Re[2]: plutonium

[Charles Potter <capotte@sandia.gov>]

     Certainly ingestion of Pu can't be _that_ hazardous due to the low 
     absorption from the GI tract (f1=10^-3 or 10^5 per ICRP-48).
     
     Gus Potter
     
     C. A. Gus Potter
     Sandia National Laboratories
     CAPOTTE@sandia.gov
     (505) 844-2750


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: plutonium
Author:  FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV at hubsmtp
Date:    10/8/97 2:33 PM


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