Blood Vessel Shunt May Save Limbs In War 157
The FDA has just approved for military use a shunt that allows partially-severed limbs to continue to get circulation. The FDA approved the device in a fast-track process lasting only a week. The article notes: "For most, it won't be a matter of saving a limb outright but rather salvaging the quality of a wounded leg or arm... The shunt may save injured limbs from amputation, since it can be implanted on the battlefield to maintain blood flow until a wounded soldier undergoes surgery, FDA officials said. Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."
Re:Only 500? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not to argue semantics... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 8,450 amputations in 2005, with 5,780 being fingertips and another 2,300 involving fingers. That leaves 370 other injuries. It reports 190 injuries for hands and feet, leaving 180 injuries that involve loss of limb. Link:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/ostb1669.tx
I'm comfortable assuming people get hurt working a lot more often than playing, so there are something like 400 injuries a year that involve very high loss of functionality(I wouldn't even want to lose one finger, but a hand is a whole nother level). Soldiers are generally young and active, and they have excellent medical care, so I can see how several hundred amputees a year would contribute significantly to research.
Re:Even better (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? You have a very bizarre definition of "forced".
The whole WMD argument never really made much sense. For one thing, of the various so called "WMD", only nuclear weapons were substantially more effective that traditional weapons. Sure, you could potentially kill 100,000 people in a packed football stadium with sarin but you could also do that with any number of conventional weapons. Biological weapons sound scary because you don't need very much of the agent itself but for effective dispersal you need large and sophisticated equipment and you also need to infect people without them knowing or they just take antibiotics.
Even supposing the WMD in question could actually take out all of Manhattan, you have this bizarre situation where if Saddam has the WMD (and is not using them - a factual observation) then invading is likely to make him use them which is going to result in the destruction of NYC. In other words, if Saddam actually had real WMD then it would have been foolish to invade. On the other hand, if Saddam didn't have WMD then it's kind of hard to justify invading.
The only way you could justify invading would be if you knew that Saddam did not have WMD but that Saddam was only months from producing them. If Saddam was years away from having them then there would be time for other approaches besides all out invasion. Now, suppose you're right. Suppose that the USA knew that Saddam did not have WMD and also knew that Saddam was months away from producing WMD that could take out all of Manhattan. In that case, the USA goes to Saddam and says "OK, Kid. We have all this specific intelligence about what you're doing and you either need to stop and let the weapons inspectors verify it or we're going to invade.
You may claim that's what the USA did but you'd be making it up. The USA didn't even let the weapons inspectors finish their inspections. Hans Blix kept saying to the USA "Tell me where to inspect" and the USA was like "Well, we don't really know but we're sure it's there somewhere". The thing is, the USA wasn't sure. In fact, we now know that the Bush adminstration had created certain groups within the Pentagon to make the stuff up.
PS. I'm not the original AC who responded to you but the reason I'm posting AC is because I have a motto "Don't mess with mean stupid people" - not because I'm a coward: I just don't see the point. If you're claiming that the USA was forced to invade Iraq then you are either mean or stupid. For all I know, if you knew my real identity then you would believe that you were "forced" to hack my computer and delete my files. I don't see the point of leaving myself open to that kind of annoyance. It's the ideas that matter and they will be out there regardless of how they are posted.
Re:Only 500? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not exactly true. A .223 caliber bullet [wikipedia.org] from an M-16 often causes much more damage than an 7.62mm bullet from an AK-47 because the .223 has a much higher muzzle velocity and, therefore, more energy. Of course, it depends on where on the body the bullet hits as well. A bullet striking bone causes more tissue damage and can be deflect causing further damage.
As a paramedic in an area with a lot of gangs, .22 cal wounds were very often more serious than those caused by larger calibers.
Too damned funny, (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess we didn't learn from the landmines of WWII almost 60 fucking years ago, did we? Did D-day slip our minds? War isn't fucking pleasant. Failure to learn from past mistakes only leads to drastic future mistakes.