"The Plutonium Files"

["Karam, Andrew" <Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu>]

I just finished reading a book called "The Plutonium Files", written by a
journalist who did a great deal of work on this topic several years ago.
All in all it was an interesting book, although the entire book is colored
by the author's relative lack of understanding of many fundamentals of
health physics and her evident sense of outrage.  However, I did not read
this as one of the diatribes that we so often hear from the "antis".  While
I do not feel competent to comment on the legal, ethical, or historical
aspects of the book, I would like to comment on some of the scientific
matters raised because some fundamental errors in this area really set the
tone for much of is discussed in the book.

My biggest disappointment is that, in virtually cases, the author ascribes
every case of cancer and other health problem to the effects of the tests or
experiments that were performed.  In most cases this is done explicitly, in
other cases it is implied.  Unfortunately, the author seems to ignore the
fact that the background cancer rate is relatively high.  She does
acknowledge (grudgingly, in my opinion) that the tracer studies did not
likely result in a significant or harmful dose, but only many pages after
describing health problems that arose in the people so dosed.  In other
cases, she paints a broad picture of cancer clusters, elevated cancer rates,
general poor health, and so forth among various populations, but gives no
solid scientific backup for these assertions.  She also seems willing to
quote and, by implication, accept assertions by a number of people
interviewed that their health problems stemmed from radiation exposure
without considering the possibility of other causes, occupational,
environmental, genetic, or just bad luck.  As noted above, the implication
is that radiation is responsible for all of these people's ills, without
remembering that people got sick, got cancer, and died before we ever
started working with radiation and radioactivity.  In my opinion, this is
the single most serious flaw in this book.

The other significant scientific flaw I noted was her unquestioning
acceptance of the LNT hypothesis, which contributed to the preceding
mistakes.  In particular, I am disappointed by her flat assertion (stated in
at least two places) that all but a handful of scientists accept the LNT and
that those few opponents are crackpots outside the scientific mainstream.
Anyone who has read my previous Radsafe postings should know my feelings on
this matter, and I am disappointed that she did not consult with the large
number of notable and respected scientists who feel that the LNT is untrue.

There is one other thing that I think bears mention, too - the post-testing
longevity of many of the test subjects.  I have heard a great deal of debate
on this issue, mostly from HPs noting that this just proves that the
injections (or whatever) weren't harmful.  However, I get the impression
that the author was not commenting on health effects in this instance.
Rather, I think she was noting that the protocols called for testing only on
patients who were certainly terminal and that the long-term survival of some
of them indicates that this was not necessarily always the case.  In other
words, I think that she was making an ethical point, not a scientific point.
This does not negate the fact that a number of patients lived quite some
time, but that's not the point that is being argued.

To her credit, the author seems to have consulted a wide variety of
references, including Newell Stannard's comprehensive history, some
scientific papers, and a number of DOE documents, technical and otherwise.
When picking up the volume for the first time I fully expected that it would
be nothing more than a prolonged scream of unthinking rage against
everything nuclear and radioactive.  This was not the case.  While I cannot
say that the book was impartial, unbiased, and thoughtful, it was not nearly
as painful to read as I had anticipated.  It will take me awhile to get over
seeing, in the same bibliography, Goffman and Stewart next to Durbin and
Stannard, however.

As I said, I cannot comment on any other aspects of this book because I am
not an ethicist, a physician, a lawyer, and I am not old enough to have any
first-hand knowledge of anything discussed in this book.  My personal
opinion is that the scientific errors are sufficiently serious that some
sort of "official" response from HPS or another body would be warranted.
However, given the relative lack of notice from this book thus far, that
might not be necessary or advisable.

Finally, please note that it is NOT my intention to (again) launch into the
perennial debate about the evils of LNT, to start a generalized Radsafe
trashing of the antis and the media or anything like that.  We've seen quite
enough of all of this lately through this list, and I think that all these
topics are pretty much played out (with the exception of LNT, as more
scientific data becomes available).  

Happy New Year's (and, depending on how YOU count, Happy New Millennium,
too)!

Andy

Andrew Karam, CHP              (716) 275-1473 (voice)
Radiation Safety Officer          (716) 275-3781 (office)
University of Rochester           (716) 256-0365 (fax)
601 Elmwood Ave. Box HPH   Rochester, NY  14642

Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu
http://Intranet.urmc.rochester.edu/RadiationSafety

We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached
a turning point, that we have seen our best days.  But so said all before
us, and with just as much apparent reason.  On what principle is it that,
when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but
deterioration before us?    Lord Thomas B. Macaulay, 1830

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html