Re: plutonium

[Jess Coleman <radshoals@airnet.net>]

Ron L. Kathren wrote:
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
Paul, Ron et al,

The phrase "Pu is the most toxic element (also said as substance) known
to man" seems to be over 50 years old and was based on the best
intentions of the fathers of our profession.  The idea has entered the
common culture and is now one of those "legends" accepted by laymen as
true even though it is not.

We radiation safety professionals need to do something about it.

How can we correct the perception of the exaggerated toxicity of Pu?

I suggest we deal with the media to the extent possible to correct
this mythical missinformation whenever we see it.  I prefer something
more proactive.  Any other ideas?

Bye the way.  Remember Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"?  He repeated the myth on
TV and printed it in his book by the same name.  Look up plutonium in
the index.  On page 224: "Element 94, is called plutonium and is one of
the most toxic substances known.  Unfortunately, it falls to pieces
rather slowly."  Random House, 1980.

Jesse H. Coleman

RADSHOALS@AIRNET.NET