Re: plutonium

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

Howdy:

Forgive the following rant, but I just traded a pint of blood for a T-shirt so
the oxygen tension in my half dozen working brain cells is low.

Its easy to refute the statement that Pu is the most toxic material, that's
why we are so fond of doing so. But as Wes commented, its rank among
toxic substances is not the issue. If the public hears us making the
argument that many materials are more toxic than plutonium, their
response should be "these guys just don't get it".  Many in the radiation
protection community seem constitutionally incapable of publicly stating
that ingesting or inhaling plutonium might be a bad idea. The HPS position
paper about "Deadly Plutonium' is a case in point. While it states that
many people have incorporated Pu into their bodies without harmful
effects, nowhere does it acknowledge that some individuals have
incorporated Pu to their detriment.  Besides, cancer is a stochastic
process, what relevance is there to point out that certain individuals
seem not to have been harmed? The fact that some people have lived to
a ripe old age after large (or small) exposures to radiation is a non issue. 
The anti's could just as well say that lots of people exposed to
environmental levels of radiation have died young. 

Finally, I must respectfully take issue with a couple of comments made by
Franz who said:

>All the historic references quoted during the last
>days have stated, that "plutonium is  o n e  of the most hazardous
>substances.....". There was not a single reference, which stated that it
>would be "t h e  most hazardous substance".

I quoted a 1948 reference regarding plutonium that called it "the most
insidious poison known"  I am unaware of the early history of antinuclear
groups, but I doubt that they would be responsible for such an early
quote. 

Franz also commented:

>The "honor" of calling it the "most dangerous substance" has to be 
>credited to groups like Greenpeace.

Willing to share a "single reference" that supports this position?

If the rad protection community fails to address the public's real concerns
and appears to position itself as cheerleader for the nuclear industry,
and if we make inaccurate statements or sweeping generalizations, the
antinukes will have us for breakfast. Actually, I think they have already
had breakfast and are working on supper.

Here are a couple of statements from Ralph Nader for example: "the
industry apologists attempt to "detoxify plutonium arguing that botulin
toxin, anthrax or nerve gas are all much more toxic than plutonium...even
if there are other substances that are deadlier than plutonium, they do
not make plutonium any less dangerous...plutonium is still a very
impressive cancer causing agent...[besides] no one is recommending
botulin or anthrax ..spread throughout the civilian economy... [and] there
are ways of neutralizing them" It was 20 years ago that he said that.
There is a lot to be learned about the nature of the argument by listening
to the antis.

Again, forgive the rant.

Paul frame
Professional Training Programs
ORISE
framep@orau.gov