fanny666

Dr. Doug Rokke is an Air Force Major who is the former director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Program. He has been trying to expose what he considers to be a massive Pentagon cover-up about depleted uranium munitions.

I actually got a "ROTF LMAO" when I pointed out in an earlier thread that the UK Atomic Energy Authority quoted a theoretical 500,000 potential cancer deaths in the region following the Gulf War, if only a fraction of the uranium dust was inhaled. I was told, "depleted uranium is, well, depleted."

Well, Dr. Rokke explains, "There is nothing depleted about it at all." He explains very well (he is a physics professor) where it comes from, what it is, and why it is so dangerous.

The talk I linked below focuses on 3 major themes.

1) He talks about the health effects on US vets ("Gulf War Syndrome") and Iraqi civilians.

"The Gulf War was the most toxic war known to man"

"It took our team- approximately 100 individuals... 3 months to clean up 24 depleted uranium US friendly-fire vehicles that were destroyed in combat... and our team got sick right away... the first cancer started within 8 months, and the first cancer death within 2 years... and it continues."

"The casualty count- those that have received Department of Veteran Affairs disabilities... for injuries and illness caused during combat has gone from about 463 injured and ill to 159,238... and over 8,000 dead."

"One-third of the force that went to the Gulf War is now under disability because of the heath effects of this toxic wasteland of depleted uranium munitions."

2) The Pentagon cover-up

"I was told to lie: 'What you learned, what you saw, write it so that they can always use depleted uranium munitions.'"

3) The DOD refusing to take care of its soldiers, and the US government experimenting on its soldiers:

"I'd go to the commanders of units that had the friendly-fire casualties and said 'Provide them medical care, they have uranium poisoning.' They never got it."

"In 1993... the US Army medical department sent an order out... they deliberately said to leave the uranium shrapnel embedded in the arms and the bodies of the US friendly-fire casualties to determine what the health effects would be."

Since he has started speaking out, Major Rokke lost his job, was denied medical care, has been repeatedly harassed by the IRS, his house was ransacked, one of his team members had his house shot at, and his name has been removed from all VA records- he no longer even exists to the US military.

One of Dr. Rokke's talks was broadcast on an excellent radio show called "Unwelcome Guests." His talk is on show #132. To get the last part of Dr. Rokke's talk, you only have to download about 805kB of the 2nd mp3 file. The entire talk fits on an audio CD, I encourage you to burn it and make copies.

slept2long

You deserve a :notworthy, Fanny!

Zar

After listening to the first hour, to snub this issue and shrug it off as nothing to be concerned about would require a psychotic disposition. And I mean that to the bottom of my soul. Psychotic. I do not care if this is ad hominem.

Friar Bellows

I found an interesting article in, of all places, an online physics preprint site, arXiv.org, discussing the topic of depleted-uranium weapons:

Depleted-Uranium Weapons: The Whys and Wherefores by Andre Gsponer

Click the PDF link for the PDF version of this paper (other formats are available but PDF is the one your computer will most likely be able to read). It's 32 pages and 179 KB. Here's a quote from the introduction:

Quetzal

Just to provide something of an alternative viewpoint (and if fanny hadn't brought Rokke in as a reference I wouldn't have bothered), you might find the following links interesting:

Gulflink FAQ on the health risks of depleted uranium. Of course, since this is a SecDef-sponsored site, it is "automatically" suspect, right? So how about the RAND Corp study on the health effects and uses of depleted uranium during the Gulf War? Oh shoot, that won't be acceptable either - RAND is a military contractor. Hmm, what to do? Maybe something from another country? Let's look at the UK's National Radiation Protection Board FAQ on depleted uranium munitions. Nope, not them either - they're an independent advisory group to the Brit Ministry of Health. Obviously pro-government bias. How about the UN Environmental Program's final report on the radiation and toxic metal hazards engendered by the use of depleted uranium antitank rounds in Kosovo? This one's interesting because they go site-by-site and analyze the environmental risk at every major location where depleted uranium rounds were used during Kosovo. Of course, that could also be charged off to the vast worldwide conspiracy to irradiate Third World countries by the eeevil US - after all, the US provides lots of funding for the UN. Hmm, how about the Europeans? They don't (currently) like the US. Maybe they'll be honest about condemning the US military. Let's see, the European Commission report on depleted uranium munitions hazard - again in Kosovo. Maybe, but it's still a government, right? Okay, last try - what about the World Health Organization's report on the radiation hazard from the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo?

Gee, I guess they must all be co-conspirators, since none of the reports indicates any significant risk to either environment OR individuals from either of the major historical uses of depleted uranium munitions in battle. Here I thought that all those scientists might have some honesty and not be composed of total - how did Zar put it? - oh, yeah psychotics. Guess I was wrong. Rokke is SO much more authoritative and knowledgeable.

Zar

Morpho,

I said lack of concern was psychotic, and I've seen that attitude before. This is an issue worth getting worked up about. I didn't say this man was the bible truth. I am undecided where the facts are precisely, but this is just impossible to ignore, unless you've been kept in the dark.

This is not to mention that, if the testimony is at all accurate, and war veterans have been ignored to a large extent for the problems they are suffering, this is a crime in itself. The testimony was from a person who served in more than one war, was directly in the fields in the Gulf War, and experienced exposure. Whatever all the experts say, these guys were totally screwed up, unless you think all these veterans are liars. At any rate, veterans getting screwed pisses me off. People who excitedly adovcate war and yet ignore the men and women who are multiated in battle should be ashamed. The nation should be ashamed.

I will read your references, but excuse me if I'm now siding with the poor veterans who had direct experience over bureaucrats who ignore them. I think they deserve a full answer and better treatment.

And by the way, I wasn't born yesterday. Government lies are par for the course. If a weapon wins wars for them, in their eyes, they will be reluctant to give it up, and their publications will likely not say anything to endanger their cause if they can help it. This only stands to reason. There isn't a weapon nasty enough for the U.S. not to have, so this would be no exception. Are you suggesting that government documents are always to be trusted without need for cross reference?

Quetzal

Ahh, I see. I misread your post, following as it did on the heels of the others. However, in that case I would say that you made a fairly strong statement in the absence of evidence, especially given the number of studies that have been done on this issue. As to Rokke - well, I don't particularly care at this point to discuss his qualifications or credentials unless someone thinks that using him as an "authority" is important. I'll let the links I provided stand on their own unless someone can refute them - with facts: not testimony, not rhetoric, and not "propaganda". I commend your willingness to investigate the facts. And I would say that it is fairly obvious that the issue isn't being ignored - and hasn't been. It IS, however, being misused for particular agendas.

That veterans are being ignored is precisely the point that Rokke and others want you to come away with. My question to you is: given the fact that close to a million troops from 20-some-odd countries were involved in the Gulf War, whether in-country or merely in-theater, why are there so FEW "testimonials" from "totally screwed up" veterans? You might find it interesting to check for yourself whether Rokke's data correlates with equivalent numbers of cancers, deaths, disease in the general populace (filtered by age, physical fitness, other factors). Is there a statistically significant variance? IOW, are Gulf War veterans MORE, LESS, or EQUALLY sick than the equivalent cohort in the general population?

Tell you what - I won't list my own references for that question here. That way I won't be accused of using "biased" sources. I'll let you dig out the data, that way there won't be any question. It's available, I assure you. I'm already anticipating enough fire from the "The US government is evil by definition." crowd here.

Of course. Being one of those "poor veterans" myself, I completely agree that if there was anything to have an answer FOR, I'd be right out in front with the rest. In fact, there were several things that bothered me while I was over there dealing with potential health risks - notably revolving around certain vaccinations, pills, and the potential health hazard from pollution from burning Kuwaiti wells. So I spent some time and effort after my return talking with civilian specialists (my father-in-law has a LOT of contacts in the medical business). And guess what? I could discover nothing to be concerned about at the time. Further research since has failed to disconfirm the original statements by my father-in-law's old drinking buddies - in spite of the "popularity" of the issue.

Precisely why I provided publications that weren't produced by any government. Unless, of course, you consider the UNEP and the WHO for instance agencies of the US government. I doubt that you would ever be able to find me advocating a sole-source publication or article for ANY issue, especially a contentious one. Feel free to check my posting record. So how you got from what I wrote to "Are you suggesting that government documents are always to be trusted...? is somewhat confusing to me. Now apply your scepticism to "popular" sources as well. "Are you suggesting that non-government documents are always to be trusted without need for cross reference?" Be critical of government sources by all means. But be critical of ALL sources.

Henry-Finland

I also listened to this for an hour.
I do not say that it can't be the truth. I have my thoughts anyhow. I keep telling myself "It can't be true!"
I think and I hope this is a consp. theory.
But as Zar says; it has to be checked out! Someone must do it.
The only way to do it, is to begin to actually contact people that was there, did that, etc.
If there is a high rate of cancer, deaths etc., it is time to ring The Storm Bell!

The guy in the radio told, among other things that his home (or was it office) was shot at, etc.
But the guy stands and talks for one hour without photographs. If everything that he told would have been documented somehow, he would have had lots of video-films and a slide-show about it.
But he just keeps talking.
I come to this a little bit later.

As You might know, I write here from Russia and can�t do anything than use my experience, cross-check etc. to come to some conclusion.
I am not against the American people, but I am very critical to the US Administration in the form it is now, how it is acting etc.
I just wanted to make this clear. Anyhow, I can�t begin to ask questions from Russia about US defence, or war-material. It would be absurd! As a Finn living in Russia, I can�t do it here either.

But something has to be done. World-wide as I see it.

- The show has also as guest �unanswered questions org.�
I do not trust this organisation. They have a time-line at their cite that is interesting. There are other cites also with very interesting time-lines.
My problem is that I can�t check out what some �Boston Herald� has written some 15 years ago, let�s say 12th of June. (As some time-line can claim as a fact).

- I am also reading other political forums in the net. Here and there is found amazing proof of this and that. Documentation. But nobody seems to put this together. I think we see all the time only fragments of the truth; the good truths and the bad truths.
- I am also quite unfamiliar about computers. I can Google, I can write some English, so that people understand me. Not always, but mostly.
-
Summa Summarum:
I think that all these nuts, with theories, or not nuts, we do not exactly know who is who, has some lead to the truth, maybe just 10% was right. Or 100%.
At the same time we do not know who is just a plant to make something so ridiculous that no-one want to touch it, etc.
We think this way or that way, the truth is always somewhere but how to find the pieces?
The right pieces.

So what to do:
- We should somehow chain all the information, have a huge information bank, where the most obvious shit is filtrated away, all the commercial �has to have a head-line within an hour�-stuff is cut out etc. The Internet is to big. If You want to have information about �Iraq war Saddam toxic� in GOOGLE and get some 13.000 cites, You�ll never find the truth.
- On the other hand, putting these timelines parallely You begin to get a picture. Sort everything out geographically etc. If this �assumed bank of knowledge� would get access, through members, about stuff that has never been published in English etc.
- If all the well documented stories could be selected, and given the cross-examine stuff just listed underneath, it would be much easier to find something in this Internet jungle.
- So there should be a GOOGLE with the option, �leave out all the crap, thank You�
As far as I know, there do not exist this kind of network.

So how to do it?

The risk is now, that when we ordinary people for once have a strong weapon for the truth, The Internet, we are just drowning into it.
There are also the questions of copyrights. In US there seems to be one lawyer for every citizen with a complaint, just lurking for a case.

Why I am ranting so long about this, and a little bit side-stepping from the issue, is that I see that if we, the ordinary people, can�t stop different kind of madness� in different parts of the world, no one will.

I do not know if these weapons described are the next madness that should be stopped.
But I know for sure that there is a lot of madness in this world, that should be stopped

Except for the terrorists, that the governments seem now to fight with their left hand, when ever they remember to do that, there is no �outer danger� for freedom and humanity.
If we compare it with our �intern danger�.
This is an unique period in human history.

I am not sure I have been able to give my thoughts right, but here they are anyhow.

Thank You for reading.
From Siberia with love.

Henry

Zar

I may have overreacted a bit, and maybe I wasn't too clear, but I believe in the truth of my feelings on this as far as its importance is concerned. And I begin from a stance of great skepticism of the U.S. military and its international supporters on this. I'm sorry, but I do. Their motivation is high to ignore the effects of this. Ignoring the effect of ordinace on a conutry is par for the course in American military history and the history of many other nations' militaries. It is a horrific world we live in made worse and worse by never ending warmongering and a lackadasical attitude toward these weapons (a convenient way to dispose of nuclear waste). And the dismal care of our veterans that appears to be the case is enough to get me very animated and compels me to try to understand this better.

When you've raked as much muck about our government as I have, you get to a point where you just burst a little bit and say "enough!" That is how I felt listening to Rokke's testimony. Bottom line is, the man was there, on site, getting the exposure along with a lot of people he knew who are now dead. Everyone else is just guessing and theorising and a spinning, IMO and need to be double checked. Rokke took pains to point out the remiss behavior of the American military toward verifying any health claims and the same goes for the U.K. in his eyes. He thinks they all foot-drag and deny. Rokke has served our nation in war multiple times, and has now suffered tremendously at the hands of our government for speaking out on this, and I am inclined to hear his case with respect.

Lying and/or foot-dragging is not completely unusual for governments to do on many issues, let alone ones that could be explosive.

Our familiy has had a personal experience with the behemoth that is our federal govenment. We had a farm in Pennsylvania and they wouldn't let my dad farm it because it was a marsh and because it polluted the river. Farmers were always allowed to farm it before until my dad got the property. Meanwhile, government and corporate lands and projects did the same things and polluted vastly more than he did. They were going to fine this gentleman farmer $50,000 a day if he did not cease and desist. They also wanted to steal his land without paying him to make a recreational trail by ignoring the laws governming return of railroad right of ways through his property. He has spent the last decade fighting them. They probaby expected him to just roll over and die, but that's not the kind of man he is. Eventually, some of the laws were relaxed because farmers fought hard for their rights.

They have all the resources, you have none. They stall, threaten, filibuser and drag things out for decades if they can. They aren't usually going to be the first one's who come forth and say "Gee, you're right, our stuff is causing harm! We're so sorry!" No freaking way!! That is just not their nature when they want to do something. They are never going to be first to admit error, ever! Expecting them to do this is done at the citizen's own peril.

My frank approach to the federal government and other governments around the world is that they need to be independently verified as much as possible, because ignoring your rights and saftey is not uncommon, if for no other reason than bureaucratic clumsiness, but sometimes deliberate unfairness.

But again, I do need to do more studying on this problem. I am interested in achieving some level of understanding so I can make a more rational assesment of the facts to be applied to my moral priorities.

Loren Pechtel

You didn't provide a link then and you don't provide one now. There's been threads every so often on here about the supposed risks of DU--but nobody provides any reputable support for it.

There's no question that DU is toxic. *ALL* heavy metals are toxic. The original reason for the development of armor-piercing bullets had nothing to do with bulletproof vests but rather it was an attempt to cut down on lead dust on indoor shooting ranges.

The radioactivity of DU is very low. I have a hard time believing it's any great threat.