[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Kosov DU - New Scientist Report
David J. Hornsey wrote:
>>I think many of us will be interested to read Eric Daxon's response
to the New Scientist's piece on depleted uranium contamination of the
army health physicist Doug Rokke.<<
Here is my letter. In fairness to Army health physicists, of which I
am one, Doug Rokke is a Reserve Army major and he does carry Army's
specialty designator, but he is by no means reflective of the quality
and integrity of the competent health physicists that are in the Army
and work for the Army. Contrary to press reports, he has never been
the Army's or the Pentagon's expert on depleted uranium. Some very
competent health physicists served and are serving in that post. As
always these are my personal opinions.
______________________________________________________________________
_
8 June 1999
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing this letter in response to your 5 Jun 99 article "Too Hot
to Handle" by Rob Edwards. These are my opinions and my observations.
Apparently the "New Scientist" is not required to confirm his facts or
critically review the information provided before publication nor are
they required to present all of the data available on an issue. Here
are some specifics that some of which can be found either in the RAND
report or in the review of the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War
written by the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses.
Both are available at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
The first issue is the urine level quoted in your article for Doug
Rokke. I have, as a part of my duties, been investigating this
incident. There are three points that need to be included in your
article.
First, the Department of Energy did not take the sample because of
Doug Rokke's Gulf War experience. The urine sample was taken because
Doug Rokke participated as an observer in a depleted uranium test at a
DOE test facility in which depleted uranium was aerosolized. The
sample was taken to ensure he did not internalize DU from this test.
Second, the uranium measured could have been natural uranium. The
analysis was done using a technique (kinetic phosphorescence analysis)
that could not distinguish between natural uranium and depleted
uranium.
Third, the analysis was never confirmed. Surprisingly, a repeat
sample was never taken. This is the first step any competent health
physicist would have taken and it would have been the very first thing
I as a health physicist would have requested once I learned of the
results.
Unmentioned in the article are the numerous bioassays taken by the US
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense in 1993,
1994 and subsequent tests conducted on other, more highly exposed Gulf
War Veterans. All were negative except for personnel with embedded
depleted uranium fragments. The key is these personnel were tested at
the same point in time after the Gulf War that Doug Rokke was tested.
They were all negative.
Unquestioned in the article was the link between the alleged ailments
and depleted uranium exposure. Each of the ailments mentioned occur
naturally. Doug Rokke has made these claims in many public forums and
to the press on several occasions but has not yet provided proof (real
data) linking DU to his ailments. Unreported in the article are the
hundreds of articles dating back to the early 1940's detailing what is
and what is not a health effect of uranium oxides.
More importantly, there were several studies of workers routine
exposed to much higher levels of aerosolized uranium on a daily basis
with no reports of the ailments described in the article. These are
summarized in the RAND report and a variety of other peer-reviewed
scientific reports that are mentioned in the RAND report.
The most flagrant failure to verify was printing, without criticism,
critique, or even a common sense test Doug Rokke's allegation that the
Kosovars will "_ return to a contaminated environment where the may
become ill." What was this allegation based upon? This is certainly
not based upon all of the studies of occupational workers done to date
nor is it based in common sense. A point to consider, the average
concentration of natural occurring uranium in the soil on the earth is
such that there is approximately 5 to 10 tons of natural (more
radioactive than DU) uranium square kilometer (at a depth of 1 meter).
There are some regions of the world where the value is 10 to 20 times
higher with no adverse effect. What exactly is the rationale?
I disagree with the last paragraph in the article. The ultimate irony
is you will print these statements without doing even the most
rudimentary checks of the validity of the position being proposed.
Science is sometimes about conflicting viewpoints and theory.
However, in my book, true science requires ensuring the validity of
both views so that a valid comparison can be made. Your data are
flawed.
If this is "New Science," I hope we all stick with just "Science."
Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP
Colonel, U.S. Army
Daxfam@aol.com
(210) 221-6612
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Kosov DU - New Scientist Report
Author: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu > at internet-mail
Date: 6/8/99 8:14 AM
There are a number of Radsafers who are very knowledgeable regarding uranium
inhalation exposures that I would be interested in hearing from regarding
the Rand study. Forgive the extensive quotations.
>I quote the Rand report on DU:
>
> "there are no peer-reviewed published reports of detectable increases of
cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled
> or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the
Gulf. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating
ingested and inhaled natural uranium and because the low
> radioactivity per unit mass of natural and depleted uranium means that the
mass of uranium
> needed for significant internal exposure is virtually
> impossible to obtain."
Given the evidence available from animal studies, this comment strikes me as
being somewhat of an overstatement.
With regard to one of the more important animal studies involving the
inhalation of uranium, the Rand report states: "In one animal inhalation
study examining the effects of UO2, no increased mortality was observed at
concentrations of 5 mg UO2/m3 for 5 years (Leach et al. 1970)."
A problem here is that the Leach study is simply saying that there was no
increased mortality during the five year exposure period. This study did not
address the issue of long term post exposure effects. That such long term
post exposure effects actually occur was reported in a 1973 follow-up study
by Leach et al (1973 Health Physics 25:239-258). In the years following the
exposures lung and lymph node fibroses were observed as well as neoplasms.
The 1973 study emphasizes the "importance of a time factor in tumor
induction and development" For some reason the Rand study does not mention
this aspect of the follow-up study (as far as I could see). This seems to me
to be a serious omission. Maybe I didn't read the Rand study closely enough
and am missing something however.
As best as I can determine, the human data on uranium inhalation is
difficult to interpret and most of the animal studies were short term
investigations.
Thoughts?
Paul Frame
Professional Training Programs
ORAU
framep@orau.gov
http://www.orau.gov/ptp/ptp.htm
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html