Doctor examining a baby in a Fallujah hospital (photo: Larisa Epatko/NewsHour)
The London Independent published a harrowing story on October 14, “Iraq Records Huge Rise in Birth Defects.”
The piece focuses on the legacy of the U.S war in Iraq, in particular the two massive U.S. military invasions of the city of Fallujah in 2004. The Independent reports:
High rates of miscarriage, toxic levels of lead and mercury contamination and spiraling numbers of birth defects ranging from congenital heart defects to brain dysfunctions and malformed limbs have been recorded. Even more disturbingly, they appear to be occurring at an increasing rate in children born in Fallujah, about 40 miles west of Baghdad.
There is “compelling evidence” to link the increased numbers of defects and miscarriages to military assaults, says Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the lead authors of the report and an environmental toxicologist at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Similar defects have been found among children born in Basra after British troops invaded, according to the new research.
The Independent notes:
The latest study found that in Fallujah, more than half of all babies surveyed were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010. Before the siege, this figure was more like one in 10.
These findings, published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, seem to confirm earlier research on the subject, and a World Health Organization is expected next month.
What accounts for this dramatic public health crisis? The Independent reports:
The report’s authors link the rising number of babies born with birth defects in the two cities to increased exposure to metals released by bombs and bullets used over the past two decades. Scientists who studied hair samples of the population in Fallujah found that levels of lead were five times higher in the hair of children with birth defects than in other children; mercury levels were six times higher. Children with defects in Basra had three times more lead in their teeth than children living in non-impacted areas.
The researchers point to the use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium weapons as other possible culprits. The U.S. military, as the Independent reports, admitted to using white phosphorous in Falljuah, but not depleted uranium.
This shocking account of birth defects in Iraq, which would seem directly related to the U.S-led war on that country, is not newsworthy in the United States. According to the Nexis news database, this story has been reported in the Times of India and the New Zealand Herald. It was also the topic of a column in the Toronto Star (10/21/12) by Haroon Siddiqui.
We could find no major U.S. media outlets that mentioned this research. Democracy Now! referred to the study on October 15.
As FAIR noted at the time (Extra! Update, 6/03), U.S. media were mostly unconcerned with the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in Iraq.
And the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah has long been a source of controversy. The press attitude towards to the chemical, as Seth Ackerman wrote in Extra! (3-4/06), seemed to depend on who was alleged to have been using it. Reports that the United States was using white phosphorous in Iraq were treated as irresponsible conspiracy-mongering.
One Washington Post reporter eventually admitted that “U.S. troops’ use of white phosphorus in combat in Iraq has generated considerable attention in Europe, though little in the United States.”
Now, as reports surface of the grave health effects of U.S. war on Iraq, the attention is once again coming from foreign media outlets.
The poison of implicit propaganda
sigh…so all these years of war have really just been a WAR on CHILDREN? Shouldn’t we arrest ourselves for war crimes?
There have been more birth defects than one can account for since the first Gulf War where depleted Uranium was used freely. The sanctions placed against Iraq compounded this because much needed medical supplies were limited. We are complicit in the arms used in Israel’s Operation Cast Lead as well. If you remember, White Phospherous was used freely in that “action.” The money we freely give Israel, $3 Billion a year, is often used for arms that they have agreed not to use except for self defense. I have yet to understand how they can claim self-defense against a group that is imprisoned by them and vertually helpless. And, yes, we should be arrested for war crimes.
The use of white phosphorus as an obscurant is legal. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as ‘any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target’. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or against military targets in close proximity to civilians or civilian property. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III.
However, regardless of whether or not a country or territory has signed or agreed to abide by protocol III of the CCCW, the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against military targets that are not in close proximity to civilians or civilian property is completely legal.
Elizabeth You ended by saying “we” should be arrested as war criminals.Well as you libs believe that,be my guest and turn yourselves in.Head on over to Afghanistan and throw yourself on the mercy of the Taliban courts……Oh and wear your head gear,and face covers or you may find out how free is the country you left in comparison.As for the rest of us we will stay here……. as good friends to Israel , and firmly believing you are nuts.Did you grandfather wave to the japanese planes as they passed over pearl Harbor, and shoot at the Americans?I have the feeling your lack of ability in enemy identification goes back a few generations.
michael e
The issue at hand is not about our war with the “enemy”, it’s about killing and maiming kids. Did you get that? I have a feeling that your side-stepping the issue so you can express your anger and hatred, goes a back a few generations, doesn’t it?
Mark I have no doubt that any death of an innocent civilian,and especially that of a child, wounds our president deeply(and as you know I am no fan of the man).I also believe that the development and design of these new weapons is specific in their capability to “lesson”collateral damage, while at the same time intensifying their lethality toward their intended targets..this has been the direction of our military planning for years now.But the issue at hand IS our war with the enemy.And of course we must agree their even IS an enemy.Beyond that to stop the killing means to end the war.To parlay with the enemy.To defeat the enemy.Or to surrender to the enemy.In war children will die,and be maimed.Because weapons made to kill will do just that.Indiscriminately.Blindly.No amount of technology can call back the bullet.We will take lives..innocent lives, though it is never our intent.And the terrorists will take innocent lives.THAT BEING THEIR INTENT! So of the 3 ways to end this war, what is your best idea?Or is there another way I have not mentioned?And please dont just say do everything our enemies want.That then they will leave us alone.That would mark you a fool.This for them is a war beyond geopolitical goals.This is a war of faith.A demand that the world bend, or break to their faith.Or die the death of an infidel.On 911 we had no American troops in Afghanistan.Yet still they came forth from those deserts to wage war in the heart of our country.Did they have reasons?They always will.They will always be able to find a reason ,no matter how mad to kill us.That is who we fight against.The issue is the war with this enemy.You forget that.
michael e, your ignorance is staggering. The article is about Iraq, which Donald Rumsfeld argued to invade the day after 9/11 “because there are no good targets in Afghanistan”. There were no WMDs.
The consensus of intelligence officials has concluded that there were no links whatsoever between Zarqawi and Saddam, and that Saddam viewed Ansar al-Islam “as a threat to the regime” and his intelligence officials were spying on the group Qaeda.(Wikipedia)
Should we arrest ourselves? It might be on the citizens shoulders if corporate interests did not completely control politics through campaign funding. Nonetheless, the unprecedented “preemptive” war in Iraq was about one thing only – trillions of dollars worth of oil. Cheney, Rumsfeld and that puppet George W. Bush should be arrested and put in jail. The war was a tragedy for everyone except military contractors and a disgrace to our country.
No one forgets that there are mad-men who want to kill us. You, however seem to forget that we have many of our own, doing much more damage to humanity as a whole.
The same weapons systems are being used in both countries.Same problems.Damage to civilians from those systems will repeat themselves in both countries.
The idea that the Iraqi war started solely over WMDs is a good (but faulty) concept.And the Rs deserve to be hit with that ,since it was a selling point to the American people.But to actually believe that that was all there was to the windup to war is childish nonsense. I understand with an election coming the idea is to still run against Bush.But really look at the casualties in Afghanistan under Bush….and now under Obama.This is a two president war.Neither agrees with your historical perspective, or legal deductions.Obama talked a good game about charges being brought….. UNTIL he was made president.Once he got intel that evaporated.I would hope if you had the intel you would stop spouting talking point nonsense.And isn’t is great that Saddam is gone?????Simple yes or no will suffice.
Wow! More inane gibberish. As usual. Sorry to say, but I’ve been the worst culprit in feeding the FAIR troll lately. By God, that’s it. I understand how it is, and how one feelsthe nees to go to the mat with right-wing lying scum, but it never ends, does it? Long after all the even vaguely left-wing folks (the vast majority of the US population) have been rounded up and placed into “family camps,” the right will still be blaming everything from the flouride in the water to the flat tire they had on this very morning on the “left,” or the “Democrat Party,” or the ACLU, or FAIR blog. Our Rightist actually admits that the rationale for he Iraq war was a goddamn lie, yet this is okay, and we’re supposed to just roll with it, get over it. I’m done with these losers and liars, and barring a Romney “win,” I’ll never truck with this (these) clowns and imbeciles again.
Why do I have to put in my e-mail address and name every time I post? Anybody else gong through this? This just started abot a week ago; I alo can’t scroll up and down in the entry box for the post Not good. It also looks like italics are still screwed up.
. . . and because of this, there are many errors I can’t see, and can’t proof! Sorry about all the mistakes (“abot” for “about,” “gong,” etc.). Also in the “name” and “email” boxes, the legend stays there; I have to type over the phrase “Name (required),” and my name prints over this. Very aggravating, and confusing. Why?
In 2010 National Geographic published article “Mercury Poisoning Makes Birds Act Homosexual” describing study how mercury affect birds.
“Starting at around 90 days of age, each of three groups was fed a diet containing either low, medium, or high amounts of mercury, based on a realistic range of exposures in the wild. A fourth control group ate mercury-free food.
Once the birds had reached sexual maturity at around a year old, homosexual bonding increased in all three groups exposed to mercury. This behavior led to a 13 to 15 percent decline in the number of young, compared to the mercury-free control group.
The metal also impacted heterosexual couples. Overall, female birds exposed to mercury yielded 35 percent fewer babies than the control group.”