured objects such as tanks. After a DU-coated shell strikes, it goes straight through before exploding into a burning vapour which turns to dust. "Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years ? that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism," says Dr Ahmad Hardan. As a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Dr Hardan is the man who documented the effects of depleted uranium in Iraq between 1991 and 2002. But this year's invasion and occupation has doubled his workload. Terrible history repeated "American forces admit to using over 300 tonnes of depleted uranium weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. "This has caused a health crisis that has affected almost a third of a million people" Dr Ahmad Hardan, scientific adviser to the World Health Organisation "This has caused a health crisis that has affected almost a third of a million people. As if that was not enough, America went on and used 200 tonnes more in Baghdad alone this April. I don't know about other parts of Iraq, it will take me years to document that." Hardan is particularly angry because he says there is no need for this type of weapon ? US conventional weapons are quite capable of destroying tanks and buildings. "In Basra, it took us two years to obtain conclusive proof of what DU does, but we now know what to look for and the results are terrifying." Leukaemia has already become the most common type of cancer in Iraq among all age groups, but is most prevalent in the under-15 category. It has increased way above the percentage of population growth in every single province of Iraq without exception. Women as young as 35 are developing breast cancer. Sterility among men has increased tenfold. Barely human But by far the most devastating effect is on unborn children. Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved foetuses ? barely human in appearance. There is no doubt that DU is to blame. "All children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that DU has disastrous consequences." Not only are there 200 tonnes of uranium lying around in Baghdad, the containers which carried the ammunition were discarded. For months afterwards, many used them to carry water ? others used them to sell milk publicly. It is already too late to reverse the effects. After his experience in Basra, Hardan says that within the next two years he expects to see significant rises in congenital cataracts, anopthalmia, microphthalmia, corneal opacities and coloboma of the iris ? and that is?just in people?s eyes. Add to this foetal deformities, sterility in both sexes, an increase in miscarriages and premature births, congenital malformations, additional abnormal organs, hydrocephaly, anencephaly and delayed growth. Soaring cancer rates "I had hoped the lessons of using DU would have been learnt ? especially as it is affecting American and British troops stationed in Iraq as we speak, they are not immune to its effects either." If the experience of Basra is played out in the rest of the country, Iraq is looking at an increase of?more than?300% in all types of cancer over the next decade. The signs are already here in Baghdad - the effects are starting to be seen. Every form of cancer has jumped up at least 10% with the exception of bone tumours and skin cancer, which have only risen 2.6% and 9.3% respectively. Another tragic outcome is the delayed growth of children. Skeletal age comparisons between boys from southern Iraq and boys from Michigan show Iraqi males are 26 months behind in their development by the time they are 12-years-old and girls are almost half a year behind. "The effects of ionising radiation on growth and development are especially significant in the prenatal child", adds Dr Hardan. "Embryonic development is especially affected." Action needed Those who have seen the effects of DU hope the US and its allies will never use these weapons again ? but it seems no such decision is likely in the foreseeable future. "I arranged for a delegation from Japan's Hiroshima hospital to come and share their expertise in the radiological related diseases we are likely to face over time,? says Hardan. ?The delegation told me the Americans had objected and they had decided not to come. "Similarly, a world famous German cancer specialist agreed to come, only to be told later that he would not be given permission to enter Iraq." Moreover, Hardan believes the authorities need to produce precise information about what was used and where, and there needs to be a clean-up operation and centres for specialist cancer treatment and radiation-related illnesses. Iraq only has two hospitals that specialise in DU-related illnesses, one in Basra and one in Mawsil ? this needs to change and soon. "I'm fed up of delegations coming and weeping as I show them children dying before their eyes. I want action and not emotion. The crime has been committed and documented ? but we must act now to save our children's future."
November 8, 200322 yr LOL... i love al-jazeera. here's an interesting trick you can do to figure out which news sources are accurate. find a popular news article (ap or reuters) that is political in nature (e.g. CBS cancels the Reagens). then go to all the major news sites and skim over their modifications of a common AP/reuters template (e.g. cnn.com, foxnews.com, abcnews.com, msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, herald.com, nytimes.com, latimes.com). it takes a little bit of time to open them all at once but its amusing to geeks like me who prefer their news neutral. foxnews (obviously) is heavily republican. it surprised me to find that cnn was HEAVILY democrat(ic). latimes is pretty democrat, and yadda yadda, you get the gist. oh yeah, and al-jazeera occasionally runs common news agency articles, too. their modifications are hysterical.
November 8, 200322 yr it surprised me to find that cnn was HEAVILY democrat(ic) And why did this surprise you? I've known this since I knew what a Republican and a Demoract was.
November 8, 200322 yr it surprised me to find that cnn was HEAVILY democrat(ic) And why did this surprise you? I've known this since I knew what a Republican and a Demoract was. well, i don't have cable TV, so i guess i never got the luxury of watching my man wolf spin the spin.
November 8, 200322 yr the 3 major american tv news channels, in rankings from most biased to least biased: 1. MSNBC 2. CNN 3. FOX NEWS
November 8, 200322 yr CNN is probably the least biased of all the news sources :wow :wow :wow :wow :wow You are on crack
November 8, 200322 yr CNN is the MOST biased of the three, by far. The problem is that when there are reports done on this by other so called "unbiased" members of the media, they put FOX News on top. This, however, is based on everyone else being liberal and FOX News being more conservative, rather than FOX News really being more biased. FOX News has a liberal on in prime time. Does CNN has a conservative on in primetime?
November 8, 200322 yr who owns CNN? Who owns MSNBC? The corporations, ran by billionaires, which are 99.9% right wing.
November 8, 200322 yr who owns CNN? Who owns MSNBC? The corporations, ran by billionaires, which are 99.9% right wing. OMFG! Do you know who owns CNN? Ted Turner! The man has lunch with Fidel Castro! He is the biggest communist this side of Karl Marx. MSNBC is owned by *NEWSFLASH* NBC. Another left wing media giant. Next Stupid arguement from you please.
November 8, 200322 yr Oh, and for the record, you should have used "run" instead of "ran". It is present tense, not past.
November 9, 200322 yr who owns CNN? Who owns MSNBC? The corporations, ran by billionaires, which are 99.9% right wing. OMFG! Do you know who owns CNN? Ted Turner! The man has lunch with Fidel Castro! He is the biggest communist this side of Karl Marx. MSNBC is owned by *NEWSFLASH* NBC. Another left wing media giant. Next Stupid arguement from you please. Ted Turner doesn't own CNN anymore. I admit when he did it was democratic but not anymore. and how is NBC left wing? Fact of the matter is, both CNN and MSNBC kiss Bush's a**.
November 9, 200322 yr Anyone who says CNN is not the most biased news network needs to see a good doctor. If it gets any worse, they could be referred to as the American branch of Al-Jazerra Television.
November 9, 200322 yr Ted Turner doesn't own CNN anymore. I admit when he did it was democratic but not anymore. and how is NBC left wing? Fact of the matter is, both CNN and MSNBC kiss Bush's a**. Ted Turner is still a communist. And CNN is still communist as well. NBC has the West Wing. Done Deal. How do either of them Kiss Bush's a**? They are quick to jump on his every mistake and hesitent to admit when he does things correctly.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.