HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Agnosticsherbet » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Agnosticsherbet

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: San Diego/Ca/Nuevo Pacifica
Home country: U.S. of A.
Current location: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 2,846

Journal Archives

Syria: Drop medicines, not bombs

THE horrors of the Iran-Iraq war, in which tens of thousands were killed by chemical weapons, leave no doubt of the danger Syrians face from further atrocities like last week's in Damascus.

Now that the line has almost certainly been crossed, further attacks seem likely. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime is thought to be holding stockpiles of the nerve agent sarin, and clearly there is willingness (from whichever side) to use it.

If, as also seems likely, the West decides to intervene, what action should it take? It is highly improbable that the threat can be reduced by bombing the stockpiles (see "Wind and rockets key clues in Syrian chemical puzzle" and "Iraq offers grim lessons for Syrian gas survivors"). Giving people the means to protect themselves is much better.

Iranian toxicologists who studied the victims of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s found that administering antidotes to nerve agents mainly atropine and pralidoxime injected into muscle in the hours and days after a sarin attack can save lives and reduce the chances of chronic symptoms in survivors. Even cheap alternatives such as sodium bicarbonate and magnesium sulphate can help.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929321.500-syria-drop-medicines-not-bombs.html#.Uh6Uj6nn-Ah

After all the arguing and fighting, I see something that I support. I do hope that someone who reads this has the ear of the President, the Department of Defense, or someone in power. Whether you believe we should support strikes or stay out of the situation, delivering supplies that will save people's lives should be acceptable.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Wed Aug 28, 2013, 08:27 PM (8 replies)

Syria: Drop medicines, not bombs

Source: New Scientist

THE horrors of the Iran-Iraq war, in which tens of thousands were killed by chemical weapons, leave no doubt of the danger Syrians face from further atrocities like last week's in Damascus.

Now that the line has almost certainly been crossed, further attacks seem likely. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime is thought to be holding stockpiles of the nerve agent sarin, and clearly there is willingness (from whichever side) to use it.

If, as also seems likely, the West decides to intervene, what action should it take? It is highly improbable that the threat can be reduced by bombing the stockpiles (see "Wind and rockets key clues in Syrian chemical puzzle" and "Iraq offers grim lessons for Syrian gas survivors"). Giving people the means to protect themselves is much better.

Iranian toxicologists who studied the victims of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s found that administering antidotes to nerve agents mainly atropine and pralidoxime injected into muscle in the hours and days after a sarin attack can save lives and reduce the chances of chronic symptoms in survivors. Even cheap alternatives such as sodium bicarbonate and magnesium sulphate can help.


Read more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929321.500-syria-drop-medicines-not-bombs.html#.Uh5di6nn-Ag



After all the arguing and fighting, I see something that I support. I do hope that someone who reads this has the ear of the President, the Department of Defense, or someone in power. Whether you believe we should support strikes or stay out of the situation, delivering supplies that will save peoples lives should be acceptable.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Wed Aug 28, 2013, 04:35 PM (6 replies)
Go to Page: 1