4um: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit

Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source: The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 36282
Comments: 457

The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide

On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq.

The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement.

There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous.

Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline.

And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.

There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced.

Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available.

The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press.

Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces.

The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests?

If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people?

For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial.

Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out?

The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health

So the strategic bombing of Germany took place in a country about the same size as California or Iraq.

British bomber planes attacked Hamburg, Germany, creating a firestorm over nine square miles, reaching 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, killing 40,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II "The bombing created a firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500°C (2700°F). ... snip ... A Dresden police report written shortly after the attacks stated that the old town and the inner eastern suburbs had been engulfed in a single fire which had destroyed almost 12,000 dwellings including residential barracks. The report also said that the raid had destroyed "24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 6470 shops; 640 warehouses; 256 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theatres; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 60 chapels; 50 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. The report also mentioned that the Wehrmacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. Almost 200 factories were damaged, 136 seriously (including several of the Zeiss Ikon precision optical engineering works), 28 with medium to serious damage, and 35 with light damage. "British assessments ... concluded that 23 percent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged."

Over 1000 British bombers attacked Cologne, Germany, devastating 600 acres, including hundreds of factories, and leaving 45,000 homeless.

You guys are claiming that the above killed far fewer people than what we've done in Iraq, mostly with gunfire.

And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined.

It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?

But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.

You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.

No one said they were. But the number caused by air strikes, cited at the time of the survey, and likely has increased since then, is still a substantial number. Furthermore air power destroys infrastructure which then causes other deaths.

It's clear they are using the Hydra rockets extensively. They don't give numbers for those. And that's why a single contract for them was $900 million. Also they refuse to quantify the number of cannon rounds and smaller caliber ammunition used. That's also substantial.

Furthermore Balad Air Base is said to be as busy as O'Hare Airport in Chicago. Are we to believe that all those planes stacked up 10 levels high never kill anything? ROTFLOL yourself.

Last but not least, when asked how the Air Force would take sufficient measures to protect civilians, their spokesman said "Not in a manner that you would be happy with."

So there is clearly a reckless disregard for life, which creates an environment in which these numbers can occur.

Now are Russia and Colombia more violent than Iraq? Because that's what the people denying the survey are stating.

If you don't see it on page 54, look on page 55 or page 53. Don't be lazy. It's there. Right at the top of the page on the left column. "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000. In Orange type.

What I quoted was not out of context. And what the report concluded is entirely relevant.

It was published shortly after the first John Hopkins' (the one claiming 100,000 deaths) study. The second John Hopkins' study (the one claiming 655,000 deaths) claims the results of the first study were found to be valid.

Regardless of purpose, the study estimated war related deaths and it was in fact done in much the same manner ... through interviews, clustering, etc. The report states "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study.

You are wrong. The study mentions the Lancet study on the same page. Right below the Table 39 it states "Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8000 to 194,000."

You just can't face the possibility that the Les Roberts' study was bogus, can you.

You are doing the accuseing BAC, and accusseing Diana of something YOU said not her.

She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying. No honest person reading her comment could assume that.

"have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?"

Which is it, just an acceptable number of collateral damage or a genocide??? BAC??

How nice of you to admit that the truth doesn't matter. Just victory for your agenda.

Actually, it does. Depending on how you read the page numbers, it is either on Page 53, 54 or 55. And you could have easily used the search feature of whatever application you used to open the pdf to find the quote. That's what I did. But I guess that's perhaps a skill you don't have. You are too use to being spoon fed.

Yes, that would be the American agenda, not this neocon, Zionist-driven swill you assclowns have swallowed whole. Got it, putz?

You have any idea of the payload of the B-17 compared to the payload of an F-18 or a Spectre AC-130?

The source where I think you got that list of US casualties, http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx also lists Iraqi civilian deaths reported from April 28, 2005 to now as being less than 25,000. But during same period, Les Roberts and his John Hopkins team are saying that over 370,000 excess deaths occurred.

Go back and read my whole post and you will see how foolish you are being by putting words in my mouth.

And by the way, most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities. And unlike the modern precision guided bombs, the ones dropped on Germany were dumb. That's why they carpet bombed. Cities. Yet you folks want us to believe that more Iraqis have died with the Coalition going out of its way to spare civilians than died in Germany. I think most visitors to this forum might see a flaw in that logic. And most will probably be amazed to see you folks still defending that flaw in the face of what I've posted on this thread.

illed in the war. That was the second time I’d read of the military censoring a casualty-related site. http://Memoryhole.org, the site that first showed photos of flag-draped coffins being shipped back from Iraq, said in June that one of its readers had a similar experience. GIs trying to visit that site were greeted with:

I assumed this wasn’t policy, but rather an overzealous sys-admin with too much time on his hands. I was wrong. An Army spokesman has now explained to me that it is indeed the Army’s intention to block service-members from viewing non-Pentagon casualty sites. (Other services apparently have similar policies and do use filtering software.) Captain Chris Karns, a spokesman with Centcom, explained:

UPDATE
Since most people seem to be accessing this post directly, here's some further detail from other posts:

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1137856

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Acknowledges Blocking Casualty Sites:

» Free Press in Iraq from Political Animal

FREE PRESS IN IRAQ....Should soldiers in Iraq have access to websites that list the number of casualties suffered in the war so far? The Pentagon doesn't think so and blocks access to all such sites. Eric Umansky has the details.... [Read More]

» Pentagon learns from the CCP from The Peking Duck
Interesting. It seems the Pentagon blocks US soldiers in Iraq from accessing Web sites that list US casualties in our glorious war. Why? What are they worried about? Bush says freedom and democracy are spreading like wildfire. What's a few... [Read More]

» Fighting for Freedom from Snow World
Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites Our soldiers fight for freedom, but the Defense Department doesn't trust them with it. Nice example to set for the Iraqis. Next thing you know, they'll put Baghdad Bob back on the air, telling everyone [Read More]

» September 18: Today's Reason to Not Elect George W. Bush from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog
Today's shrill critic of George W. Bush is Eric Umansky: Eric Umansky: Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites: Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that... [Read More]

» Military censors http://icasualties.org, CNN casualty page from Infothought
In war, truth is the first casuality [Read More]

Tracked on September 20, 2004 at 01:55 AM

» Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites from vowe dot net

Eric Umansky reports:Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that compiles casualty figures for Americans Iraq, as well as CNN33;s page on servicemembers killed in t... [Read More]

» Ask About That from Ask About That
Ask About That [Read More]

» Time>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">Time is not on my side from U r a n u s
Talk is going on about... [Read>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">[Read More]

Comments

DoD's daily casualty tallies are nothing new. They have had them available for months now. For example, http://GlobalSecurity.org keeps an archive of them going back to November 2003.

Posted by: anonymous | September 18, 2004 at 07:22 PM

Hi; Perhaps of interest:
I compile this weekly datasheet on military fatalities. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/DeRooij_Iraq-Coalition-Toll.htm

About two weeks ago my access to DefenseLink was blocked, and now I must use another account to view that website...

Kind rgds
Paul

Posted by: Paul de Rooij | September 20, 2004 at 11:50 AM

Please note that there are 43 casualties from South Carolina listed on our website, which is more than the 29 listed on http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx website. We are searching info. to learn if there are more SC citizens that have died from wounds in hospitals.

So you admit 600,000 bodies are missing. What did they do with these bodies then, you must know since you know exactly how many are missing!

He obviously knows all about it and what happened to those 600,000 bodies, he's busted!

your argument in 412 is brilliant BAC. You've won this one. The US & UK bombed germany during WW2 and therefore - the Johns Hopkins study showing that 650,000 Iraqis died since the invasion who otherwise would not have died without the invasion is false. Why didn't I think of that? My awe for your reasoning powers is fully restored after you stumbled on the 911 thread a few days ago.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Yes, I see the problem. The ratio of dead INVADERS to innocent Iraqi civilians should be reversed.

Actually I simply asked her questions. She tried to explain away the fact that there is NO physical evidence to support the allegation that 655,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq through July of last year by stating "In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later." Now maybe you don't see that as assertion that our soldiers must be involved in covering up the bulk of that death but I think most people will. And I think most will understand my logic in suggesting it would take quite a few soldiers to hide all that evidence and keep reporters away. And soldiers being soldiers, I think most will agree that by now all soldiers in Iraq would know this is going on. In which case, they must be keeping it quiet. Which can only make them accessories to the crime. Right?

She certainly implied someone connected to our government is doing the burying. If not our soldiers, WHO? And how could anyone hide what they were doing from our soldiers? Sorry, but I think it is highly illogical to believe that this scale of attrocity (which, by the way, it greater than the one Saddam was accused of) is going on without our soldiers being aware of it and therefore complicit.

Wouldn't you be better off on a forum where people didn't click your links and chek them out?

You could then just go back to posting bullshit links like you were doing at the top of this thread. Wouldn't that be easier?

Maybe if you posted another link selling magazine subscriptions people would fall for your BS.

You might as well try it. You are not getting anywhere with what you are doing now.

BAC I an happy to have an honest questioner of the events as presented. I am sure we can both find common ground in finding the mass media wanting in accuracy and depth.

I am not against your POV, I , as I have to assume you are thirsty for the truth.

so when are you going to give us your ron brown kookery? it's been a more than a full week now.

I take it we are to believe that the bio and chem weaponry would be launched on the back of sand fleas which would/could magically fly or float on wind streams from over there to over here?

The disinfo from the admin is only surpassed by your feeble attempts to baffle with bullshit.

BAC's argument in #412 is brilliant. Who would've figured that out (except BAC) that because the allies bombed Dresden during WW2 the John Hopkins study is false. Who would've ever figured that out? And I'm afraid that now with the Dresden argumnent in BAC's arsenal he can defeat us all in any argument about any subject. All he has to do is bring up the FACT that the allies bombed germany during WW2 and this can disprove any assertion that anyone makes about anything.

I think we're going to have to put up with BAC winning all arguments from now on.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It's hopeless to argue with a person who can't distinguish lies from the truth, and won't recognize other people's points, just distorts their words to fit his agenda. He's simply rude and dishonest to the core. There is no reasoning with him.

I have to wonder if he relates to everyone this way, or if he is some type of supremecist, for whom he has a different set of standards when he is among them. Somehow I suspect this guy is this way with everyone though, he's devoid of conscience, a hopeless sociopath.

BAC since you think lurkers are so impressed with you and what you have to say (not), why don't you go post at DU? That is a much larger forum, I'm sure there would so many more people over there to impress with your brilliant dishonesty. This is a small forum and not many people read here. You would have such a greater audience over at DU, imagine the number of people you would manage to sway to your way of thinking. I would consider making the switch so you could reach more people.

Oh! Got a problem with the 4um posters, eh BAC? Ever consider the term "Hospitality?" There's a reciprocal relationship implied - something about common sense manners.

Period	Date	US	UK	Other*	Total
5	02/19/07	5	0	0	5
5	02/18/07	2	0	0	2
5	02/17/07	4	0	0	4
5	02/16/07	1	0	0	1
5	02/14/07	5	0	0	5
5	02/13/07	2	0	0	2
5	02/12/07	0	0	0	0
5	02/11/07	3	0	0	3
5	02/10/07	1	0	0	1
5	02/09/07	4	1	0	5
5	02/08/07	3	0	0	3
5	02/07/07	11	0	1	12
5	02/06/07	2	0	0	2
5	02/05/07	1	1	0	2
5	02/04/07	2	0	0	2
5	02/03/07	1	0	0	1
5	02/02/07	6	0	0	6
5	02/01/07	7	0	0	7
5	01/31/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/30/07	3	0	0	3
5	01/29/07	1	0	0	1
5	01/28/07	3	0	0	3
5	01/27/07	5	0	0	5
5	01/26/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/25/07	4	0	0	4
5	01/24/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/23/07	3	0	0	3
5	01/22/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/21/07	3	1	0	4
5	01/20/07	25	0	0	25
5	01/19/07	3	0	0	3
5	01/18/07	1	0	0	1
5	01/17/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/16/07	1	0	0	1
5	01/15/07	5	0	0	5
5	01/14/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/13/07	1	1	0	2
5	01/09/07	3	0	0	3
5	01/07/07	5	1	0	6
5	01/06/07	2	0	0	2
5	01/05/07	1	0	0	1
5	01/04/07	1	0	0	1
5	01/01/07	1	0	0	1
5	12/31/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/30/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/29/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/28/06	6	1	0	7
5	12/27/06	6	0	2	8
5	12/26/06	3	0	0	3
5	12/25/06	7	0	0	7
5	12/24/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/23/06	7	0	0	7
5	12/22/06	1	0	0	1
5	12/21/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/20/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/19/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/18/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/17/06	1	0	0	1
5	12/16/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/15/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/14/06	3	0	0	3
5	12/12/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/11/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/10/06	5	0	0	5
5	12/09/06	1	0	0	1
5	12/07/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/06/06	12	0	0	12
5	12/05/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/04/06	8	0	0	8
5	12/03/06	7	0	0	7
5	12/02/06	4	0	0	4
5	12/01/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/30/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/29/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/28/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/27/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/26/06	4	0	0	4
5	11/25/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/24/06	2	1	0	3
5	11/23/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/22/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/21/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/19/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/18/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/16/06	1	0	0	1
5	11/15/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/14/06	7	0	0	7
5	11/13/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/12/06	2	4	0	6
5	11/11/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/10/06	0	0	2	2
5	11/09/06	5	0	0	5
5	11/07/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/06/06	3	1	0	4
5	11/05/06	2	0	0	2
5	11/04/06	3	0	0	3
5	11/02/06	8	0	0	8
5	11/01/06	3	0	0	3
5	10/31/06	2	0	0	2
5	10/30/06	3	0	0	3
5	10/29/06	1	0	0	1
5	10/27/06	1	1	0	2
5	10/26/06	1	0	0	1
5	10/25/06	5	0	0	5
5	10/23/06	5	0	0	5
5	10/22/06	5	0	0	5
5	10/21/06	6	0	0	6
5	10/20/06	1	0	1	2
5	10/19/06	1	0	0	1
5	10/18/06	4	0	0	4
5	10/17/06	11	0	0	11
5	10/15/06	7	0	0	7
5	10/14/06	6	0	0	6
5	10/13/06	3	0	0	3
5	10/12/06	1	0	0	1
5	10/11/06	3	0	0	3
5	10/09/06	4	0	0	4
5	10/08/06	6	0	0	6
5	10/07/06	5	0	0	5
5	10/06/06	3	0	1	4
5	10/04/06	6	0	0	6
5	10/03/06	2	0	0	2
5	10/02/06	8	1	0	9
5	10/01/06	6	0	0	6
5	09/30/06	4	0	0	4
5	09/29/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/28/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/27/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/26/06	4	0	0	4
5	09/25/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/24/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/23/06	4	0	1	5
5	09/21/06	1	0	1	2
5	09/20/06	5	0	0	5
5	09/19/06	4	0	0	4
5	09/18/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/17/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/16/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/15/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/14/06	7	0	0	7
5	09/13/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/12/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/11/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/09/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/08/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/07/06	3	1	0	4
5	09/06/06	2	0	0	2
5	09/04/06	6	2	0	8
5	09/03/06	9	0	0	9
5	09/02/06	1	0	0	1
5	09/01/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/31/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/30/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/29/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/28/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/27/06	12	0	0	12
5	08/26/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/25/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/24/06	4	0	0	4
5	08/23/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/22/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/21/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/20/06	4	0	0	4
5	08/19/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/18/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/17/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/16/06	4	0	0	4
5	08/12/06	3	0	0	3
5	08/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/09/06	5	0	0	5
5	08/06/06	4	0	0	4
5	08/05/06	1	0	0	1
5	08/04/06	3	0	0	3
5	08/03/06	2	0	0	2
5	08/02/06	4	0	0	4
5	08/01/06	1	1	0	2
5	07/31/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/29/06	4	0	0	4
5	07/27/06	4	0	1	5
5	07/26/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/25/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/24/06	3	0	0	3
5	07/22/06	3	0	0	3
5	07/21/06	2	0	0	2
5	07/20/06	2	0	0	2
5	07/19/06	0	0	1	1
5	07/18/06	2	0	0	2
5	07/17/06	4	0	0	4
5	07/16/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/15/06	2	1	0	3
5	07/14/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/13/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/12/06	2	0	0	2
5	07/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/09/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/08/06	3	0	0	3
5	07/03/06	1	0	0	1
5	07/02/06	2	0	0	2
5	07/01/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/29/06	5	0	0	5
5	06/28/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/27/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/26/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/25/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/24/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/23/06	5	0	0	5
5	06/22/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/21/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/20/06	4	0	0	4
5	06/17/06	2	0	0	2
5	06/16/06	4	0	0	4
5	06/15/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/14/06	1	0	0	1
5	06/09/06	5	0	0	5
5	06/08/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/07/06	3	0	0	3
5	06/06/06	6	0	1	7
5	06/05/06	3	0	1	4
5	06/03/06	4	0	0	4
5	05/31/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/30/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/29/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/28/06	0	2	0	2
5	05/27/06	3	0	0	3
5	05/26/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/25/06	3	0	0	3
5	05/23/06	3	0	0	3
5	05/22/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/21/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/18/06	5	0	0	5
5	05/17/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/16/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/15/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/14/06	7	0	0	7
5	05/13/06	2	2	0	4
5	05/12/06	2	0	0	2
5	05/11/06	7	0	0	7
5	05/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/09/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/08/06	1	0	0	1
5	05/07/06	1	0	1	2
5	05/06/06	5	5	0	10
5	05/05/06	4	0	0	4
5	05/04/06	4	0	0	4
5	05/03/06	4	0	0	4
5	05/01/06	2	0	0	2
5	04/29/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/28/06	5	0	0	5
5	04/27/06	3	0	4	7
5	04/26/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/25/06	2	0	0	2
5	04/24/06	2	0	0	2
5	04/23/06	3	0	0	3
5	04/22/06	6	0	0	6
5	04/21/06	0	0	1	1
5	04/20/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/19/06	2	0	0	2
5	04/18/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/16/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/15/06	5	1	0	6
5	04/14/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/13/06	3	0	0	3
5	04/12/06	3	0	0	3
5	04/11/06	4	0	0	4
5	04/10/06	2	0	0	2
5	04/09/06	3	0	0	3
5	04/08/06	4	0	0	4
5	04/07/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/06/06	4	0	0	4
5	04/04/06	1	0	0	1
5	04/02/06	13	0	0	13
5	04/01/06	4	0	0	4
5	03/31/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/30/06	2	0	0	2
5	03/28/06	3	0	0	3
5	03/25/06	1	0	1	2
5	03/23/06	2	0	1	3
5	03/21/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/18/06	2	0	0	2
5	03/16/06	3	0	0	3
5	03/15/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/13/06	3	0	0	3
5	03/12/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/11/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/08/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/07/06	2	0	0	2
5	03/06/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/05/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/03/06	1	0	0	1
5	03/01/06	3	0	0	3
5	02/28/06	0	2	0	2
5	02/27/06	1	0	0	1
5	02/26/06	4	0	0	4
5	02/25/06	3	0	0	3
5	02/24/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/22/06	7	0	0	7
5	02/21/06	1	0	0	1
5	02/20/06	3	0	0	3
5	02/18/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/17/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/14/06	3	0	0	3
5	02/12/06	3	0	0	3
5	02/09/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/07/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/06/06	5	0	0	5
5	02/05/06	4	0	0	4
5	02/04/06	1	0	0	1
5	02/03/06	2	0	0	2
5	02/02/06	3	1	0	4
5	02/01/06	5	0	0	5
5	01/31/06	0	1	0	1
5	01/30/06	0	1	0	1
5	01/28/06	3	0	0	3
5	01/27/06	1	0	0	1
5	01/25/06	2	0	0	2
5	01/24/06	1	0	0	1
5	01/23/06	5	0	0	5
5	01/22/06	2	0	0	2
5	01/20/06	6	0	0	6
5	01/17/06	1	0	0	1
5	01/16/06	2	0	0	2
5	01/15/06	2	0	0	2
5	01/14/06	1	0	0	1
5	01/13/06	4	0	0	4
5	01/10/06	1	0	0	1
5	01/07/06	18	0	0	18
5	01/05/06	11	0	0	11
5	01/01/06	2	0	0	2
5	12/31/05	1	0	0	1
5	12/30/05	3	0	0	3
5	12/29/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/28/05	1	0	0	1
5	12/27/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/26/05	4	0	0	4
5	12/25/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/24/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/23/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/22/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/20/05	2	0	0	2
5	12/19/05	1	0	0	1
5	12/18/05	1	0	0	1
5	12/16/05	1	0	0	1
5	12/15/05	2	0	0	2
Total		992	34	21	1047