truth about plutonium and hanford (michael fox)

21st Century Science & Technology Winter2010/2011 31

On July 10, 2010, the New York Times published another article

abouttheHanfordnuclearsiteinEast-ernWashington,thisonebyveteranre-porter Matthew Wald. (http://tinyurl.com/2azj5kz). It requires some correc-tivecomments.

During World War II, Hanford waschosenbytheArmyCorpsofEngineerstobeoneof thesites inwhatwasthencalled the Manhattan Project. Hanfordproducedthemajorityofthenation’sin-ventoryof plutonium, including that inthebombdroppedonNagasaki.

Having many decades of experienceworking at Hanford, including workingwithplutoniumandmanagingaplutoni-umlaboratory,itgetswearisometoreadsuch superficial, inadequate, and mis-leadingarticles.

Given this specialized background, Ifeelanobligationtocommentonthear-ticlebyTimesreporterWald,thereporthereportson,theauthorsofthereport,*

andsomeofthereferenceslistedinthereport.Myobjections include thehugelackofcontext,exaggerations,omissionsof fact, omissions of key research find-ings regardinghealtheffectsofplutoni-um, omissions regarding interesting as-pects of the Hanford environment,inadequateliteraturesourcing,andomis-sion of comments on other materialssuchasamericium.

Let’sstartwiththeheadline:“AnalysisTriples U.S. Plutonium Waste Figures.”Nowhereinhisarticledoesthereporterprovide the relative magnitudes of thebefore and after values. Therefore, thereader cannot assess for himself theamounts of plutonium involved. Threetimesasmallnumberisstillasmallnum-ber, for example.As written, therefore,theheadline is irrelevantandmeaning-less.

But in theuniverseofproblemswiththisTimesarticleandthereportitisbasedon,thelackofinformationon“Plutoni-

umWasteFigures”onlyhintsatwhatliesaheadintermsofotherirrelevancies.

TheapparentpurposeofthepaperandtheTimesarticleistocreateanotherim-ageofloomingdoomrelatedtotheHan-fordclean-upmission.Suchstoriesofim-pendingdoomfromHanfordhavebeenfrequent fare from Hanford critics formorethantwodecades,andallofthemsufferfromthesamelitanyofexaggerat-edfears.

Central to the scare stories are thetwo familiar concepts—“deadly” plu-toniumand24,000-yearhalf-life.Thesehave been common bugaboos sincethe1970s,whentheantinuclearforcesandtheirfriendsinthemediayappedinconcert like Pavlovian dogs.The scarestories haven’t changed for nearly 40years,yetduringthistimethousandsofworkersoperatedquitesafelywithplu-tonium,becausewehappentoknowalotaboutitandhowtoworksafelywithit.

When one is managing a plutoniumlab, with dozens of workers, personalsafetyof friendsandcolleagueswasal-ways of utmost importance and a no-nonsensepartofeverydaylife.Thatsafe-tyeffortpaidoff,intermsofestablishingan excellent health and safety record.Obviously,weworkedhardandcareful-ly with safety training, laboratory con-duct,practices,andhabits.

Gee-Whizzy Half-LivesNow for thatbignumber:One is re-

minded of children discovering a gee-whizzynewwordorbignumberforthefirsttime.“Hey,Dad,wantmetocountto100?”Withregardtothatfrightening24,000-yearhalf-life,thetermhalf-lifeiscommonlyappliedtoallknownradioac-tivematerials,andisnotscaryforanyone

Let’s Tell the Truth About Plutonium and HanfordbyMichaelR.Fox,Ph.D.

Savannah River Site/DOE

Aprocessed“button”ofplutonium.

NUCLEARREPORT

32 Winter2010/2011 21st Century Science & Technology

who has taken course work in radio-chemistry.

Norintheuniverseofradioactivesub-stances is the 24,000-year number un-usualforahalf-life.Forexample,potas-sium-40 is radioactive and along withtwo other non-radioactive forms of po-tassium, is measurably present in allforms of life—including humans, thisauthor, the report authors, and theTimesreporter. Ithasahalf-lifeof1.4billionyears.Itisthereinlivingtissueandquitemeasurablewithtoday’sde-tectors.

Radioactive thorium exists in all soilsamples around the world, and has ahalf-lifeofabout14billionyears.Carry-ingthehalf-lifediscussiontoitsobviousabsurd ending, elements such as lead,mercury,andarsenic,asstableelementsmaybedescribedashavinghalf-livesofeternityinlength.

Whenonecheckswith the“ChartoftheNuclides,”therearemorethan3,000knownnuclides,andallbutabout250areradioactive.Manyofthemformanddecay in trillionthsofa secondor less,anddonotoccurinabundancenaturally.Butwestillknowalotaboutthem.Oth-ers,asnotedabove,havehalflivesofbil-lionsofyears.

Onelong-liveduraniumnuclidehasahalf-life of about 4.5 billion years, theageoftheEarth.Uranium,whichcanbefound in all soil samples in the world,wasdiscoveredin1896byAntoineBec-querelofFrance. Ithasbeen114years

sincethatdiscoveryofnaturalradioactiv-ity, yet I’d dare estimate that even as apartofournaturalenvironment,99per-centofthepubliccannotgivea5-minutediscussiononthesubject.Sameforabout100percentofthemedia.

Aftermorethanacenturyofsuchpub-licignoranceregardingournaturalenvi-ronment, it’swaypast the time thatwelearn.Thisisbutapartofthehugecon-

textmissing fromthesediscussionsandarticles.

Natural Radioactivity and RiskThediscoveryofnaturalradioactivity

turnedtheworldofphysicsupsidedownforthenext60years,andwasandstillisamajorfactorinthehistoryof20thCen-turyphysics.Thereismuchmoretothissubject than merely plutonium and its24,000-year half-life. This world ofphysics is essentially unknown to theAmericanpublicand to theuncuriousmedia.

TheHanfordReservationisoneofthemostheavilymonitoredtractsoflandintheworld,and ithasbeen reportedonannuallyforabout40years.Theseannu-alreportsareintheopenliterature,andavailable to all. (See for example Han-ford Site 2008 Environmental Report,h t tp : / /hanford-site.pnl.gov/envreport/)Notsurprisingly,thesereportsarerarelydiscussedbyeithertheanti-Hanfordcrit-icsorbyanyofthemedia.

Thesereportsarephenomenalinbothscopeanddepthofdetails.Thedistribu-tionlistfortheseannualreportsishuge,going to state and Federal agenciesacrossthenation.ThereportsalsohelpexplainwhyHanford isnota threat topublic health, because the radiationdosesarefartoosmall—oftenlessthan

DOE

TheFReactorplutoniumproductioncomplexatHanford.Theboxybuildingbetweenthetwowatertowersontherightistheplutoniumproductionreactor;thelongbuild-inginthecenterofthephotographisthewatertreatmentplant

DOE

Thecanyondeckofthe820-foot-long221-BplutoniumprocessingplantatHanford,whichproducedweaponsplutoniumduringWorldWarII.

NUCLEARREPORT

21st Century Science & Technology Winter2010/2011 33

thedosesreceivedfromnaturalradioac-tivity.

Basedupontheseenvironmentalmon-itoringprograms,relevantepidemiologyprograms, dosimetry measuring andmonitoringprograms,etc.,forbothwork-ersandsurroundingpopulations,thera-dioactive health threats from Hanfordoperations are so extremely small thatthey are statistically indistinguishablefromzero.

SincethehealththreatsfromtheHan-fordoperationsaresosmall,ahugeethi-cal problem arises out of risk manage-ment considerations. As of July 2009,WashingtonStatehad6,664,195people.Theaveragemortality ratewas725per100,000,oratotalof48,285funeralsin2008. Nearly 22 percent (10,622) ofthesewerefromheartdiseaseandabout20 percent (9,657) of these were fromcancer. Suppose we were concernedaboutreducingthecancermortalityratesfortheStateofWashington,withafixedbudgettodoso.Howwouldweallocatesuchresources?

Common sense would dictate usingsuch allocations where the mortalityrateswerewellaboveexpectedvalues.These locationsdoexist inWashingtonState,butsuchlocationsdonotincludeHanford.Giventhatthecancerexcessesoccurelsewhereinthestate,whatfrac-tionofthatfixedbudgetshouldbedirect-ed at reducing cancer at Hanford?Theanswer,iffairnessapplied,wouldbelit-tleornone.

However, the Hanford clean-up pro-gram (portrayed as a huge safety pro-

gram)iscostingtaxpayersabout$2bil-lionperyear,withestimatesapproaching$100billionbeforeit’sdone.Nomatterhowmuchmoney is spentonHanfordcleanupefforts,adecline in thecancerrateswillneverbe shown,because theHanford cancer rates are quite normalnow.Intermsofbasicprinciplesofriskmanagement, theHanfordcleanup isatragicwasteoftaxpayerresourcesintheallegedpursuitofpublicsafety.

Using the same fixed budget in thepursuit of public safety, hundreds, per-hapsthousandsofWashingtonStatelivescould be saved by spending these re-sourcesprotectingpeoplefrommeasur-ablymoreharmfulactivities.

‘Pure and Simple’ LiesTheTimesreporterquotedtheactivist

lawyerGerryPolletassaying“WhatisreasonablyforeseeableisthattherearepeoplewhowillbedrinkingthewaterinthegroundatHanfordatsomepointin thenext fewhundredsyears.We’regoing to be killing people, pure andsimple.”

Plutonium toxicity is most assuredlynotthat“pureandsimple.”Theactivistlawyerapparentlyisacaptiveinhisowndemon-haunted world, as Carl Saganmight have said. His well-rehearsedlineshavebeencommonlyheard fromhim and from the anti-Hanford move-ment foryears,withoutsupportiveevi-dence.

Hisstatementisnotsupportedbyen-vironmental and epidemiology studiesofplutonium.Hisstatementthat“Ithasbeen found to cause lung, liver, and

bone cancer in humans” is also refer-encedintheAlvarezreport,*toanotherpamphletwiththesamequote.Thepam-phletwaspublishedby theAgency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR).It,too,doesnotprovidethelit-erature source of the above statementaboutplutonium.

Sincethestatementisunreferenceditmust be considered hearsay, of whichthereisplentytochoosefrom.

InstrongcontrasttotheTimesarticle,there are many quantitative scientificanalysesofthe“MythofPlutoniumTox-icity,”suchasthatbyDr.BernardCohen,attheDepartmentofPhysicsattheUni-versityofPittsburgh. (See, forexample,http://russp.org/BLC-3.html.)

Some Plutonium RealitiesMyexperienceswithlaboratorystud-

iesofplutoniumshowthatitisspectac-ularlyinsolubleinwaterandmostothersolvents.Plutoniumpreferstoremaininthesolidstate,oftenboundtosoilsol-ids; thus any study of the transport ofplutonium through underground soilformationsbegsgreatanddetailedscru-tiny.

Inmanycases,plutoniumalsoshouldnotbeconsideredlethalevenifitisin-gested.Atlowdosesofplutoniuminhu-mans,epidemiologystudiesshowthatitwasdifficulttofindobservableharm,letalone cancer, and let alone death.The

Library of Congress

Puttingradiationinperspective:The“MileHigh”cityofDenver,Coloradoin1898.Then,asnow,residentsofDenverreceivedmorenaturalbackgroundradiation(50millirem)thanU.S.citizenslivingatsealevel(26millirem).RadiationdosesattheHanfordsitearesmall,oftenlessthanthedosesreceivedfromnaturalradioactivity.

* The report, by professional anti-nuke Robert Alva-rez, has been accepted for publication in Science and Global Security, a journal published by Prince-ton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

NUCLEARREPORT

34 Winter2010/2011 21st Century Science & Technology

cited report made no mention of thesehuman epidemiology studies and thenegativeresults.

My friend and scientific colleagueRichardEmeryperformedastudyofoneof thepondsatHanfordwhichhad re-ceivedlowlevelsofplutonium(http://tinyurl.com/25odcag). It was describedas“oneofthemostcontaminatedbodiesof water” in the world.This may havebeenfactuallytrue,butwasmissingtheimportantcontext.

Acarefulreadingofhisresearchpapershowsamuchmoreinterestingdescrip-tionof thepond,whichhadphenome-nallylowlevelsofplutonium.Itactuallysupported a rich and diverse wildlifepopulation from the bass and bluegillfish in thewater, toanumberofbirds,and thepopulationofpredatorsofher-onsandcoyotes.

These animals were thriving becausetheplutoniumradiationdoseswereex-tremely low (in spite of the exaggera-tions).Emeryalsocalculatedthatifahu-manateonepoundofthefishfromthisU-pondeverydayfor70years,hewouldnot receive a significant dose of radia-tion—hardlycancerousorlethal.

Thepondandtherichwildlifepopula-tionshavenowbeendestroyed,thankstofear and science illiteracy and the mil-lionsofdollarsusedtodoso.Thisisoneof thepriceswepay for fear,exaggera-tion,andlotsofmoney.

Afternearly40years,theHanfordcrit-

icscontinuetorepeatthesameoldscarestories,andthemediacontinuetorepeatthe scares without fact checking, andcontinuetoignorealotofthescientificliterature. We have also learned thatthese“truebelievers,”inthewordsofau-thorChristopherBooker,exhibitakindofmoralisticself-righteousfanaticismjusti-fied by the supposed transcendent im-portanceoftheircause.

Foryears,thisfanaticismhasprevent-edanatmosphereofseriousdiscussion,letalonearationalapproachtotheriskmanagement of Hanford. In fact, thescare stories have made a mockery ofriskanalysesandriskmanagement,nottomention thewasteofbillionsof taxdollars thrown at Hanford cleanup inthepursuitofsmallorzerorisk.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear sci-entist and a science and energy re-source for Hawaii Reporter and a sci-ence analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Now retired, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field and he also taught chemistry and ener-gy at the university level. His interest in the communication of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many ap-pearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mike@foxreport.org.

A version of this article previously ap-peared in theHawaiiReporter.

DOE

TheHanfordsiteontheColumbiaRiver.“Afternearly40years,theHanfordcriticscontinuetorepeatthesameoldscarestories.”

NUCLEARREPORT

HISTORY OF ROCKETRYAND ASTRONAUTICS

BOOK SERIES

AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICALSOCIETY HISTORY SERIES

For a complete listing of these excellentvolumes on the history of rocketry andastronautics, including brief descriptionsof each volume, tables of contents ofmost of the volumes and ordering infor-mation, please visit the following pagesin the book sections of our Web Site:

• http://www.univelt.com/Aasweb.html#AAS_HISTORY_SERIES

• http:/www.univelt.com/Aasweb.html#IAA_PROCEEDINGS_HISTORY_ASTRONAUTICS_SYMPOSIA

• http://www.univelt.com/htmlHS/noniaahs.htm

BOOKS ON MARSThese volumes provide a blueprint formanned missions to Mars and a contin-ued presence on the planetís surface,including what technology is required,and what kinds of precursor missionsand experiments are required. For moreinformation on the Mars books available,please visit the following page in thebook section of our Web Site:

• http://univelt.staigerland.com/marspubs.html

If you would like for us to send you moreinformation, then please contact us asfollows:

Univelt, Inc., P.O. Box 28130,San Diego, CA 92198, USA

Tel.: (760) 746-4005;Fax.: (760) 746-3139

E-mail:76121.1532@compuserve.com

Web Site:www.univelt.com