fanny666

If the former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium project is not a "reputable" source on Depleted Uranium then I guess I don't understand the criteria.

I was going to counter a few of your statements, but I'll just say that first you should at least listen to what the man says, he explains a few things about DU you're misunderstanding.

The UK atomic energy authority is HERE but they have a really crappy search engine, and I could not find the original report. It came out quite a while back.

Quetzal

Okay, reality check time, people.

Again, I commend your desire to find out more information. Also, I'd say your instincts when it comes to government statements is right on the money. I take all assertions by the government - ANY government for that matter - with a large grain of salt. In the case of the US military, the grain of salt is roughly equivalent to the sodium chloride content of the Pacific Ocean. If all I was relying on was a single source for the information, there's no way I'd take a government (or especially military) assertion as "gospel". However, when multiple organizations referencing multiple independent investigations done at different times by different groups of scientists ALL come up with (roughly) the same analysis, I think it makes sense to consider that they may be reflecting reality. Especially when those organizations are not only in different countries but have thoroughly different ideologies and are most often at loggerheads rather than agreeing with each other. Still - you should investigate for yourself.

Oh shoot. Why are you unable to use the skepticism you display with regards to government pronouncements when dealing with non-government pronouncements? Is it because they agree with your preconceptions? Because they are emotionally appealing?

I really HATE argument from authority. However, since Doug Rokke appears to be the principle "authority" everyone wants to claim is so valid, perhaps it's valid to take a look at some of his specific claims - just to see if he's a legitimate authority on this subject.

1. Assertion: "Rokke has served our nation in war multiple times."
Fact: Rokke served in Vietnam, as a navigator with an Air Force bomber squadron (out of Guam then Thailand) from 1969-71. This represents the only combat service he has seen. He DID NOT serve in combat during the Gulf War. Rokke was in the Army National Guard/Army Reserve from 1980 - 1997, primarily working in training commands (primarily designing and implenting curricula for Army medical personnel). (Ref: Rokke's own cv)

2. Assertion: "Rokke was director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Program."
Fact: Rokke's only work with DU was as a (re-activated) liaison officer assigned to assist the civilian DoD contractor cleaning up post-Gulf war destroyed US tanks (the friendly fire incidents). His other work consisted of helping write the training and safe handling guidelines for DU at the Army's Chemical School (formerly located at Ft. McClellan, Ala. 1994-95) This job he held for less than than a year! (Ref: Radiation Safety Institute, RADSAFE message by Ed Battle, former director of the Chem School who hired Rokke for the job). He was nowhere near the Pentagon at any time. I suppose it's conceivable he was fired for whistle blowing, but given the rest, it seems unlikely.

3. Assertion: "Rokke is an Army physicist".
Fact: Rokke isn't a physicist (although he has a BS in physics). His background, training and work experience are in education. His PhD is in Educational Methodology (Ref: Radiation Safety Institute, RADSAFE message by Otto Raabe, Center for Health and the Environment, UC Davis)

4. Assertion: "Rokke is a physics professor".
Fact: Rokke is a substitute middle school teacher in Urbana, Ill. Actually, Rokke makes most of his money from - and spends most of his time at - speaking engagements. Nothing wrong with this, of course.

Agreed. Also, however, lying is not completely unusual for individuals with an agenda, either.

Look - I have no interest in playing the game of discrediting sources. That particular tactic I reserve for creationists - who almost invariably use spurious "experts". All I ask is that you read the information for yourself - without being influenced by someone who - quite obviously - has some "issues" and has become famous for playing the fear-mongering game. Read the science for yourself - and then make up your mind. Try the National Academy of Sciences report Gulf War and Health Volume 1. Depleted Uranium, Sarin, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Vaccines. It's long (a bit over 300 pages), but is peer-reviewed and describes case studies, possible effects, etc. Admittedly it's not an emotionally appealing video - it's a scientific study. But if you're really interested in the facts - this is a good place to start.

So what DO the scientists say? Here are articles culled from open source, peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have access to a decent library, you should be able to get the whole article and read the bloody information for yourself:

On ecological effects:

M Durante and M Pugliese
Estimates of radiological risk from depleted uranium weapons in war scenarios.
Health Phys, January 1, 2002; 82(1): 14-20.

M Durante and M Pugliese
Depleted uranium residual radiological risk assessment for Kosovo sites.
J Environ Radioact, January 1, 2003; 64(2-3): 237-45. (This one is better - the first article by Durant and Pugliese is a theoretical approach, this one uses actual data from two Kosovo sites to test the theoretical model).

On health effects:

H K Kang, T A Bullman, G J Macfarlane and G C Gray
Mortality among US and UK veterans of the Persian Gulf War: a review
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2002;59:794-799

For me, it appears to be the case that we can choose to "believe" some guy with an agenda, OR we can examine the actual research and see for ourselves. Hmm, tough call.

fanny666

For someone who is not trying to discredit the man, you sure provide some very selective information.

He- nor I- never said he served in combat during the Gulf War. You used that term as your straw man, switching from "war" to "combat". In fact, the VAST majority of "troops" never saw combat during that war. He was called up from the reserves for the first Gulf War, to serve in the capacity in which he has expertise. By the time the Gulf War rolled around, he was what, in his 40s? How many 40 year old PhDs see combat? Give me a break.

He was a research physicist at the University of Illinois from 1977 - 1996 (only 19 years, I see how you could overlook that) and he also was an assistant professor in Physical and Earth Sciences at JSU where he taught undergrad and graduate courses in engineering and environmental science.

The man is very sick, did you not listen to his words? I'll bet he really doesn't feel up to being much more than a substitute teacher at this point in his life. He probably keeps that job for the health insurance our government denies him, and that's about it.

He did his 4 years in the Air Force from 1967-1973. Since 1980 he has been a hazardous materials expert for the army (the same year he was first published in a Physics journal).

His military career was spent as a nuclear medical sciences officer, and he rose through the ranks as a radiation expert, serving as an Executive Officer, Training Officer, Mobilization Officer, Medical Team Leader, Laboratory Director, and then finally Depleted Uranium Project Director.

He has been a Medical and Hazardous Materials Instructor for the Air Force, Army, FEMA, and the NIH & CDC.

But it sure does sound better to say that he's a 7th grade science sub, huh?

Um, try again. First he was the director of the Depleted Uranium Project there (your "less than a year" from 94-95) when he was promoted to director of the entire radiology lab there (Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories) and held that job from 96-97. But I guess those are not the important pieces of information, the IMPORTANT information is that he "helped write manuals" because that makes him seem like a secretary, and not like a radiation expert.

Um, no, he was the US Army's Depleted Uranium Project Director, it's right there in his vitae. You obviously missed it while skimming for straw men. He also talks about it in the lecture you did not bother to listen to.

Thanks for the advice about skepticism, though.

fanny666

ps- all his dead friends are faking it.

Quetzal

Selective? Oh, I don't know about that. Condensed, certainly, since the point of my post was the actual evidence concerning the claims made - only you (and Zar) seem to be insisting the guy is the duty expert. If the two of you hadn't kept relying on an argument from authority, I would never have brought it up.

If you'll recheck the quote - from Zar, btw - you'll see that the "war" reference was from him. So if it's a strawman, then it was someone's other than mine. So, by your definition, any of the 2.5 million service men and women on active duty or reserves/national guard during the conflict can also be said to have "served the nation in war"? Actually, I'll buy that - however, the implication with Rokke is that he was a combat vet. In any event, he wasn't "called up from the reserves" for the first Gulf war. Maybe you can help me out here: It's not entirely clear when he actually arrived in the Gulf and what he actually did. As near as I can make out, the damaged vehicles were taken to King Khalid by the 144th Service and Supply Co. Then about 3 weeks later an AMCCOM Rad Team showed up to assess the vehicles, decontaminate as necessary, and prepare the vehicles for shipment back to DCF in the States. Unfortunately, I can't find a personnel listing for the AMCCOM team (which would logically be where Rokke came in). BTW: If you want to know where the REAL screw-up happened, it was when the 144th (an Army Nat Guard unit), failed to take precautions with the personnel that had access to those vehicles until the Rad Team showed up - in spite of there being Army manuals published and available detailing how to handle DU. About 26 personnel were potentially exposed, and have been monitored.

I don't know where the "100 people" came from in Rokke's testimony. The AMCCOM team was much smaller.

As to how many 40-yr-old PhD's see combat - I have absolutely no idea. Which of course has absolutely no bearing on my argument. Talk about straw man...

This is incorrect. Suggest you look again at what HE claims he did during those years. Quoting from the cv:

"1977 - 1996. Supported department research efforts, supervised safety, designed and constructed research equipment, maintained department inventory, prepared and supervised students during laboratory classes. Attended professional meetings and courses." This job description is NOT a research physicist job - this is an instructor position, at best, and a lab assistant job at worst. 19 years, never tenured, never promoted to professor? Not impressed.

His JSU job was at least teaching, apparently. But please note the word you left off: "Visiting" professor. Perhaps you're unaware of what a "visiting professor" is at most universities? In any event, he taught environmental science and engineering - not physics.

No doubt. Of course, that doesn't appear to have slowed down his public speaking engagements - around the world - extensive committee and volunteer work (all laudable, btw), participation in little theater groups (he's been in a LOT of plays), etc etc. It's certainly possible he could be sick - he's in his fifties, after all.

Yep, he was in the Air Force - and a combat navigator in Vietnam. Where did you get the "hazardous materials expert for the Army" part? And what physics journal? Please provide a reference.

Except for the last bit, this is exactly what I said - he spent his career in training commands. He is only a "depleted uranium project director" in the sense he was on (I suppose) an AMCCOM team working with DU contaminated vehicles. I'll even accept that he was the officer-in-charge. IT DOESN'T MATTER! He is overstating his credentials in his cv - whether by a little or a lot doesn't matter. You're the one that keeps bringing up his "expertise". It might behoove you to actually provide some evidence that he's as important as you claim.

Yep, that's what I said - an instructor.

You mean his cv is wrong and he's NOT a middle school substitute teacher?

Ummm, nope. That's not what I said. All this stuff is HIS assertion (like his claim to have been "promoted" to lab director) - I referenced the guy who hired him! As to being a "secretary", please show where I said that. I said he co-authored manuals (on the safe handling of DU munitions, btw). Which is totally consistent with all of the OTHER work he did!

You still don't get it, do you? There WAS NO "Depleted Uranium Project". There was a project to write up guidelines and recommended safe procedures. There have been dozens of scientific projects by everybody from the Army to UNSCEAR working on DU - Rokke wasn't involved. Okay?

Any time. Perhaps you'd now care to address the actual substance of my post? Or are we going to waste more time with this stupid drek about credentials?

Quetzal

Assuming there are any. After all, we only have HIS word for the fact that he has ANY dead friends from the Gulf. Names? Hospital records? Anything? Where are they in the death statistics for vets? Don't you think a cluster like this would be front page news?

Zar

I beleive he did name some names and quoted the military's own records. I am going to check them out for myself when I have time.

I am not going to say any more on the subject until I am better educated, but I will say that, although I am largely fine with your first critique of my position, I am becoming a little annoyed with subsequent words that seem to shove my position into the category of "argument from authority" and that I am only giving this one guy a say. And also, it is intersting that you seem to just flatly think this guy is a mere hoax though I didn't really see any good evidence for that. And I can't agree with your assumption that things like this would be all over the news if they were true. The world, including America, abounds with issues that are important but seldom mentioned and rarely admitted. Sometimes it takes decades to unearth some hidden agenda.

But anyway, like I said, I have more work to do and I'll have to adjust my opinion to whatever facts are available.

Dr Rick

There might be detrimental environmental and physiologic effects from depleted uranium related to its chemical properties. Aerisolized release of DU into the environment by explosive forces in concentrated battlefield conditons could cause high environmental heavy metal accumulation, but so can lead-based or other heavy metal projectiles.

Laboratory studies in tissue cultures and animals have found a teratogenic effect, but I can find no epidemiologic evidence in the primary international medical literature that DU is associated with any disease state or birth defects.

My review of the literature reveals several articles from US and other military medical sources, contradicting the assertion that the US military is ignoring or hiding from the issue.

Lakartidningen 2003 Jan 23;100(4):219-21

Depleted uranium a cancer risk that disappeared. Leukemia alarm regarding Balkan veterans came to nothing

[Article in Swedish]

Lagercrantz B.

"After alarming reports in the international press in January 2001, about leukemia in war veterans returning from the Balkans after possible exposure to depleted uranium, a follow-up was conducted of the Swedish personnel that had served in the Balkans. Questionnaires, analysis of uranium in urine, and coordination with The National Board of Health and Welfare's cancer register showed no correlation between service in the Balkans and cancer or other illnesses. Several did however experience anxiety, insomnia and fatigue that may have been caused by the stressful environment and/or the anxiety arising from the depleted uranium-debate..."

Toxicol Ind Health 2001 Jun;17(5-10):180-91

A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development.

Arfsten DP, Still KR, Ritchie GD.

Naval Health Research Center Detachment-Toxicology

"...Recent combat applications of DU alloy [i.e., Persian Gulf War (PGW) and Kosovo peacekeeping objective] resulted in human acute exposure to DU dust, vapor or aerosol, as well as chronic exposure from tissue embedding of DU shrapnel fragments. DU...emits approximately 60% of the...radiation found in natural uranium...DU is a heavy metal that is 160% more dense than lead and can remain within the body for many years and slowly solubilize. High levels of urinary uranium have been measured in PGW veterans 10 years after exposure to DU fragments and vapors. In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain. In vitro tests indicate that DU alloy may be both genotoxic and mutagenic, whereas a recent in vivo study suggests that tissue-embedded DU alloy may be carcinogenic in rats. There is limited available data for reproductive and teratological deficits from exposure to uranium per se, typically from oral, respiratory, or dermal exposure routes. Alternatively, there is no data available on the reproductive effects of DU embedded..."

J Environ Radioact 2003;64(2-3):237-45

Depleted uranium residual radiological risk assessment for Kosovo sites.

Durante M, Pugliese M.

Department of Physics, University Federico II, Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy

"During the recent conflict in Yugoslavia, depleted uranium rounds were employed and were left in the battlefield. Health concern is related to the risk arising from contamination of areas in Kosovo with depleted uranium penetrators and dust. Although chemical toxicity is the most significant health risk related to uranium, radiation exposure has been allegedly related to cancers among veterans of the Balkan conflict. Uranium munitions are considered to be a source of radiological contamination of the environment. Based on measurements and estimates from the recent Balkan Task Force UNEP mission in Kosovo, we have estimated effective doses to resident populations using a well-established food-web mathematical model (RESRAD code). The UNEP mission did not find any evidence of widespread contamination in Kosovo...Even in this worst-case scenario, DU radiological risk would be far overshadowed by its chemical toxicity."

Mil Med 2002 Aug;167(8):620-7

The quantitative analysis of depleted uranium isotopes in British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War veterans.

Horan P, Dietz L, Durakovic A.

Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, Canada.

"The purpose of this work was to determine the concentration and ratio of uranium isotopes in allied forces Gulf War veterans...The results confirm the presence of depleted uranium (DU) in 14 of 27 samples, with the 238U:235U ratio > 207.15. This is significantly different from natural uranium (p < 0.008) as well as from the DU shrapnel analysis, with 22.22% average value of DU fraction, and warrants further investigation."

Mil Med 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):123-4

Health effects and biological monitoring results of Gulf War veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

McDiarmid MA, Hooper FJ, Squibb K, McPhaul K, Engelhardt SM, Kane R, DiPino R, Kabat M.

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

"A small group of Gulf War veterans have retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel, the long-term health consequences of which are undetermined. We evaluated the clinical health effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. History and follow-up medical examinations were performed on 29 exposed veterans and 38 nonexposed veterans...Gulf War veterans with retained DU metal shrapnel fragments were found to be still excreting elevated levels of urinary uranium 7 years after first exposure to DU...The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests ongoing mobilization of uranium from a storage depot, resulting in chronic systemic exposure. Adverse effects in the kidney, a presumed target organ, were not seen at the time of the study; however, other subtle effects were observed in the reproductive and central nervous systems of the DU-exposed veterans." [similar effects and body storage may be seen from chronic heavy metal exposure, not just DU - Rick]

Rick

Quetzal

Thanks for the additional references, Dr. Rick.

One of the problems that occurs when one argues against a popular misconception that has been widely touted in the press is that it is very easy to overstate one's own case in reaction. I wish to apologize to Zar for overstating his reliance on a single authority. Most of the last two posts were primarily directed at the author of the OP.

Finally, as Dr. Rick pointed out, there ARE both potential health hazards (due to chemical rather than radiological action) and potential ecological risks (primarily related to the speed of corrosion - another chemical effect) of high concentrations of DU. This was, in fact, the major concern of the military medical authorities who thoroughly monitored the 59 people with the higest exposure (26 from the 144th and 33 out of 34 from the friendly fire incidents). The ecological risk was also the primary concern of both the UNEP and WHO environmental studies on Kosovo. The point being, in all cases, no matter who did the studies, there has been no indication of statistically significant effects.

Is DU something to be concerned about? Yes - the US military is changing to a liquid core penetrator to replace DU even as we speak. Is it something to get hysterical about? No.

Quetzal

Although I apologized above, I would merely like to point out that if your intent in previous posts was to avoid charges of argument from authority, continuing to cite the single reference and argue the single position, while not commenting on the evidence presented in opposition, is likely to lead to this conclusion.

However, whether or not Rokke is an authority is totally irrelevant. Even if everything he claimed for his background and experience is 100% true, the fact that a plethora of other scientists disagree with him is grounds to at least question his conclusions. And that, ultimately, is all I ask.

Enjoy your research.