[ RadSafe ] Which is Riskier: DU Cleanup or Combat?

bobcherry at satx.rr.com bobcherry at satx.rr.com
Thu Sep 14 10:10:32 CDT 2006

According to Alarab Online, Doug "Rokke has written a detailed paper ('Required Actions In Lebanon and Israel') advising on actions which should be taken by Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, to protect their people, though contamination will spread on the wind, he warns 'for hundreds of kilometres'. "
The Alarab article quotes Rokke in his so-called detailed paper: "'Every destroyed building and destroyed equipment will be contaminated with uranium' says Rokke, adding: 'the operational risk of clearance is equivalent to that found in combat.'"
Oh, really? Which do Radsafers think is the riskier: cleaning up radioactive contamination (DU or anything else) or being in armed combat?
Based on my first-hand experience in both kinds of operations, I prefer performing uranium "clearance" operations as being much less risky.
Rokke, who has little experience in decontamination projects and no experience in combat, has no basis, factual, personal or otherwise, for his assertions. He only has his self-serving opinions. 
I wonder if he ashamed about being a quoted "expert" in anti-American propaganda. I would be. I doubt he is.
Bob C

More information about the RadSafe mailing list