Iraqi Oil Well Fires Not a Major Health Threat

foxnews.com ^ | March 14, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[Diddley]

Greenpeace claims, "Fires from 600 deliberately damaged Kuwaiti oil wells

[Diddley]

First, there’s no question the Kuwaiti oil well fires produced much pollution.
Peak soot emissions were equivalent to 3 million heavy-duty diesel trucks being driven at 30 miles per hour, according to a 1992 study in the journal Science. A May 1991 report estimated the then-526 burning wells emitted 3.8 million pounds of particles into the atmosphere per hour.
That said, virtually all published studies of people exposed to those emissions haven’t reported significant health effects.
The extra risk "would not be detectable".
Faced with the lack of evidence of health effects, anti-warriors might counter that it has only been 12 years since the Kuwaiti oil well fires and health effects like cancer may take 20 or more years to develop.

I'm sure that "Gulf War Syndrome" devotes will find problems with this (nothing against them).

[Diddley]

Sorry about the double post.

[JLS]

Well setting oil wells a fire necessarily one of two things:

1. Not a health hazzard

2. A health hazzard and a chemical weapon attack.

Or to put is another way:

1a. Not a reason not to open this new front in the war.

2a. A further reason to disarm Iraq as chemical weapons are forbidden of them.

[Diddley]

Astute response.

[Consort]

Why haven't we already secured those oil wells? The oil fields should be under the protection of coalition forces. What's going on?

[Diddley]

I can't argue with you.