Zar

Morpho,

Sorry so long to respond. Your last points here are very well taken, and I have no particular problems with them. Thank you for hanging in there.

In case someone doesn't want to listen to the hour of programming presented above, here's a quick summary of Rokke's complaint. I do not offer it as proof of anything other than a fairly clear presentation of what his beef is and on what grounds they rest, in general:

Depleted uranium: war hazard?

I'll come back with another thread on this (or a new post in this one, more likely) after probably a few weeks of looking at this when I can.

fanny666

The debate over "war" vs. "combat" seems to be resolved, I'm sorry that I misinterpreted the
distinction as having been made by morpho. I do not know the exact date he went over, but he talks
about "scuds coming in over my head" and that sort of thing. You really should at least listen to his
talk. Rokke talks about the failure to follow procedures (many of which he wrote).

You are right, I will concede that "physics professor" is not the same thing as "University staff physicist who taught college and graduate level courses in physical sciences and engineering." I wrote that phrase based on a blurb, before I had seen the vitae.

What "staff physicist" means and what "supported department research" means are open to interpretation, you are right. But I think my phrase "research physicist" is a fair and accurate description based on the vitae. If he was an instructor or an assistant, "staff physicist" would be quite an exaggeration. I am a researcher in a neuroscience lab, the lab assistants certainly do not call themselves "staff neuroscientists." I do not know if he even wanted to be a professor.

I guess we could call and ask him, his number is 217-643-6205. I tried to e-mail him, but the only address I could find was the one @jsu.edu .

In the "SELECTED PUBLICATIONS" section, he lists a paper published in the journal "Physics Today" in
1980.

Some papers and talks relating to "hazardous materials expert for the Army"

Rokke, D.; Shank, J.; Wright, S.; & Lindsay, D. (Jan. 1996) Introduction to Depleted Uranium. Army
Chemical Review. Headquarters, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Chemical School, Fort McClellan,
Alabama.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Prevention Subcommittee member; Health and Environmental
Consequences of Operation Desert Storm; Atlanta, Georgia; 1998 - present

Chase, W.; Rokke, D.; and others. (1995) Chemical /Biological Counterterrorism Course Student Handout. Headquarters, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Chemical School, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Rokke, D.; Shank, J.; Battle, E. and others. (1995) Depleted Uranium Project Training support
packages: Tier I: Awareness, Tier II: Battlefield Damage Assessment and Repair, and Tier III: Chemical Corps. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Rokke, D; Shank, J.; and others. (1995) Draft AR 700-XX: Management of Contaminated and Damaged
Material. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R. Bradley Radiological
Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Rokke, D; Shank, J.; and others. (1995) Draft DA PAM 700-XX: Procedures for Management of Contaminated and Damaged Materiel. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Rokke, D; Shank, J.; Corkan, J.; and others. (1995) Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness TVT 3-92 PIN #
710493. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Rokke, D; Shank, J.; Corkan, J.; and others. (1995) Contaminated & Damaged Equipment Management
Operations TVT 3-99 PIN # 710494. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Tsoulos, D.; Bauer, U.; Blisset, C.; Dolph, R.; Fails, C.; Rokke, D. (1991). Contamination Control and Casualty Decontamination SOP. Department of the Army, United States Central Command, 3rd Medical
Command, Operation Desert Storm.

Contributor and technical advisor; "Gulf War Illnesses; Understanding of Health Effects From Depleted
Uranium Evolving but Safety Training Needed", U.S. Government Accounting Office, report #
GAO/NSAID-00-70, March 29, 2000

Contributor and prevention panel member; "The Health Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War: A Research Planning conference", Center for Disease Control and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, March 20, 2000 (CDC, not DOD)

Invited expert: Depleted Uranium round table discussion, Presidential Oversight Board for Department of Defense Investigations of Gulf War Chemical and Biological Incidents, Arlington, Virginia, April 1999

Invited panelist / presentation, "Depleted Uranium during Operation Desert Storm"; Depleted Uranium
Panel, 3rd Annual Gulf War Illness Conference, National Gulf War Resource Center, Arlington, Virginia September 1998 (obviously not sponsored by the US Army)

Numerous presentations describing Depleted Uranium project, U.S. Army Chemical School, Edwin R.
Bradley Radiological Laboratories, Fort McClellan, Alabama. 1994-present.

Staff Instructor, United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region V Annual Hazardous
Materials Technical Specialist Training Conference; September, 1992; Chicago, Illinois.

Invited Presentation; General session address "Operation Desert Storm: The Haz Mat Factor"; 4th Annual Midwest Hazardous Materials Conference; March 1992; Mundelein, Illinois. (looks like a civilian group)

Invited Presentation; "Depleted Uranium: Incidents, Hazards, and Mitigation." AFLC/AFSC Occupational
and Environmental Health Conference; U. S. Air Force; Wright Patterson Air Force Base; February 1992

"Technical consultant and cited expert on environmental and health effects of uranium" for "Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for U.S. Department of Defense" and "McClellan Air Force Base,
California, Restoration Advisory Board"

"Director of the Depleted Uranium Project" is explicitly listed in his vitae, and he also talks about
taking the position (19:30 and 42:48, for example). I guess I do not understand why you think he is
lying. Are you saying that he made the title up?

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses the title for him:
"after
the Gulf War served as the DOD/Army Depleted Uranium Project Director" (page 7)

I understand and take well your point about citing Rokke as the only authority. I don't think that
anyone sees Rokke as the ONLY authority, and my problem comes when you seem to be painting him as Not An Authority At All, which seems to be without basis. In fact, I would argue that he is "quite an
important" authority, given what he did for the DOD.

He is not the only one to talk about vets getting sick and dying. I'll add some more supportive references next post.

fanny666

There are plenty of articles which DO find DU to be harmful, including cancer and genetic abnormalities, not just psychological or environmental. Dr. Rick quoted a few. Whether those effects are considered chemical or radiological, that's sort of a case-by-case. Whether those who say it is nearly harmless are right or not- they certainly disagree with a lot of researchers.

It's been hotly debated for a long time. Just go to PubMed and look up "Depleted Uranium" (I assume this is what Rick did) and you see the chasm in opinions just from the titles.

Anybody in the sciences knows that one can (even unconsciously) steer toward a conclusion. For a couple of years, I've been studying the effects of SSRIs (like Prozac, Paxil, etc) on aggression. A very controvesial subject, hotly debated. Lots of different conclusions from lots of different scientists. The one CONSTANT I found was that in research funded by Lily, the findings found no connection between Prozac and increased aggression. Does this equal "conspiracy"? Not necessarily. It's selective vision.

Incidentally, even DOD researchers have found plenty of DU hazards, at least in the lab. The disconnect seems to be how that translates to the battlefield. If Rokke and his team were involved in DU clean-up, one can assume that they likely had both the most intense (lots of dust-sized particles not seen by those who handle DU munitions) and the most prolonged exposure. It would follow that they would be the most likely to see advanced or accelerated effects, probably way above the "general population" of Gulf War Vets.

But apart from scientific arguments, I have to admit to having an emotional reaction: I guess I am also not seeing the "practical" reason for Rokke to run around making things up.

Morpho, you seem like a military guy, when you hear Rokke talk, are you not concerned? Do you really hear "hidden agenda" in his voice? Has the DOD never covered up something they have done? Have they never experimented on American soldiers and gotten caught? Do they have a good record for VA and health care?

Doug Rokke has little to gain by what he is saying. In fact, he has lost much- his job, his health care, and any other vet benefits. The DOD has much to lose if DU is found to have the sorts of effects Maj. Rokke is describing. It seems much more logical that Rokke is telling truths the DOD would rather keep quiet. I can accept that Rokke may have an agenda. Can you honestly NOT accept that the DOD may have one as well?

I guess there might not even be a way to check the DOD records on those casualties, because Rokke claims they have been altered.

I also don't think a lot of things that should be front page news make it on the front page. Look at what our allies in Colombia or Turkey do to their populations. There's tens of thousands of deaths within the past ten years- unreported.

But the idea that the Gulf War made a lot of people sick is certainly not a new one. In fact, Rokke's numbers jive with those of the Gulf War Resource Center, a sort of support network for those who suffer from "Gulf War Syndrome." Hundreds of thousands of vets have sought treatment. Thousands have died. Is it from DU? I don't know, and neither does anybody else, it seems. But, again, I'd say that I cannot figure why Rokke would lie, and I can figure why the DOD would *not* be encouraging front page headlines.

The study of post-war casualties by HK Kang (who has written many papers on the subject for the DOD) didn't get specific enough in the abstract- I'll have to read the full text to be able to comment.

Just one easy obsevation- a Cox proportional hazards model is a very complicated biostat, and I'd have to know what he chose as his varibles. To just look at cancer rates- which seem to be what Rokke claims as the the hazard from DU- you certainly wouldn't need a CPH model, you could just do an ANOVA between the 2 groups. But comparing war vets to a civilian population of the same age would make a lot more sense for what WE are talking about, because any non-combat contact with DU would certainly be a statistical confound. Kang seemed to be focusing more on the effects of Iraqi chemical weapons during combat in Khamisiyah, not DU. Not a conspiracy, but just naturally assuming that any problems came from "them".

There were many toxins in the Gulf War, and so there are probably many reasons our GIs got sick. As far as Kang's conclusions- my department doesn't subscribe to the American Journal of Epidemiology, so I can't get it off the 'net, but I will order a copy of the full article, maybe I can even get a PDF of it.

Zar

Using "front page news" as a methodology for measuring the legitimacy of a claim has to be about the weakest possible road one could take, and should be immediately dismissed. Although we can certainly count on the media to track faithfully and consistently the size of J. Lo's buttocks, they have not been the leading researchers in most cases. To wait until things achieve a fever pitch on the media is to be a total slave to what the media thinks is important. As often as not, what is in the news media is as skewed as anthing else, so it is no automatic reference point, IMO.

Many of the most important issues require work on the part of the inquisitive individual. Waiting for the 10 O'Clock news to validate it just doesn't cut it. Indeed, it is usually the case that stories like this begin with a few dissenters who are initially shunned, and then when things get to a certain point, they "tip" into the mainstream. But that point may only come years and years later.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by fanny666
But apart from scientific arguments, I have to admit to having an emotional reaction: I guess I am also not seeing the "practical" reason for Rokke to run around making things up.

There are plenty of people who go around espousing a viewpoint inconsistent with reality but not deliberately made up.

Simply from it's position on the perodic table it's pretty obvious that DU has some amount of chemical toxicity. Everything in that part of the table is toxic, why should uranium be any different?

The issue is whether it poses an undue risk in comparison to other alternatives. What are bullets traditionally made of? Lead--and I'm sure you've heard the hazards of it. Lead is very soft, DU is very hard. Also, lead melts at a lot lower temperature than uranium. I would expect a lot more of it to be splashed around by the energies of a hit. Add the fact that there would be more rounds flying around if lead werer used as they wouldn't be as effective at killingi the target.

Zar

Loren,

Interesting about lead, but what evidence shows that it is as dangerous as a weapons material as uranium? You seem to be implying that there isn't much more to worry about than with conventional bullets.

No one denies that wars are meant to kill. No one denies that efficient killing is the prerogative of the military, at least to an extent. No one denies that DU is a highly efficient weapons material, and no one denies that the immediate effects are far worse for those directly targeted than any possible health risks. This is as true of DU as it is of bullets. Getting hit by a DU munition makes environmental and health risks quite irrelevant in the short term.

But we have to figure out what is at issue and try to determine the answers to those issues, not make comparisons that could miss the mark. I think some of the points most worth answering are:

1) Are there significant lingering environmental and health effects that spread unacceptable risks to life beyond the battlefield, and how long do these effects remain?
2) Do we really know enough about these effects at this point to be using DU in such large and increasing quantites? Should we even care?
3) Are our own soldiers being put at unnecessary risk? If you cause large numbers of self-inflicted casualties, that seems to be a problem from a purely military perspective, ignoring moral questions.

MortalWombat

I don't know if this answers your question completely, but according to Canada' Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety website:

Although it would be nice to have some actual numbers to compare.

The National Academies Press has a site which gives information about Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals, if that is also of help.

Quetzal

fanny:

That's better. I don't disagree with most of what you posted - except for the conclusions. Nor was my intent to argue about Rokke. As I told Zar, even if his stated background is 100% accurate, the fact that quite a few - the majority of those I tracked down, in fact - scientists from various organizations, some government-funded, some not, some foreign, etc, who disagree with his conclusions is at least cause for not taking what he says as absolute truth. I also believe that Rokke is quite honest and straight-forward in his belief.

Just a couple of additional points:

1. DU has been studied for nearly 50 years. Because it IS in fact depleted (i.e., even lower in radioactivity than naturally occurring uranium in most cases), the primary risk is chemical, not radiological. Heavy metal poisoning is the primary threat both to environment and individuals exposed to it. This is pretty much consistent across the literature. That being said, few if any symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome" are consistent with heavy metal poisoning. If I'm incorrect, please provide a reference that indicates otherwise. One of the concerns about the embedded fragments in the wounded was radiological, but careful monitoring of those WIA's over the last decade+ show no radiological hazard. There is concern over chemical effects of long-term exposure because it is known that DU can cause renal problems (like other heavy metals). I don't want to downplay the risks from DU. I was especially concerned about the environmental hazard - but that, unfortunately, is dependent on so many variables (corrosion rates, concentration, etc) that making an assessment is problematic. More research is definitely needed on that aspect. However, the medical effects are pretty well documented.

2. "Rokke talks about the failure to follow procedures (many of which he wrote)."

This is well-documented by both DoD and GAO. I mentioned it above: the failure to take even minimal precautions by the 144th potentially exposed 26 people to risk. Immediately after the arrival of the AMCCOM team at King Khalid, the appropriate measures were put in place, and all personnel exposed were checked. And have continued to be checked. None, apparently, showed any ill effects, fortunately. I'm not sure what, if any, sanction or punishment was meted out to the commander for this failure - but I hope he got hammered. This is utterly unconscionable.

3. "If Rokke and his team were involved in DU clean-up, one can assume that they likely had both the most intense (lots of dust-sized particles not seen by those who handle DU munitions) and the most prolonged exposure."

Here's where I start to have problems with Rokke's statements. If Rokke was on the AMCCOM team (either one - the King Khalid post-battle cleanup OR the Doha tank fire cleanup - and I know he wasn't on that one, because I have the personnel roster for that team), all of the team members are specialists who absolutely know to take the appropriate precautions. NO ONE ELSE was permitted to be involved in cleaning up DU damaged tanks or vehicles. Where the screwups occurred (and there were a few more stupidities by non-specialists), were with non-AMCCOM personnel (a REAL stupid act that was discovered was troops picking up DU shrapnel as souvenirs!!! No matter HOW sure I am that DU isn't radioactive, there'd be no way in HELL that I'd pick up something like that and carry it around in my pocket! ) So where was Rokke that he was doing cleanup with people who didn't know to take precautions?

4. a) "Morpho, you seem like a military guy, when you hear Rokke talk, are you not concerned? b) Do you really hear "hidden agenda" in his voice? c) Has the DOD never covered up something they have done? d) Have they never experimented on American soldiers and gotten caught? e) Do they have a good record for VA and health care?" (references added to clarify response)

a) Am I concerned? No, not any more. At the time I was VERY concerned - so I researched until I was satisfied.

b) No. He sounds very sincere. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him any more right than Duane Gish - who also sounds (and quite possibly is) sincere.

c) Of course the DoD lies when they think they can get away with it. My default position is you can tell when a military spokesman is lying by the fact that his/her mouth is moving. I have hundreds of anecdotes from my own career to attest to this. However, that doesn't translate to "the government ALWAYS lies". And in this case the weight of evidence is actually supportive of the government's position.

d) Yes, of course. From Tuskagee to the nuc tests to LSD. What does this have to do with DU?

e) Some of the VA is pretty good. Most of it is a travesty and a major blot on the US government - shameful treatment of veterans, who deserve the best possible care. But this has nothing to do with DU.

Rokke's speech, and the article Zar linked to, are unconvincing. Whether or not Rokke has an agenda is immaterial - the erroneous information he provides concerning health effects, toxicity, numbers of deaths, altered health records (one of my personal anecdotes relates to how HARD this is), etc, bring into question the entire premise.

I hope I've made my position clear.

(edited for formatting)

Zar

Morpho,

Although I'm still working on this problem, I commend you for your way of approaching this subject. You set a good example in civilized conversation.

To be continued...

Loren Pechtel

I'm saying that rather than looking simply at the risks of DU, we should be looking at the risks of DU vs the risks of lead or other materials that might be used.

What I was showing is that if we used lead bullets there would be a lot more lead flying around than there is uranium from DU rounds.