Re: plutonium

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Paul et al. --

You might check "The Plutonium Story" for some further information and
insights on what Seaborg and his Manhattan District colleagues (including
Stone) had to say about Pu hazards.  Also, Simeon Cantril and Herb Parker
published in Manhattan District Report CH-3570 (publication of which was
held up by General Groves on security grounds), which served as the basis
for Paper 9 in the 1951 book "Industrial Medicine on the Plutonium Project"
the following:

"We do not live in a "City of Pluto" as certain elements of the press
describe our village.  Pluto is safely confined behind walls or barriers in
the plant."  

Thus it is clear that the media, at least by 1951 and likely several years,
had focussed on the extraordinary radiotoxicity of plutonium.  And, Fermi
himself back about 1942 had expressed concern about the production of
"radium likes elements" in the primitive reactors of the day.  Recall also
that concern with Pu toxicity was undoubted one the major reasons why Herb
Parker chose Pu when he put forth the first propsed MPC on air in 1944.
Parker's MPC for Pu was essentially the same as that proposed by the NCRP
and ICRP Committee 2 some 15 years later. 

Ron Kathren 

At 01:24 PM 10/6/97 -0500, FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV wrote:
>According to Newell Stannard (Radioactivity and Health p 367, 1988
>Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE/RL/01830-T59)), and he should know, the
>statement that plutonium is the most toxic element known to man
>was"made during the war years [WWII] perhaps in part to ensure
>support for the needed protection measures, in part to secure full
>cooperation of the workers, and in part because the accumulating data
>were pointing in that direction."  Stannard's book summarizes the various
>animal studies, and human experiences with plutonium and nicely
>addresses the issue of its toxicity.
>
>(Initially during the Manhattan Project, the MPBB for Plutonium was
>pegged at 5 ug, 50 times that for radium, but studies indicated that
>plutonium's longer biological half life meant that the 5ug  MPBB was too
>high)
>
>When Robert Stone of the Met Lab in Chicago was asked what quantity
>of Plutonium  it was acceptable for a worker to inhale, he replied "None
>at all". I've seen similar statements attributed to him but can't locate them
>right now. I wouldn't be too surprised if Stone were the prime instigator
>of the "most toxic" label.
>
>On the cover of No Place to Hide by David Bradley (1948), in which he
>describes his experiences in the early atomic tests e.g. Crossroads, it
>states "....the horrible menace of free plutonium remained - the most
>insidious poison known". 
>
>Just speculation, but to add to what Newell said, the most toxic business
>was probably meant as an intentional exaggeration because plutonium's
>properties were relatively unknown, it was the most significant
>radiological hazard at several wartime sites, it was very difficult to
>measure plutonium surface contamination (so safety depended on blind
>obedience to instructions), and it was almost impossible to evaluate once
>inside the body.
>
>All of these things continued to be important issues during the
>Crossroads tests where the Navy personnel, whose ships might have
>been heavily contaminated,  did not have had a good appreciation of
>radiation safety. 
>
>In any event, its a bit disingenuous to lay the blame at the feet of the anti
>nukes for repeating a fallacy we in the rad protection community started
>- as much as we would like to blame them - both sides are responsible.
>
>Paul Frame
>Professional Training Programs
>ORISE
>framep@orau.gov
>
>
>