A World Record

Missileer

Missileer

Active member
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp

Largest Death Toll From Chemical Weapons Attack
The greatest number of people killed in a single chemical weapons attack is estimated at 4,000, when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq attacked members of his country's Kurdish minority at Halabja, Iraq, in March 1988. The attack was ostensibly punishment for the support the Kurds had given to Iran in the Iran–Iraq war.
 
Yes & No

The largest number of deathh from CW belongs to Iranian troops who most of the survivors are now dying too
 
phoenix80 said:
Yes & No

The largest number of deathh from CW belongs to Iranian troops who most of the survivors are now dying too
Click to expand...

Great guy wasn't he? :firedevi: I think he'll get his.
 
phoenix80 said:
Yes & No
Click to expand...

You are right in that thousands and thousands of Iranians keep dying as we speak from the damages of chemical attacks delivered by Saddam. But Missileer was right quoting the World Book of Records because it is about
the greatest number of people killed in a single chemical weapons attack.
Click to expand...

As a single attack Halabja ranks first.
 
Now I know it was not meant to be a chemical attack, but just how many people died from agent Orange in Vietnam
 
LeEnfield 2 said:
Now I know it was not meant to be a chemical attack, but just how many people died from agent Orange in Vietnam
Click to expand...

In case you're interested:

"Myth: Agent Orange poisoned millions of Vietnam veterans.

Over the ten years of the war, Operation Ranch Hand sprayed about eleven million gallons of Agent Orange on the South Vietnamese landscape. (the herbicide was called "orange" in Vietnam, not Agent Orange. That sinister-sounding term was coined after the war) Orange was sprayed at three gallons per acre that was the equivalent of .009 of an ounce per square foot. When sprayed on dense jungle foliage, less that 6 percent ever reached the ground. Ground troops typically did not enter a sprayed area until four to six weeks after being sprayed. Most Agent Orange contained .0002 of 1 percent of dioxin. Scientific research has shown that dioxin degrades in sunlight after 48 to 72 hours; therefore, troops exposure to dioxin was infinitesimal."

[Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, TX, 1998].
 
The problem with all this, is actually finding the correct facts. From what I have read and seen there was a major problem with Agent Orange, now I can't argue about American casualties but from what have seen there have been plenty of Vietnamese ones
 
LeEnfield 2 said:
The problem with all this, is actually finding the correct facts. From what I have read and seen there was a major problem with Agent Orange, now I can't argue about American casualties but from what have seen there have been plenty of Vietnamese ones
Click to expand...

Sure I agree with you there.
 
phoenix80 said:
and the funny thing is that none of those servicemen who deployed agent orange or worked with died.
Click to expand...

That would be because they weren't exposed to it directly. As long as you work with a product sealed in a container or dropping it from an aeroplane you will not get a direct exposure and therefore you are quite safe even though the product itself is hazardious.

I work with chemical safty data sheets. One of the substances that is an ingredient in "Agent" Orange are known to possibly cause cancer and damages on the genetic system. More; if exposed directly chronical effects are low blood pressure, headache, dizzyness, intoxication, heart rythm disorder, damages on central nerve system and kidney damages.

Scary :cen: taken into consideration that it is not easily biological destructive at a rate of 28% per 30 days.

Chemical weapons are weapons from hell IMO!
 
I love this, some-one starts a thread on Iraq and the first foreigner to post is immediately "AAAAAMERICA DID SOMETHING WORSER!!!"
 
Rabs said:
I love this, some-one starts a thread on Iraq and the first foreigner to post is immediately "AAAAAMERICA DID SOMETHING WORSER!!!"
Click to expand...

Welcome to my world.

The moment France does the slightest thing wrong, or contradicts the US in the slightest way the anti-France bashers in the US are on it like flies on s***.
 
Rabs said:
I love this, some-one starts a thread on Iraq and the first foreigner to post is immediately "AAAAAMERICA DID SOMETHING WORSER!!!"
Click to expand...

Really I see nothing of that sort? All I see is someone claming Iran to be the worst rather then Irak but was then told it was regarding a single attack rather then several unless you see Canada as America ;)

The second thing which I think was what you ware talking about was the first post about Vietnam and Agent Orange, correct? Well as how I read it, it wasn't a way to blaim US saying its worst. I see it a history question of who died by being expoesed to it. In my opinion thats not a rant at USA, I don't in my mind see it as a fault by the USA either, more to be blamed on the unknown, they did not know the properties of Agent Orange, if they did i'm sure they wouldn't have used it, atleast I hope they would have. I'm not sure how you see this as a rant against USA, it was a question. Well I can only speak for my self as not seeing it as a rant, I saw it as a question on what happened, but I can't speak for LeEnfield, I can only inturpet my thoughts around that, I doubt however that it was a rant. Its like asking about Swedish involvment in 2nd world war regarding our buissness with the Axis, I don't and wouldnt go and shoutout that someone hates Sweden just because they ask such a question. I would help them to understand what happend rather then accuse someone of trying to showel dirt on Sweden, as you seem to be doing here regarding USA. I'm not sure about your disrespectfull comment of "and the first foreigner to post is immediately "AAAAAMERICA DID SOMETHING WORSER!!!"". To me that implies that all we do is trash USA. We don't! But it might be a missunderstanding here again as it might have been regarding the what you said, if so I appologice if I'm interpeting your coment incorrectly.
 
I was not having a go at America over agent orange, but the question was poised about the number of deaths due to a chemical attack. Now as these threads are here to debate these issues I wondered just how many deaths had been caused agent Orange. Now we have all seen the films and read the books on what it is alleged to have done to American Servicemen. Also there have been documentary films from Vietnam listing the people that are still suffering or who still being born with birth defects which they allege are down to agent Orange. Now it could be that some one reading this could shed some light on the matter. Now had I have been a General in Vietnam and some one told me of a way of getting rid of a lot foliage allowing the troops to see the enemy better, and help save their lives, then I think i would have used it, well until I knew of the problems any way.
 
About this "Agent" Orange.

Keep in mind that in America during the sixties and seventies we went through that shit like kids in a candy store. We did far more damage to our own country and probably killed more of our own people using pesticides and insecticides than all the chemical weapon attacks in the history of mankind combined. In the seventies nobody knew how bad this shit was, DEET was not known to be so poisonous, it was made to kill insects and plant diseases and it did a damn fine job of it. I was watching the history channel and they had a thing about fallout shelters, the government gave out a pamplet in 1969 I believe was the year and it recomended that people keep a disinfectant that contained DEET in their shelter. It is like so many other things, nobody knew how bad it was at the time, I believe that all the men who worked on glow sticks died of cancer because the original chemicals caused cancer.

Did quite a few Vietnamese die as a result of the widespread use of Orange in South Vietnam? Probably, but I would be willing to bet vastly more Americans died because of it. Come on, the sun is the source of all life on earth and it causes cancer.
 
This is a site I read about when my Brother-in-law went into the VA hospital to have some non cancerous lumps removed. He sprayed about as much of the stuff as any other pilot in Vietnam. What's funny about the site was that they advertise herbacides. There just wasn't a large enough study group for any one disease.

Does Agent Orange Cause Cancer?

Studies of Vietnam veterans potentially provide the most direct evidence of the health effects of Agent Orange exposure. However, because of the small number of highly exposed persons, these studies have yielded very limited information on cancer.

Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Studies of Vietnam veterans have not demonstrated an increase in soft tissue sarcomas.

In particular, no association with soft tissue sarcoma was seen in the Ranch Hand study, in a study of over 10,000 Marines who had served in Vietnam, a large study of sarcoma patients in VA hospitals, the Selected Cancers Study, or studies of veterans in Michigan, Massachusetts, or other states. A study of Australian Vietnam veterans suggested a large increase in soft tissue sarcomas, but this finding was based on a mail survey of self-reported diagnoses. In a follow-up study designed to confirm the diagnoses, the excess of soft tissue sarcomas could not be verified.

Non-Hodgkin's (Non-Hodgkin) Lymphoma: Most studies of Vietnam veterans have not shown an increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The Selected Cancers Study showed that Vietnam service was associated with a 50% increased risk of NHL, but self-reported Agent Orange exposure was not linked with increased risk. Similarly, in the CDC's Vietnam Experience Study, there were seven NHL deaths among about 8,000 Vietnam veterans and only one NHL death among about 8,000 non-Vietnam veterans. Based on military job titles, there was no suggestion that the seven Vietnam veterans with NHL had sustained Agent Orange exposure. The Ranch Hand study showed no increase in NHL, nor did the VA mortality study of over 33,000 Army and Marine Vietnam veterans, a study of over 200 Vietnam veterans with NHL, or numerous state-level studies. A study of Australian Vietnam veterans suggested a large increase in NHL, but this finding was based on a mail survey of self-reported diagnoses. In a study that attempted to confirm the diagnoses, the number of NHL cases declined to the upper end of the expected range.


Hodgkin's (Hodgkin) Disease: Studies of Vietnam veterans have not demonstrated an increase in Hodgkin disease.

In particular, the Ranch Hand study did not show an increase in these tumors, nor did a study of over 33,000 Army and Marine Vietnam veterans, the Selected Cancers Study, a study of more than 250 Vietnam-era veterans with Hodgkin disease, or studies of veterans in Michigan, New York, or other states.

Lung and Other Respiratory Cancers: Studies of Vietnam veterans have not shown a consistent pattern of increases in respiratory cancers, such as those of the lung, trachea (windpipe), bronchus, and larynx (voice box).

http://experts.about.com/q/1426/3702637.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top