Deadly Plutonium

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Gary  (Captain !   :-), 

I agree, except to add that the "media" does not create this "whale dreck"
alone. It is encouraged, and even demanded, by DOE, EPA, and others
knowledgeable enough to know better, instigated by a few "scientists" that
seek media attention and funding! 

Consider even the recent NAS Ward Valley report that stated that discharging
the planned 10 Ci of Pu over 30 years directly to the Colorado River would add 
a trivial amount to the river alpha, but then was not honest about the
conclusion, and industry  watered down the conclusion, and the Feds (Babbitt)
required an "agreement" to limit the site to receiving 10 Ci!  There was no
consideration that 100s of times as much Pu could safely be discharged to the
river and that 1000s (millions?) of times as much Pu could be put in the site
with no potential discharge to the water table far below, 20+ miles from the
river, to exceed natural concentrations of alpha in the river (10,000s years
in the futre, without even considering the debate about the lack of
communication between the site and the river).  

As Nobel Laureate Rosalyn Yalow points out, the media get this whale dreck
from US, the science and rad protection community! (They just make it a little 
blunter and sexier, but we, including the labs, foster the public fear to keep 
the rad protection $$ flowing! And this isn't new, this has been observed
repeatedly in, eg, the HPS Newsletter for more than 20 years!) 

I suggest that the "audience" for the report you mention is in this group and
others only partially knowledgeable of the issues, and for many in industry
and elsewhere who are as uninformed as the general public about the data.
Perhaps this recent report (April '95?) should have been mentioned on this
list and elsewhere in the industry literature where is is needed, and copies
made available more readily than to just say its in NTIS. We certainly get
mass distribution and availability of many "reports", and national public-fear 
media campaigns, when Fed agencies and junk-science provide any misinformation 
that any radiation effect may be insinuated from a "study". 

Is there any WWW page that provides summaries and ref to this and other
equivalent reports?  Are you (anyone?) interested in supporting such an
effort? 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim

>                                         - Captain Plutonium!
> 
>                                       Deadly Plutonium
> 
> Mr Thomas wrote:
> 
> >Remember the statement that Pu is the most hazardous substance/material known
> >to man?  K.K.S. (Sam) Pillay at LANL is looking for citable references - pro
> >and con - for a compliation.  Send any reference you know about to
> >s_pillay@lanl.gov (he is not a radsaf subscriber - maybe a good response will
> >get him to sing up).  My thanks for him in advance. 
> 
> >Charles C. (Tommy) Thomas 
> >Approved by M. S. Thomas
> 
> To both Mr. Pillay and RADSAFErs:
> 
> If you are getting a little tired of the typical whale dreck you read in the
> media about the "deadliest substance known to man" you may wish to try "A
> Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium," UCRL-JC-118825, W. Sutcliffe, et al,
>  April 1995, LLNL.  Should be available from the National Technical
> Information Service, and for DOE & DOE contractors, available from the Office
> of Scientific and Technical Information (615) 576-8401.   
> 
> DISCLAIMER:  Note that although the above referenced document has been
> reviewed and approved for release by LLNL management, my comments above do not
> represent the opinions of LLNL, the University of California, the Department
> of Energy, or anyone else that matters.