Media Question Kerry's Mysterious 1,429 Death Toll in Syria

[marmar]

(The Nation) Days later and we still have no idea where Secretary of State John Kerry got that amazingly precise number of 1,429 killed in the alleged Syria chemical agent attack. He hasn’t cited full sourcing for it or taken questions on that. He merely claims he can’t say because it would “compromise” intelligence, which sounds like utter bull. President Obama also cited the death toll as fact in public statements beating the drums for war.

And all other sources put the number a little or a lot lower. Why does this matter in the current debate? Obviously the higher number, particularly with the also unproven claim of more than 400 dead kids, is meant to sell a US military attack to the American people—and that’s why it’s a key claim. That 1,400 number makes the latest attack seem so much worse than earlier alleged Assad chem attacks, which we did not find horrible enough to claim they crossed the “red line.”

Despite all that, most in US media for days still cited the number with little qualifying or probing. It was often said that Kerry "revealed" the number of deaths, not "claimed."

That’s starting to change, finally, although few in the media are charging Kerry with a deliberate lie. In the midst of a major AP story (on the US’s missing signs of the chemical attack) last night the reporter notes: “The administration says 1,429 died in the attack. Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower.” A September 3 New York Times piece referred to the “stunningly higher” US death figure. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/176039/media-question-kerrys-mysterious-1429-death-toll-syria-and-why-it-matters#axzz2dvzyQRTX

[dipsydoodle]

1. You have to make allowances

He said his 'phone number by mistake.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Be sure to count the ones from the incubators.

[KittyWampus]

3. at what point is DU going to disallow this contempt for the dead civilians?

You question the number? Fine.

But comparing it to a bogus story is not fine.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. No, contempt for dead civilians; just the liars who exploit them for wars of ego.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. Why do you hate America?

Remember that one?

[leveymg]

6. A partially bogus story is bogus, Ms. Wampus.

Yes, there is a comparison if it turns out that there has been significant exaggeration used to justify military action.

[cthulu2016]

7. Even ones who are not dead?

If the poster thinks the Obama number is a willful exageration then he/she is comparing the bogus Kuwaiti incubator baby deaths to the portion of the Obama death toll number that is false... the portion that represents no deaths.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. You sly dog. You saw right through my clever ruse. n/t

[Romulox]

10. I know. Dissent should not be tolerated!1!!!!!111!!!!11

[leftstreet]

17. Lying to citizens is showing contempt n/t

[leveymg]

5. I've had problems being about to accept that these crude rockets killed 1400 people at 12 sites

without there being evidence left behind of hundreds of them being used. The casualty figure just does not make sense based upon the physical evidence and the known gas dispersal characteristics of these devices, which is very limited by lack of effective range, inaccuracy, small payload, and the fact that it was nighttime, when most people were inside. Please, see,http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023576617

[Sand Wind]

9. Not me .

1. Lethal concentration-50% (respiratory): 100 mg-min/cu.m. (resting) (1)

2. Incapacitation concentration-50% (respiratory): 75 mg-min/cu. m. (resting) (1)

C. Definition:

The notation "mg-min/cu.m." translates to a cumulative dose over time. This means that the milligrams of sarin per cubic meter of air, are multiplied by the number of minutes of exposure, in order to calculate an individual's dose.

For example, if a group of people breathed a concentration of 100 milligrams of sarin per cubic meter of air for one minute, this would be a lethal dose for 50% of the group. Alternatively, if the concentration was 50 milligrams of sarin per cubic meter of air, and the group breathed it for 2 minutes, that would also be lethal for 50% of the group.

Death usually results within 15 minutes after absorption of a fatal dose. (1)

The incapacitation dose is also expressed as a cumulative dose, which is a lower level than the lethal dose. (1)

If the group of exposed people were exercising, they would be breathing faster and the lethal or incapacitation dose would be lower. (They would take in more air per minute.) (1)

D. How the lethal and incapacitation doses were derived:

The lethal dose was derived from data from animal experiments, which were extrapolated to humans. (2) The incapacitation dose was derived from experiments with human volunteers and lab animals. (2)

[leveymg]

12. Again, SW, you have to cite or link your sources.

I voted last night on a DU Jury to excuse your lack of a link in a video post that was alerted by someone else. It was a 3-3 tie, so your atrocity video wasn't pulled because of my vote.

A lot of your posts get pulled for that reason. But, you won't get too many more chances. You have to post sources or links for every sourced fact or item you post.

[Sand Wind]

13. Here

There is no rule about link in V and M

Same for comment here.

But I can give it for your eyes only :



http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/dugway/low_lv_chem_fact.htm

[leveymg]

16. Thank you. Here's some additional info.

Read the following with this in mind: the estimated radius of the gas cloud (and its lethality) is determined upon an ideal strike, which involves an airburst at 15 feet above the ground. A higher or lower altitude very significantly lessens the concentration of droplets that are aerosolized by a burst of a small amount of high explosive in the nose cone. There have been no reports that the devices used have altimeter fuses (larger missile warheads like Scuds have these) or are anywhere near accurate enough for timer fuses, as used in artillery gas shells.

The following data is for ideal delivery at 15 feet: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/chemterror.html

The nerve agent sarin, on the other hand, when taken orally, is ten times as toxic as TEPP to humans; according to Berkowitz et al.: "a small quantity of Sarin splashed on the skin is likely to produce a vapor concentration high enough to exceed the inhalation LD50 [mean lethal inhalatory dose] with a single breath" (Berkowitz et al. 1972: VIII-25).65

They go on:
In the open, six pounds of Sarin distributed by a three pound burster charge at a height of 15 feet creates a dosage of 3500 mg min/m3 20 yards from the burst within ten seconds; in 25 seconds, the cloud expands to a 50 yard radius with a minimum dosage of 100 mg min/m3 (Robinson, 1967). A minute after the burst, anyone in an area of over 70,000 square feet around the burst will have received at least a median lethal dose, and probably much more than that. In a confined space (banquet hall, auditorium), the effects will be even greater. (Berkowitz et al. 1972: VIII-25)

This means, the effective lethal range (one minute of inhalation) in each direction is 141 feet (about 50 yards) for a 6 pound container Sarin gas rocket that bursts at an altitude of 15 feet. One that bursts upon striking the ground (as do devices with simple concussion fuses) would have an effective lethal radius that is only a fraction of this. Sarin gas is slightly heavier than air, so it sinks rather than rises as a cloud.

If someone has evidence of air bursts, I haven't seen it. That is why I doubt these devices were delivered from "regime-controlled territory" at the range indicated and with the number of deaths claimed in the State Dept. report.

[leveymg]

23. My previous assertions that there had to be many dozens of rockets was predicated upon information I

had that each rocket held 1-2 liters of Sarin each. That is apparently the case for the 140 mm variety, but according to the HRW Report released yesterday at least 8 larger rockets (333 mm) were fired into the eastern suburb in the area of , and this type is estimated by experts to have a capacity to carry upwards of 50 liters of Sarin in each warhead.

I therefore must revise my earlier assessment, and would now acknowledge that in that immediate neighborhoods targeted it is entirely possible for these larger rockets to have killed several hundreds of people by area saturation with posion gas through the use of far fewer delivery devices than I had initially thought was the case. It is also now clear from the more detailed HRW report that the target of these larger rockets was an area only a few kilometers from the alleged launch site at the October War Museum where witnesses testified they had seen government forces firing rockets the night of 8/21.

[malaise]

8. The same media that ignored Lancet's figures re Iraq?

They are all liars.

[Junkdrawer]

11. You had it right yesterday

Warmonger

[malaise]

22. That they are - for sure

[David__77]

14. I give credit to Kerry for remembering to round to the nearest whole number.

As I said before...

[jsr]

15. 1,429 is too low. It's THOUSANDS!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/09/03/obama-syria-strike-chemical-weapons-congress-g-20-russia/2756991/

Before the meeting with Boehner and other members of Congress from both parties, Obama told reporters: "We have high confidence that Syria used — in an indiscriminate fashion — chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children."

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Well if you add all suspected attacks

We go over 2000 over the course of this. I s'pose it's thousands then

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Maybe in their "lethal gas attack" numbers they included people having a case of the vapors