U.S. Has Plans to Again Make Own Plutonium
 
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
June 27, 2005
New York Times
 
The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.
 
Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.
 
Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details. But in the past, it has powered espionage devices.
 
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview.
 
He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
 
The laboratory is a source of pride and employment for many residents in the Idaho Falls area. But the secrecy is adding to unease in Wyoming, where environmentalists are scrutinizing the production plan - made public late Friday - and considering whether to fight it.
 
They say the production effort is a potential threat to nearby ecosystems, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park and the area around Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires, celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick Cheney.
 
"It's completely wrapped in the flag," said Mary Woollen-Mitchell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, a group based in Jackson Hole. "They absolutely won't let on" about the missions.
 
"People are starting to pay attention," she said of the production plan. "On the street, just picking up my kids at school, they're getting keyed up that something is in the works."
 
Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons.
 
Federal and private experts unconnected to the project said the new plutonium would probably power devices for conducting espionage on land and under the sea. Even if no formal plans now exist to use the plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy.
 
"It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades, and this may be needed," said a senior federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the possibility that he would contradict federal policies. "Technologically, it makes sense."
 
Early in the nuclear era, the government became fascinated by plutonium 238 and used it regularly to make nuclear batteries that worked for years or decades. Scores of them powered satellites, planetary probes and spy devices, at times with disastrous results.
 
In 1964, a rocket failure led to the destruction of a navigation satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading radioactivity around the globe and starting a debate over the event's health effects.
 
In 1965, high in the Himalayas, an intelligence team caught in a blizzard lost a plutonium-powered device meant to spy on China. And in 1968, an errant weather satellite crashed into the Pacific, but federal teams managed to recover its plutonium battery intact from the Santa Barbara Channel, off California.
 
Such accidents cooled enthusiasm for the batteries. But federal agencies continued to use them for a more limited range of missions, including those involving deep-space probes and top-secret devices for tapping undersea cables.
 
In 1997, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration prepared to launch its Cassini probe of Saturn, hundreds of protesters converged on its Florida spaceport, arguing that an accident could rupture the craft's nuclear batteries and condemn thousands of people to death by cancer.
 
Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than the kind of plutonium used in nuclear arms, plutonium 239. Medical experts agree that inhaling even a speck poses a serious risk of lung cancer.
 
But federal experts say that the newest versions of the nuclear batteries are made to withstand rupture into tiny particles and that the risk of human exposure is extraordinarily low.
 
Today, the United States makes no plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material - some 35 pounds since the end of the cold war - for military purposes.
 
With its domestic stockpile running low, Washington now wants to resume production. Though it last made plutonium 238 in the 1980's at the government's Savannah River plant in South Carolina, it now wants to move such work to the Idaho National Laboratory and consolidate all the nation's plutonium 238 activities there, including efforts now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
 
By centralizing everything in Idaho, the Energy Department hopes to increase security and reduce the risks involved in transporting the radioactive material over highways.
 
Late Friday, the department posted a 500-page draft environmental impact statement on the plan at www.consolidationeis.doe.gov. The public has 60 days to respond.
 
Mr. Frazier said the department planned to weigh public reaction and complete the regulatory process by late this year, and to finish the plan early in 2006. The president would then submit it to Congress for approval, he said. The work requires no international assent.
 
The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho. The Big Lost River wanders its length. The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors - more than at any other place - most of them shut down. It has long wrestled with polluted areas and recently sought to set new standards in environmental restoration.
 
New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million, Mr. Frazier said. The operations budget would run to some $40 million annually over 30 years, he said, for a total cost of nearly $1.5 billion.
 
An existing reactor there would make the plutonium. Mr. Frazier said the goal was to start production by 2012 and have the first plutonium available by 2013. When possible, Mr. Frazier said, the plutonium would be used not only for national security but also for deep-space missions, reducing dependence on Russian supplies.
 
Since late last year, the Energy Department has tried to reassure citizens living around the proposed manufacturing site of the plan's necessity and safety.
 
But political activists in Wyoming have expressed frustration at what they call bureaucratic evasiveness regarding serious matters. "It's the nastiest of the nasty," Ms. Woollen-Mitchell said of plutonium 238.
 
Early this year, she succeeded in learning some preliminary details of the plan from the Energy Department. Mr. Frazier provided her with a document that showed that production over 30 years would produce 51,590 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.
 
He also referred to the continuing drain on the government's national security stockpile, saying the known missions by the end of this decade would require 55 pounds of plutonium for 10 to 15 power systems. Those uses, he said, would leave virtually no plutonium for future classified missions.
 
Ms. Woollen-Mitchell was unswayed. In January she told the Energy Department that so much information about the plan remained hidden that it had "given us serious pause."
 
The Energy Department is courting Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free because it has flexed its political muscle before. Starting in late 1999, financed by wealthy Jackson Hole residents like Harrison Ford, it fought to stop the Idaho lab from burning plutonium-contaminated waste in an incinerator and forced the lab to investigate alternatives.
 
In the recent interview, Mr. Frazier said he planned to talk to the group on Tuesday and expressed hope of winning people over.
 
"I don't know that I'll be able to make them perfectly comfortable," he said, "but they know that the department is willing to listen and talk and take their comments into consideration."
 
"We have a good case," Mr. Frazier added, saying the department could show that the Idaho plan "can be done safely with very minimal environmental impacts."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council

Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm

 June 29 -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Research Council. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that could eventually lead to cancers. [more]

Radiation may cause harm
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument

Report Brief (164 KB file, requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
http://www.nap.edu/reportbrief/11340/11340rb.pdf

Full Report
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html

Listen to the Briefing (Requires free RealPlayer)
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html

----------------------------
Date: June 29, 2005
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer
Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm

WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation.

The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually.

The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates.

Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

Assessing Health Risks

The committee's risk models for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation were based on a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, and refer to the risk that an individual would face over his or her life span. These models predict that about one out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. These particular estimates are uncertain, however, because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models.

Survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were the primary sources of data for estimating risks of most solid cancers and leukemia from exposure to ionizing radiation. The committee's review included an examination of updated cancer-incidence data from tumor registries of the survivors, and of research data on solid cancer deaths -- which is now more abundant because the number of deaths available for analysis has nearly doubled since the Research Council published its previous report on this topic in 1990. The committee combined this information with data on people who had been medically exposed to radiation to estimate risks of breast cancer in women and thyroid cancer. Data from additional medical studies and from studies of people exposed to radiation through their occupations also were evaluated and found to be compatible with the committee's statistical models. Follow-up studies should continue for the indefinite future, the report says.

Adverse hereditary health effects that could be attributed to radiation have not been found in studies of children whose parents were exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs. However, studies of mice and other organisms have produced extensive data showing that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring, the report says. There is no reason to believe that such mutations could not also be passed on to human offspring. The failure to observe such effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably reflects an insufficiently large survivor population.

Follow-up studies of people who receive computed tomography (CT) scans, especially children, should be conducted, the report adds. Also needed are studies of infants who are exposed to diagnostic radiation because catheters have been placed in their hearts, as well as infants who receive multiple X-rays to monitor pulmonary development. CT scans, often referred to as whole body scans, result in higher doses of radiation than typically experienced with conventional X-rays.

Sources of Ionizing Radiation

People are exposed to natural background ionizing radiation from the universe, the ground, and basic activities such as eating, drinking, and breathing. These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure.

Nationwide, man-made radiation comprises 18 percent of human exposure. In this overall category, medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79 percent, the report says. Elements in consumer products -- such as tobacco, tap water, and building materials -- account for another 16 percent. Occupational exposure, fallout, and the use of nuclear fuel constitute roughly 5 percent of the man-made component nationwide.

Factors that could increase exposure include greater use of radiation for medical purposes, working around radioactive materials, and smoking tobacco. Living at low altitudes, where there is less cosmic radiation, and living and working on the upper floors of buildings, where there is less radon gas -- a primary source of natural ionizing radiation -- are factors that could decrease exposure.

The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

[This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org]

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 20:03, 2005-06-29

"There are about 15 active wells in the county -- used for many things including watering lawns, washing cars, as well as for drinking, Gwozdek said. Ten of those wells have already been surveyed by health department officials to decipher well depth, diameter, well location in relation to house septic system as well as other details in preparation for the actual sampling."

Apparently Mr. Gwozdek is unaware that Royalton is in Niagara County. Could someone please get him a map? Several rural roads out here do not have public water. Lots of private residences and farms still using wells out here.

No kids smoking at lemonaide stands are not covered under the smoking law! Now if they tried to smoke in a bar the NCHD could fine the bar owner and make the kids smoke outside with the adults.

-- Edited by shughes at 21:32, 2005-06-30

Since this will be the focus of the paper sunday,Lets bring this back up.

Dovey

aaaahhhhh,it's on the front page today!

The picture was something on the front page!

Late 1940's is when the show started!

Mid. to late 1940's.

CORPS CONDUCTS BACKGROUND RADIATION STUDY OF LEW-PORT SCHOOL PROPERTY

YOUNGSTOWN, N.Y. - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, announced that they have completed a background gamma radiation study at the Lewiston-Porter School in Youngstown, New York. The study, conducted in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), was performed by the Corps to help determine the amount of radioactivity naturally present in the local area, and by the NYSDEC to check for any radiological anomalies on the site. The results of the study showed radiation levels that were typical of a developed property such as the school. No radiation levels were found that would present a hazard to the public.

The study was performed in conjunction with other investigation activities at the Niagara Falls Storage Site (NFSS), a site managed by the Corps under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Dr. Judith Leithner, Program Manager for the site said, "the additional survey work was conducted by the Science Applications International Corporation with the help of Corps staff at a total estimated cost of $100,000."

During the study, a number of small areas of what appears to be natural activity were noted. These include granite curbs, a granite rock, other rocks, and two small areas of asphalt. The results of the survey for these small areas are typical of those found on a property such as the school, both due to natural variations found in the environment, and from man's activities in the course of construction and development. Regardless of the source of activity, none of the areas surveyed during the course of the background study demonstrated radiation levels that would present a hazard to members of the public, including children who attend the school and people who work there.

Overall, average gamma activity measured at the school was similar to that found in other baseline sites studied. From the results of the background study at the school, the Corps was able to confirm that background values used at the NFSS are appropriate, and they will proceed with the investigation at the NFSS.

For more information, please call the FUSRAP toll-free public access line. The Buffalo District also has a FUSRAP home page on the Internet and you can reach us by e-mail.

Nice work anonymous. Why not leave telephone numbers, web addresses, complete wuotes and things like that. You always seem to cut off these articles right at the most important part.

Late 1940's is when the show started!

Mid. to late 1940's.

OH REALLY? That's not what the records say! Why not give a source instead of just your opinion. How about some accuracy? I guess we can't believe the US Army, SAIC OR Anonymous posters!

   When was it then?

SH:  IF I were suspicious of this group or their agenda.... I'd say that the best way to divert attention would be to focus on phantom PCB's and NOT MENTION A WORD about PLUTONIUM IN THE WATER.

That would make the most "economic" sense. To heck-in-that-handbasket with human health!      

 I'm just saying IF I WERE suspicious, that the PCB scare may have past...a long time ago.

Lou R.