Look mum no hands

November 14, 2009 12:30 PM

Iraq - the legacy
Iraqi former battle zone sees abnormal clusters of infant tumours and deformities. Could white phosphorus be to blame? The only US media presently presently running with this is TPMcafe and HuffPo
Go the internets Go. Related and wiki and more.
posted by adamvasco (28 comments total)

Um not to derail a thread before it's even started but wow; classy title there.

. . .

Ok I just watched the video in the first link. Yeah you're kind of a cool little cucumber adam.

Jesus.

First off, this is heartbreaking stuff. Second I really hate your title and I wish I hadn't seen your post because now I'm just crazy mad and I'm going to go take a walk.
posted by nola at 12:48 PM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Depleted uranium? I also agree that you've chosen a terrible title.

And, finally, once again....utility and expediency wins out over common sense and humanity.
posted by nevercalm at 12:56 PM on November 14, 2009

Correlation does not equal causation; none of the links explain how white phosphorous (a pretty horrible weapon) could actually cause birth defects.

There's at least one problem: no one knows the number of birth defects in the Iraqi population prior to the second Iraq War.

As well, the general population in Iraq has lived in extreme conditions now for at least twenty years: malnutrition, broken social services, extreme pollution, poverty. Any one of these could also be causes of birth defects.

The pollution in Iraq, judging by pictures, is just terrible.

And then you add depleted uranium to the mix.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:04 PM on November 14, 2009

I sure wish there could be a couple people I could blame for this. You know, the kind who would use their lies and corrupt powerful friends to cause this to happen for their own profit and power mongering.
Too bad there's nobody who could have changed this course with just a few different decisions.
But boy, if there were, they should go to war crimes trials and solidify their places in history as some of the worst mistakes of power usage ever.
I sure hope anyone else who thought of this as a good idea gets shunned accordingly.
Maybe next time.
posted by Balisong at 1:08 PM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

General Pace, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff denied allegations that [white phosphorus] was used against civilians, maintaining that it was only targeted on insurgents.

"Hi, I'm the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I can't see how an inextinguishable fire or a cloud of poisonous gas could ever possibly harm anyone other than its intended target."
posted by Sys Rq at 1:24 PM on November 14, 2009

This is an incredibly serious and devastatingly sad subject, and I thank you for posting about it. However, your title is offensive. Did you honestly think that you were bringing levity with a deformed baby joke in the introduction?
posted by iamkimiam at 1:27 PM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

No I come from a culture that used this as a headline. 1,200 people drowned. Don't shoot the messenger just those that condoned the atrocities and the weasel lawyers and arsehole politicians who allowed it to happen.
posted by adamvasco at 1:32 PM on November 14, 2009

no one knows the number of birth defects in the Iraqi population prior to the second Iraq War.

There where pretty detailed statistics on this in between the American wars, they too found high level of birth defects, especially in areas where high levels of DU had been dumped or just left around. White phosphorous is nasty stuff and no doubt, but I'm not sure why people are looking for more causes when people have been pointing the finger at DU for.. well it has been about 15 years now. I tried making the argument back in 1998 that in a real way the use of DU as shell casings and other disposable metal components in effect made the Gulf War into a low level nuclear war.
posted by edgeways at 1:36 PM on November 14, 2009

adamvasco, I'd go with the "I'm sorry, you're right that was tasteless" route rather then the belligerent "don't blame me, society is worse, lets shoot them already" path.
posted by edgeways at 1:41 PM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Look, white phosphorous is nasty stuff. Really, I've worked with small quantities of it in the lab and it's no wonder it's used as a weapon. It's poisonous, flammable, and toxic and all sorts of bad for you.

But one thing it doesn't do is cause cancer. Let me repeat myself, white phosphorous is not a carcinogen.

White phosphorous reacts vigorously with just about anything it comes into contact with including atmospheric oxygen and water vapor (you know, that part where is burns). Sure, you'll get some phosphoric acid in there, but after it's hydrolized a few bonds and given you nice chemical burns, all you're left with are phosphates. The very fact that it's so reactive means that it won't be around long enough to cause any sort of chronic biological disruption.

So what about the birth defects? It couldn't possibly be the massive decrease in living standards, hygiene, and access to medical care associated with your city being blown to pieces, could it?

No, it's just gotta be the chemical weapon boogie man.

If only we had stuck to killing people with those morally superior bombs and bullets, this wouldn't be happening.
posted by TBAcceptor at 1:43 PM on November 14, 2009 [9 favorites]

There is a lot of pollution in Iraq. They have power plants that burn raw crude oil, for example. I can imagine Saddam suppressing information about infant mortality, do you really think his government would publish those figures?

Blaming one particular substance out of that whole mess is problematic, especially when the only evidence is "White Phosphorus is bad, cancer is bad, therefore White Phosphorus causes cancer"
posted by delmoi at 1:52 PM on November 14, 2009

So what about the birth defects? It couldn't possibly be the massive decrease in living standards, hygiene, and access to medical care associated with your city being blown to pieces, could it?

No, it's just gotta be the chemical weapon boogie man.

Oh good, so it's not all America's fault then oh wait.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:59 PM on November 14, 2009

No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans. -- World Health Organization, regarding Depleted Uranium
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:02 PM on November 14, 2009

First of all the Belgrano link you posted isn't actually the one you meant to - this is the actual headline.

And you're using that to justify your off-taste joke? The Sun headline is possibly the worst examples of nationalistic, tasteless, and downright disgusting journalism in recent(-ish) UK history.

So, nice of you to hold it up as an excuse for being a heartless arse. Real fucking classy. There are people out there who do unspeakable things to other people. Just because they do it, and you may come from the same country as they do, doesn't mean you can do the same. Try coming here to Argentina and arguing how cool and post-fucking-ironic you're being.
posted by jontyjago at 2:38 PM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Worrying about whether this or that weapon is a carcinogen in addition to its intended use of killing people by the bushel (ok, you're not actually supposed to burn people up with WP anymore...) seems like it is missing the point. I don't want to make our tank shells out of something besides depleted uranium, I want to stop shooting people with our tank shells unless it is absolutely necessary.

If we don't shoot people unnecessarily, we can make our bullets out of whatever the hell we want.
posted by Justinian at 2:46 PM on November 14, 2009

Thanks for that link Chocolate Pickle. A few things stand out to me in reading it. In so far as they address civilian exposure in conflict (war) zones they seem to concentrate on the Bosnia conflict and talk about environmental integration of dust and such-like in that situation only. Other than that they don't cover much on what prolonged exposure to civilians in conflict zones may be. I hardly have to point out the the physical environment between Bosnia and Iraq are extremely difficult.

The line "No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans." is interesting, I would like to know if they actually tested for this, or if they where relying on self reporting (from Bosnia I guess), I don't dismiss it, but would want to know more than that single line says. Additionally, "deformities and tumors" are not necessarily the same as "reproductive or developmental", which make me think of issues of sterility and retardation. Perhaps I am wrong in that reading, but again, they don't enumerate specifically so there is some ambiguity.

However you slice it though, the bullet points under recommendations from that link where not followed after the Gulf War, dunno about the current conflict but I'm guessing no so much either.

Overall this is an interesting data point to add in the Depleted Uranium debate, but it should be followed up with generational, concentration and environmental studies before I'd let DU off the hook completely.
posted by edgeways at 2:46 PM on November 14, 2009

Speaking of carcinogens, the first thing that came to my mind was the hexavalent chromium suit against KBR. Although it sounds like that incident was in Basra, not Fallujah, so there's probably no connection.
posted by gueneverey at 3:10 PM on November 14, 2009

KokuRyu: There's anecdotal information about the increase in birth defects in the articles linked. There are no claims that white phosphorus is the sole culprit.

"malnutrition, broken social services, extreme pollution, poverty" could be used to describe an inreasing number of first-world western nations: did you leave out "plutocratic" to make that distinction?

I agree the title could have been more sensitive.
posted by davemee at 3:11 PM on November 14, 2009

There are no claims that white phosphorus is the sole culprit

It is the only culprit claimed in the FPP. Which is why it reads like shallow outrage-mongering rather than an attempt to actually learn or understand anything.
posted by hattifattener at 3:27 PM on November 14, 2009

hattiefattener: I don't see how "could white phosphorous be to blame?" can be interpreted as "white phosphorous is to blame". Likewise, neither of the primary sources make this claim.
posted by davemee at 3:34 PM on November 14, 2009

All the crap Hussein used over the years how could you ever narrow it down to Blame AmeriKKKA?
posted by HTuttle at 4:12 PM on November 14, 2009

KokuRyu: There's anecdotal information about the increase in birth defects in the articles linked. There are no claims that white phosphorus is the sole culprit.


davemee: The FPP itself (look above, if you don't know what an FPP is) this - Iraqi former battle zone sees abnormal clusters of infant tumours and deformities. Could white phosphorus be to blame?

Yours sincerely,

A "plutocrat"

(KokuRyu goes and lights a cigar with a hundred dollar bill)
posted by KokuRyu at 4:36 PM on November 14, 2009

I'm going to go with the "adam, you have successfully demonstrated that people will get upset at the lease little distraction, so that they don't have to think about what is really going on" excuse.

Because the important thing here is that adam used a provocative headline. Ignore the depleted uranium waste behind the curtain. I want to go home, I want to go home.

Heartless is not prosecuting the people responsible for these atrocities.

Look mum no hands!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Lease? What an odd typo. Read it as "least."
posted by five fresh fish at 4:42 PM on November 14, 2009

Well, I don't see why we can't be offended by both. Attention to one doesn't necessarily take away from the other. But commenting about the headline actually serves another purpose, which is to exercise the power of direct communication and control that we have in the local framing of an issue. By commenting on the headline we are doing more than simply stating our dislike of it, but publicly participating in the negotiation of how our (local and global) culture orients to this subject. Somebody puts it out there and it either gets ignored or reinforced or re-negotiated with additional commentary. It may seem pedantic or redundant, but I think it provides us with more subtext than we often account for.

I don't know, I almost wonder what kind of subtextual message is conveyed when a headline like that doesn't get commented on. At least here we've indexed that many of us feel pretty seriously about this subject, and that the headline is inappropriate in relation to it. This may serve to add more weight to the topic at hand.
posted by iamkimiam at 5:11 PM on November 14, 2009

I'm going to go with the "adam, you have successfully demonstrated that people will get upset at the lease little distraction, so that they don't have to think about what is really going on" excuse.


Really generous reading there fff.

The point is that the story is raw and full of human suffering, and the title can only be seen as some kind of sick joke. I don't find it funny because this shit isn't funny.

It's fucking insensitive. It's insult to injury. Are you really this thick?



Don't shoot the messenger just those that condoned the atrocities and the weasel lawyers and arsehole politicians who allowed it to happen.

What bullshit. I don't have to pick in choose adam. I think you should be spared the firing squad, but you should get a whipped pie down your pants for such a shitty title considering the topic.
posted by nola at 6:46 PM on November 14, 2009

You (adamvasco) don't really seem care that people are suffering, just that they are on the receiving of American foreign policy and you like a good "government/mass media is evil!" conspiracy.

You expect us to take it seriously that white phosphorous is to blame for birth defects. You appear to think it's a big enough deal that you post it. You get butt-hurt and deflect the criticism that arises when your chosen title seems to contradict your intended purpose, yet when people provide links denying that white phosphorus causes birth defects, you ignore them altogether.
posted by autoclavicle at 7:44 PM on November 14, 2009

Really generous reading there fff.

Touché.

I'm just offended at myself, for being offended by the title when I knew perfectly well that using DNA-harming weapons in the war was going to cause such things to happen. If it's not the fault of DU, it is almost certainly the result of some other agent with a root cause that points back to the West. There sure as hell wasn't this kind of problem when we weren't involved with their oil.

I'm feeling particularly bitchy tonight, because I've been reading about all this obvious stuff. We all know what's going on. We all know that great atrocities are being done in our name. We all know we live on the backs of several billion people who live desperately short, sickly lives.

We don't do anything of real consequence about it. We do allow ourselves to get offended at titles, though. Rah, rah, me. Go fish.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:16 PM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]