Re: Pu in the park

[Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.apc.org>]

                                                         02/20/99 

Keith Welch wrote a response, posted at Topic 1360, to Marylia Kelley's
posting at Topic 1356, concerning findings of near regulatory limits of
plutonium-239 in the surface soils at Big Trees residential park in
Livermore, California.

I enjoyed reading Keith's very thoughtful posting which began with an
acknowledgment of some of the limited perspectives he might have, working
in the health physics field, and at a DOE funded national laboratory.  I
should point out that his lab is not funded via the Defense Programs
division of DOE.  Keith also expressed his awareness concerning many forms
of environmental degradation that need attention.  I also appreciated his
sharing of his views of how and when risk-based actions should be
implemented.  He also provided some information concerning the relative
risk we engage in during every day activities.  These are positions I have
been exposed to many times before.  Keith also expressed a great deal of
faith in the judgment of "experts" who are responsible for establishing
today's regulatory health and cleanup action limits.

I'm 53 and no longer have the idealism I once had.  One reason is that I
have seen the experts proven in error, many times, and I now believe that
a heavy dose of skepticism, from the general public, is essential for the
health of our society.  There are differences between regulatory risk
limits imposed by government institutions and some of the other risk we
decide to take.  If I want to avoid the risk of having an auto accident I
can avoid using a car.  If I fear the quality of the water that flows from
the tap, I have other choices available to me.  I had no control of the
decision to blast metric tons of plutonium-239 and other radioactive crap
into the atmosphere which is now distributed around the planet as
so-called "background" levels.  If I, or some remote third-world person
seeks relief from the artificial background radiation levels, we have few
options available.  That is why the public must remain deeply involved in
such far reaching government decisions and not simply leave it up to the
experts who may derive certain benefits related to the production. use and
disposal of radioactive materials.

I remember, as a child in the 1950s, going into department stores and
standing on a fluoroscope in the shoe department.  I thought it was fun
watching my toe bones move as the X-rays passed through my shoes and feet.  
Perhaps some were also hitting my testicles.  Of course the "experts," who
we looked up-to, had certified that such machines were perfectly safe.  
Today, such exposures are considered ludicrous.

Its not common practice for people in fields such as health physics to
reminisce over the many mistakes that have been made in the past by well
intentioned scientist, inventors and regulators.  It's to bad that the
historical memories of those events are fading while efforts to promote
the benefit aspects of atomic energy continue to be encouraged.  I
continue to believe that there is value in knowing both sides of the
story, even for the newest members of the health physics community.

For those who may want to see some more data on "background"  levels of
human sourced radionuclides, please visit RadNet at:  
http://home.acadia.net/cbm/ http://home.acadia.net/cbm/Rad5.html

ALARA 

Vernon Brechin 
vbrechin@igc.org