Interesting Op/Ed About the Inevitable Post War Junk Science

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,347
19,502
146
Iraq War Not Over for Junk Scientists

Thursday, April 17, 2003
By Steven Milloy


The war in Iraq is pretty much over, except for junk scientists. For them, the war may continue for decades ? just like Vietnam.

Two developments bear this out.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) last week announced it would study sites in Iraq where armor-piercing weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) were used by coalition forces.

Then, a new study was published this week in the journal Nature reporting the amount of Agent Orange sprayed in Vietnam was significantly underestimated. The researchers called for more study of U.S. troops and Vietnamese civilians in the sprayed areas.

Both lines of study are baseless.

DU is used in armor piercing shells because it?s 70 percent denser than lead. While other metals flatten upon impact, DU projectiles "self-sharpen" upon penetration.

Like other metals, sufficiently high exposures to DU may produce toxic effects. DU also has a low level of radioactivity.

The U.S. and U.K. fired about 350 tons of DU munitions at Iraqi tanks during the 1991 Gulf War. Though Iraqi doctors claimed a subsequent increase in cancers and birth defects was related to DU, their assertions were never substantiated.

UNEP conducted field studies of sites struck by DU munitions during the 1990s conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. UNEP concluded, "DU contamination does not pose any immediate risks to human health or the environment."

Inexplicably, UNEP has now changed its tune.

"DU is still an issue of great concern for the general public. An early study in Iraq could either lay these fears to rest or confirm that there are indeed potential risks," said UNEP last week.

Don?t count on anything being laid to rest soon.

Despite the lack of evidence that DU causes harm, some now suggest harm may be caused by a synergistic combination of DU?s chemical toxicity and radioactive effects, according to an article in the New Scientist (April 19).

Is there any evidence to support such speculation? No.

Its sole basis is that no one ever has considered the possibility that DU?s toxic and radioactive properties might have some combined effect.

Science, however, is about observing an effect and determining the cause ? not about imagining a cause for an effect that?s not been observed. The latter is junk science.

The budding, war-related DU controversy has a disturbing precedent ? the never-ending junk science-fueled controversy over Agent Orange.

The U.S. sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange to defoliate the Vietnam jungle during 1961-1971. Agent Orange contained low levels of substances called dioxins, by-products formed during the manufacturing process.

Agent Orange became a cause célèbre for Vietnam veterans after studies reported that dioxin caused cancer in some laboratory animal tests.

The media soon labeled dioxin as the "most toxic manmade chemical."

Environmental activists climbed aboard the dioxin railroad when they learned that low levels of dioxin were produced by many industrial processes. (Dioxin is also a by-product of natural processes such as volcanic eruptions, forest fires and any combustion of plant material.)

Though no study of dioxin-exposed humans (including Vietnam vets) credibly links dioxin with cancer and the only reason Vietnam vets are compensated for Agent Orange exposure is that politicians find it easier to pay-off rather than to fight veterans groups, Agent Orange hysteria is more readily debunked courtesy of Ben & Jerry?s ice cream.

Several years ago Ben & Jerry?s endeavored to do what it could to rid the world of the dreaded dioxin because, as proclaimed in its marketing materials, "The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all.

Knowing everyone is exposed unavoidably to dioxin everyday in our food, water and air, Agent Orange expert Dr. Michael Gough and I tested Ben & Jerry?s ice cream for dioxin.

Our tests found a single serving of Ben & Jerry?s ice cream contained 2,000 times the amount of dioxin the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is "safe" for an adult. For a 45-pound child, the figure is about 7,500 times more than the EPA says is safe.

The level of dioxin measured in our Ben & Jerry?s sample is likely greater than dioxin exposures from Agent Orange among U.S. ground troops in Vietnam.

And who?s afraid of Ben & Jerry?s?

Vietnam veterans groups and environmental activists, though, have so much invested in the dioxin myth that they can?t let go.

Failing to find dioxin-related effects in Vietnam vets, these groups have urged researchers to look for harm supposedly caused by Agent Orange among Vietnamese civilians. Sadly, the Vietnamese government seems quite happy to trot out alleged victims, hoping eventually to receive reparations from U.S. taxpayers.

Anyone up for Gulf War Syndrome II?

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,778
6,338
126
Junk science? I'll trust the words of researchers. Let them do their research, let others verify it.
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
I know several Vets from the Gulf War that would knock you on your rear if you told them Gulf War Syndrome didn't exist (and they're not scientists either)
rolleye.gif
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Interesting though illogical link the author tries to make there. Agent Orange wasn't really dangerous, therfore depleted uranium isn't really dangerous. I don't know how dangerous Agent Orange really was, but I do know that has no bearing on how dangerous depleted uranium is. That's not evidence or a "development that bears this [theory] out". If Agent Orange had been proven to be dangerous, does that mean that depleted uranium is dangerous too? Those two things shouldn't have even been linked.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Interesting though illogical link the author tries to make there. Agent Orange wasn't really dangerous, therfore depleted uranium isn't really dangerous. I don't know how dangerous Agent Orange really was, but I do know that has no bearing on how dangerous depleted uranium is. That's not evidence or a "development that bears this [theory] out". If Agent Orange had been proven to be dangerous, does that mean that depleted uranium is dangerous too? Those two things shouldn't have even been linked.

I think they are linking the 2 due to the fact during their initial uses, Agent Orange in Nam, and DU in both Gulf Wars, their side effects are relatively unknown. Like they said, there is still research going on with Agent Orange, and most like DU research will go on for a very long time too.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Devils advocate time. I'm on both sides of this issue.

First, some procedural evidence that the U.S. Army is concerned about potential DU hazard:

From STP 21-1-SMCT (Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks) 01 Apr 2003, page 3-89

Task: 031-503-1017 Respond to Depleted Uranium

Conditions: Given a combat situation where Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions or weapons systems that
may contain DU are in use or may be used, assigned protective mask, gloves, and first-aid supplies.
1. You encounter expended, or parts of penetrators.
2. You encounter United States (US) or foreign armored vehicles that have breached crew
compartments.
3. You encounter a fire where DU munitions may be involved.

Standards: Recognize DU and take protective measures when required.
Performance Steps
[(snipped) yada yada yada]

Link - 22 MB .pdf file of STP 21-1-SMCT

Personally, I believe the addition of the above task in the CTT manual was a "cover-your-ass" move by the head shed.

On the other hand, I know of vets and civilians, never in contact with DU during the '91 campaign, who have symptoms of GW Syndrome. Compare this group with myself and others handling DU extensively, and you'll find we have zero symptoms.

There is another common denominator out there. Carcinogens from the oil field fires or maybe demo of Iraqi ammo which, at the time, may have contained chemical agents.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,347
19,502
146
Originally posted by: Thera
I know several Vets from the Gulf War that would knock you on your rear if you told them Gulf War Syndrome didn't exist (and they're not scientists either)
rolleye.gif

I bet I know more Gulf War vets than you. Considering I was honorably discharged from the army less than a year before the war started.

Anyhow, Gulf LORE Syndrome is a joke. A bunch of me-too hysteria. It's origins are a joke, and it's continued myth is a joke.

The truth about Gulf Lore Syndrome.
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Junk science? I'll trust the words of researchers. Let them do their research, let others verify it.

The researchers have done their research, they've found nothing.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Nothing like a forum for the ignorant and the idiotic . . .
The researchers have done their research, they've found nothing.

Assuming it is not a rapid communication or an editorial . . . the 'article' published in THIS week's Nature would have been submitted last year in order to make it into an April issue. There are a myriad of publications that will disseminate junk science . . . say creationism or anti-global change . . . but few are reputable or peer-reviewed. So the article in Nature took months if not years to research/write and then several more months for submission/revision/publication.

The only junk comes from YOUR source . . . FOXNews writer who can fool the ignorant . . . but I guess I'm being redundant since only fools would cite FOX anyway.

From the garbage website . . . Though no study of dioxin-exposed humans (including Vietnam vets) credibly links dioxin with cancer and the only reason Vietnam vets are compensated for Agent Orange exposure is that politicians find it easier to pay-off rather than to fight veterans groups, Agent Orange hysteria is more readily debunked courtesy of Ben & Jerry?s ice cream.

The only studies available would be animal studies and epidemiolgical . . . why you may ask? I could certainly be wrong . . . but to my knowledge it's against the damn law to test pesticides/herbicides on PEOPLE. Go figure. I do believe major death merchants ( I mean chemical companies) are petitioning the EPA to allow human testing. Their desire is to develop firm criteria for harmful exposure to avoid the more stringent restraints currently placed (but often not followed) on pesticide/herbicide use. As for good epi studies, if you read Vietnamese you might find something. Even for a substance as SAFE as Agent Orange, we probably dropped A LOT more on the Viet Cong than our troops.

From a technical standpoint it is unknown how much exposure to Agent Orange and other derivative dioxins is harmful . . . but if someone proposes dumping MILLIONS of gallons on your state . . . I bet you would want PROOF it was safe at ANY level of exposure.

As for DU, why wouldn't common deceny lead a country to avoid strewing potentially harmful material around? I don't know enough to comment on it . . . other than to note the clear diversity of opinion as to how unsafe DU may be. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's harmless . . . just that it isn't THAT bad. Well it then begs the question . . . how bad is it? It looks like NOBODY really knows. Under such circumstances doesn't it seem prudent not to use a bunch of it?

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
As for DU, why wouldn't common deceny lead a country to avoid strewing potentially harmful material around? I don't know enough to comment on it . . . other than to note the clear diversity of opinion as to how unsafe DU may be. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's harmless . . . just that it isn't THAT bad. Well it then begs the question . . . how bad is it? It looks like NOBODY really knows. Under such circumstances doesn't it seem prudent not to use a bunch of it?

From a tactical standpoint, if DU is what it takes to defeat enemy armor, and I'm out there in the field facing enemy armor, then I damn well want to use DU on that enemy armor as opposed to something less effective. You can bet that if the enemy has DU, they're damn well going to use it, too. Funny how people around the world seem to be concerned ONLY about what the US does..
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
I still think the "Gulf War Syndrome" is related to the shots soldiers took. Two people I know have young girls that are living with disabilities due to side effects of the vaccinations. Its not uncommon for vets of the Gulf War that had kids immediately upon returning from the desert to find their offspring born with nervous system defects, most natably in their lower legs. Thanks to GW. :wine:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,347
19,502
146
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Nothing like a forum for the ignorant and the idiotic . . .
The researchers have done their research, they've found nothing.

Assuming it is not a rapid communication or an editorial . . . the 'article' published in THIS week's Nature would have been submitted last year in order to make it into an April issue. There are a myriad of publications that will disseminate junk science . . . say creationism or anti-global change . . . but few are reputable or peer-reviewed. So the article in Nature took months if not years to research/write and then several more months for submission/revision/publication.

The only junk comes from YOUR source . . . FOXNews writer who can fool the ignorant . . . but I guess I'm being redundant since only fools would cite FOX anyway.

From the garbage website . . . Though no study of dioxin-exposed humans (including Vietnam vets) credibly links dioxin with cancer and the only reason Vietnam vets are compensated for Agent Orange exposure is that politicians find it easier to pay-off rather than to fight veterans groups, Agent Orange hysteria is more readily debunked courtesy of Ben & Jerry?s ice cream.

The only studies available would be animal studies and epidemiolgical . . . why you may ask? I could certainly be wrong . . . but to my knowledge it's against the damn law to test pesticides/herbicides on PEOPLE. Go figure. I do believe major death merchants ( I mean chemical companies) are petitioning the EPA to allow human testing. Their desire is to develop firm criteria for harmful exposure to avoid the more stringent restraints currently placed (but often not followed) on pesticide/herbicide use. As for good epi studies, if you read Vietnamese you might find something. Even for a substance as SAFE as Agent Orange, we probably dropped A LOT more on the Viet Cong than our troops.

From a technical standpoint it is unknown how much exposure to Agent Orange and other derivative dioxins is harmful . . . but if someone proposes dumping MILLIONS of gallons on your state . . . I bet you would want PROOF it was safe at ANY level of exposure.

As for DU, why wouldn't common deceny lead a country to avoid strewing potentially harmful material around? I don't know enough to comment on it . . . other than to note the clear diversity of opinion as to how unsafe DU may be. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's harmless . . . just that it isn't THAT bad. Well it then begs the question . . . how bad is it? It looks like NOBODY really knows. Under such circumstances doesn't it seem prudent not to use a bunch of it?

Nice try, but no dice. Studies on humans are possible if the chemical has been used around certain humans, and not around others. Dioxin is just such a chemical and such studies HAVE been done (gee, you think that's what the op/ed piece refers to? naaaaw) As the article pointed out, there is NO valid study showing a higher rate of disease among those exposed, vs those not exposed.

What you have given us is the same nonsense that gave us the breast implant scare. Nonsense that people believed so strongly, it bankrupted one of America's largest chemical comapnies before the truth was discovered.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
"What you have given us is the same nonsense that gave us the breast implant scare. Nonsense that people believed so strongly, it bankrupted one of America's largest chemical comapnies before the truth was discovered. "

We can't have the horror of hysteria slow such important medical work, we all benefit from these miraculous acts.


I will gladly debate DU with anyone that feels they have sufficient knowledge of radiation, it's differing particles and properties of each, but it not nearly as dangerous and you might think.

What is the amount of Dioxin exposure from a "normal" direct dusting of agent orange?
What is the normal yearly amount from all natural sources?

I worked within 10 ft of a 400lb ball of DU for one year and got about half as much radiation as you get from one chest x-ray, or roughly twice the amount that your own body radiates ITSELF annually. All the needed facts haven't been presented here, we can't put their exposure into proper persepctive.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Nice try, but no dice. Studies on humans are possible if the chemical has been used around certain humans, and not around others. Dioxin is just such a chemical and such studies HAVE been done (gee, you think that's what the op/ed piece refers to? naaaaw) As the article pointed out, there is NO valid study showing a higher rate of disease among those exposed, vs those not exposed.

What you have given us is the same nonsense that gave us the breast implant scare. Nonsense that people believed so strongly, it bankrupted one of America's largest chemical comapnies before the truth was discovered.


The studies you reference would be epidemiological studies which have a myriad of biases and confounders . . . hence are NEVER considered irrefutable evidence for causation. But they are quite useful in noting correlation and prompting further research. I would welcome ANY evidence you have for dosage trials on humans with dioxin but unless they are 2,4 or 2,4,5 varieties then it would not be relevant to Agent Orange. And which authority has noted NO valid studies exist? I doubt the FOX writer read a SINGLE peer-reviewed article to support his position . . . just quoting someone. An error repeated by yourself. If I have time next week I will actually go to the libe and see if I can find a peer-reviewed article supporting or refuting the dioxin/disease position.

As for breast implants/silicone . . . they were a stupid idea to begin with but . . . I NEVER supported the alleged links between the typical implant an various autoimmune diseases. Unfortunately, poor quality manufacturing and augmentation procedures have proven morbidity. The Institute of Medicine released a summary report on silicone implants and found little association between appropriate implants and particular diseases. But guess what? If Dow Corning had put 1/2 the money in safety studies that they spent on advertising they could have nipped it in the bud . . . with peer-reviewed evidence that implants were quite safe if properly used.

And last time I checked Dow Chemical was still kicking.

Next time try a better strawman or pick a weaker scientist . . . you can't handle me buddy.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
so there is no way to determine the amount of dioxin intake from exposure via agent orange?

How can they say for certain them it played a role in their illness?

Still haven't seen the annual dose accumalated from natural sources and contact with manmade chemicals.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
You would have to find appropriate research journals for environmental science to answer such questions. I believe dioxins at one point were the most common herbicide used in Canada so that might be a good place to start. The problem is we are not dealing with 'normal' exposures. No sane person would propose exposing a human (and hopefully not even an animal) to be being "sprayed" with dioxin.

So you are left with a philosophical position. Does it make it more sense to prove a substance is safe before you dump millions of gallons of it into an ecosystem or should the burden of proof be on people to prove it is harmful?

In America, the Consumer Product Safety Act evolved out of the belief that the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe according to intended use . . . and that there is not an unreasonable risk with typical use. The law was necessary b/c apparently some companies didn't care to use such standards in the design/manufacture of their goods . . . probably some argument about how much it costs to prove safety.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,347
19,502
146
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Nice try, but no dice. Studies on humans are possible if the chemical has been used around certain humans, and not around others. Dioxin is just such a chemical and such studies HAVE been done (gee, you think that's what the op/ed piece refers to? naaaaw) As the article pointed out, there is NO valid study showing a higher rate of disease among those exposed, vs those not exposed.

What you have given us is the same nonsense that gave us the breast implant scare. Nonsense that people believed so strongly, it bankrupted one of America's largest chemical comapnies before the truth was discovered.


The studies you reference would be epidemiological studies which have a myriad of biases and confounders . . . hence are NEVER considered irrefutable evidence for causation. But they are quite useful in noting correlation and prompting further research. I would welcome ANY evidence you have for dosage trials on humans with dioxin but unless they are 2,4 or 2,4,5 varieties then it would not be relevant to Agent Orange. And which authority has noted NO valid studies exist? I doubt the FOX writer read a SINGLE peer-reviewed article to support his position . . . just quoting someone. An error repeated by yourself. If I have time next week I will actually go to the libe and see if I can find a peer-reviewed article supporting or refuting the dioxin/disease position.

As for breast implants/silicone . . . they were a stupid idea to begin with but . . . I NEVER supported the alleged links between the typical implant an various autoimmune diseases. Unfortunately, poor quality manufacturing and augmentation procedures have proven morbidity. The Institute of Medicine released a summary report on silicone implants and found little association between appropriate implants and particular diseases. But guess what? If Dow Corning had put 1/2 the money in safety studies that they spent on advertising they could have nipped it in the bud . . . with peer-reviewed evidence that implants were quite safe if properly used.

And last time I checked Dow Chemical was still kicking.

Next time try a better strawman or pick a weaker scientist . . . you can't handle me buddy.

There is nothing to handle here. You've done nothing but cry about the sky falling and make claims about nothing.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
hmm
In Seveso, Italy, a runaway reaction during the manufacture of 2,4,5-trichloroacetic acid released large quantities of this compound (Dioxin). The latter compound is believed to cause chloracne and may be related to mutagenic, immunotoxic and carcinogenic responses in laboratory animals. Although there is limited epidemiological evidence linking these chemicals to adverse human health effects, prudence is necessary in allowing for human exposures since there is significant animal data to indicate likely adverse human health effects.

bad news for women

opposing arguments
1. When all types of cancers were grouped into one category, no statistically significant excess of cancer was observed.

2. Of the 78 efforts to find an association with different types of cancer in females,only one association was statistically significant (a relative risk of 6.6 for myeloma). With this type of data dredging, you might expect 3 to 4 statistically significant associations just by chance.

3. Of the 81 efforts to find an association with different types of cancer in males, only three associations were statistically significant (relative risks of 2.9 for rectal cancer, 2.4 for lymphohemopoietic cancer and 3.1 for leukemia). Again, data dredging could easily account for these observed excesses in cancer.

bad news for monkeys
A recent study by Rier et al. showed that rhesus monkeys exposed daily for 4 years to 5 or 25 ppt of dioxin in food develop endometriosis, with incidence and severity related to dose.

bad news for Italians
An excess mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases was uncovered, possibly related to the psychosocial consequences of the accident in addition to the chemical contamination. An excess of diabetes cases was also found. Results of cancer incidence and mortality follow-up showed an increased occurrence of cancer of the gastrointestinal sites and of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue. Experimental and epidemiologic data as well as mechanistic knowledge support the hypothesis that the observed cancer excesses are associated with dioxin exposure. Results cannot be viewed as conclusive.

None of these studies were particularly strong . . . and the analyses were equally wanting from both sides of the debate. The most recent data should be interesting.
 

AntaresVI

Platinum Member
May 10, 2001
2,152
0
0
Originally posted by: konichiwa
A censure of "junk science" by the premier outlet for "junk news"!

Oh, the irony runs deep...

konichiwa, your trolling in this forum really only makes you look worse to everyone around, and i'm sure that many others besides me are sick of it. STFU; you were wrong; get over it.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: LeRocks
Originally posted by: konichiwa
A censure of "junk science" by the premier outlet for "junk news"!

Oh, the irony runs deep...

konichiwa, your trolling in this forum really only makes you look worse to everyone around, and i'm sure that many others besides me are sick of it. STFU; you were wrong; get over it.

Wrong about what exactly? I don't think I'm the only one who is consistently amazed by the bias that Fox News perpetuates. Quoth John Stewart (a sadly underappreciated comedian, regarding Peter Arnett's voyage to Iraqi State TV): Iraqi state television isn't even a journalistic outfit, it's simply a propoganda machine that spreads the word of the tyrranical Iraqi regime. Imagine, a government that has a TV station solely devoted to espousing its propogandist agenda! <Cut to Fox News clip>

:)