5 ms·

To play devil's advocate, yeah that sounds bad, but the article didn't quantify any risks. If the risk of cancer for those stationed there rose by some small fr

by eloff 7y ago

To play devil's advocate, yeah that sounds bad, but the article didn't quantify any risks. If the risk of cancer for those stationed there rose by some small fraction of a percent per day, it may still have been basically irrelevant compared to the very real combat risks these people faced. In fact it may well have been irrelevant compared to e.g. A chest or dental x-ray or even a transatlantic flight. We just don't know without hard numbers.

krageon 7y ago
> We just don't know without hard numbers. If the risk increased only very little, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be such a big blip in cancer occurrence. The combat risk is always going to be there, but the cancer is not. Putting those against each other isn't terribly relevant from a decision-making standpoint (unless the odds are very, very low - but we know this is not likely) So really, we can know a few things with a reasonable degree of certainty.
- eloff 7y ago
  Is it such a big blip? I didn't see that established either, but I may have missed it while skimming through. The risk of having to support troops from a suboptimal spot further away could have a very real impact on casualty rate in a conflict. So I think you do really have to quantify the tradeoffs here to say if one is better than the other.
  - kaikai 7y ago
    It is a big blip, and they talk about it in the article.
omarhaneef 7y ago
From the article: 61 people were diagnosed with cancer 7005 people were stationed there 5 brain cancers in 7,005 the US base rate is 1 in 16,000 for brain cancer (And this might undercount special forces etc etc)
- eloff 7y ago
  So for brain cancer anyway we're in the neighborhood of an order of magnitude increase in risk over the general population. This is significant and seems reasonable to say it may be higher than the number of lives that could have been saved in combat by using this base.
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Worse than that, not many 70 year olds in the us military.
    - eloff 7y ago
      True this rate will get worse over time.
baybal2 7y ago
Many explosives are carcinogens
- eloff 7y ago
  That's mostly neither here nor there if you don't eat them or handle them directly.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    But live ammo training is where soldier breathe in the combustion products and vapours from the portion of explosives that did not combust.
kaikai 7y ago
No one is asking for a risk-free military experience. They're asking for the VA to cover their medical expenses, which means recognizing that they're a result of their deployment.
- eloff 7y ago
  Yes, I think this is sufficiently established and the least the government can do here. That we even have to debate that at all is sad.

by eloff 7y ago

krageon 7y ago

> We just don't know without hard numbers. If the risk increased only very little, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be such a big blip in cancer occurrence. The combat risk is always going to be there, but the cancer is not. Putting those against each other isn't terribly relevant from a decision-making standpoint (unless the odds are very, very low - but we know this is not likely) So really, we can know a few things with a reasonable degree of certainty.

eloff 7y ago
Is it such a big blip? I didn't see that established either, but I may have missed it while skimming through. The risk of having to support troops from a suboptimal spot further away could have a very real impact on casualty rate in a conflict. So I think you do really have to quantify the tradeoffs here to say if one is better than the other.
- kaikai 7y ago
  It is a big blip, and they talk about it in the article.

omarhaneef 7y ago

From the article: 61 people were diagnosed with cancer 7005 people were stationed there 5 brain cancers in 7,005 the US base rate is 1 in 16,000 for brain cancer (And this might undercount special forces etc etc)

eloff 7y ago
So for brain cancer anyway we're in the neighborhood of an order of magnitude increase in risk over the general population. This is significant and seems reasonable to say it may be higher than the number of lives that could have been saved in combat by using this base.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Worse than that, not many 70 year olds in the us military.
  - eloff 7y ago
    True this rate will get worse over time.

baybal2 7y ago

Many explosives are carcinogens

eloff 7y ago
That's mostly neither here nor there if you don't eat them or handle them directly.
- baybal2 7y ago
  But live ammo training is where soldier breathe in the combustion products and vapours from the portion of explosives that did not combust.

kaikai 7y ago

No one is asking for a risk-free military experience. They're asking for the VA to cover their medical expenses, which means recognizing that they're a result of their deployment.

eloff 7y ago
Yes, I think this is sufficiently established and the least the government can do here. That we even have to debate that at all is sad.