Unfortunately, I put off writing this 'till I returned from a trip to
the Exploratorium (member's evening), as a result his comments and
additional articles are unavailable. His web site has only the current
week and the archive doesn't include the "Feedback".
However, below is his summary and comment. I've exerpted the examples,
as they are from web sites.
bc
P.s. I disagree somewhat with his comment: I think the politicians
vetoed any effort by scientists to warn the public. (the "cold war",
remember!) However, some scientists fed Pu laced breakafast food to
children to determine its toxicity; shades of Tuskeege.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
||| THE STATS on nuclear waste handling that we quoted from the Village
Voice ended up as a lengthy discussion topic on a physics bulletin
board. A number of good questions were raised including why there is
more concern about nuclear material being taken from the plants than
when it was taken to them. Another reader wrote, "One alternate to
shipping the fuel is to stop using nuclear. But consider, nuclear fuel
is much more compact than coal -- about 100,000x if by quick research is
correct. So for each shipment of waste we eliminate, we create 100,000
shipments of coal. That seems pretty dangerous, too. Besides, this is a
worst case scenario. Every other accident would have much less effect .
. . And how much impact is there with the equivalent coal fuel? Smog?
Acid rain? Black lung?"
On the other hand, there were a number of responses of this variety:
"Unfortunately, the statistics that have been presented here are not
designed to educate but to scare. If you can't win your argument with
reason you can always make scurrilous attacks on your opponents."
"This is a case of reality vs. perception. People are very afraid of the
"N" word (nuclear) because they don't know much about it beyond what
they've learned on "The Simpsons." They're afraid of glowing in the
dark, turning into comic-book mutant monsters, being vaporized in a
mushroom cloud, etc. etc."
WHATEVER THE FACTS of the matter, physicists, above all scientists,
should show a bit more humility than that. Your editor, for example,
comes from a generation that was assured by our best minds that if we
simply got under our desks at school, we would have protection in an
atomic blast. And in Nevada, tourists booked motel rooms and pulled up
their lawn chairs to watch the early blasts because nobody told them
otherwise.
The failure of scientists to properly inform the public on the
consequences of their nuclear activities has had on a number of
occasions, either from hubris or ignorance, dire effects. Further, when
scientists dump something highly dangerous in the lap of politicians and
bureaucrats, the academics can't just walk away and say it's not our
problem. One reason waste disposal is such an issue now is because long
ago we were not told what a big one it was going to be. Political
consequences are just as much an outcome of scientific work as are
changes in substance, nature, or temperature. Two examples follow.
||| MARSHALL ISLANDS EMBASSY - 1954: Despite weather reports showing
that winds are blowing in the direction of inhabited islands, the March
1 Bravo hydrogen bomb test is detonated at Bikini. At 15 megatons, it is
1,000 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb. Within hours a gritty,
white ash is enveloping islanders on Rongelap and Ailinginae Atolls . .
. Those exposed experience nausea, vomiting and itching skin and eyes.
March 3 Rongelap islanders are evacuated 48 hours later, and Utrik is
evacuated 72 hours after Bravo. Both groups are taken to Kwajalein for
observation. Skin burns on the heavily exposed people begin to develop,
and later their hair falls out. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission issues
a statement to the press calling Bravo a "routine atomic test," and
stating that some Americans and Marshallese were "unexpectedly exposed
to some radioactivity. There were no burns. All were reported well." . .
.
April - A Project 4.1 memo recommends that the exposed Rongelap people
should have "no exposure for (the) rest of (their) natural lives." . .
.
cut
1978: Interior Department officials describe the 75 percent increase in
radioactive cesium found in the Bikini people as "incredible." Plans are
announced to move the people within 90 days.
1994: U.S. Rep. George Miller writes to President Bill Clinton: "The
Committee has been informed that even if only 50 percent of the survey
results are verified...the incidence rate is still significantly higher,
by a factor of 100, than the rate of thyroid cancer found anywhere else
in the world." . . . Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden,
chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments:
"There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to
islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places
in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any
doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then
planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their
bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment." . . .
||| GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT - In their daily travels along the
nation's highways, few Americans realize that they may be sharing the
road with a live nuclear warhead secured in an unmarked government
vehicle. Until recently, the public had little reason to know-or worry
about the activities of the U.S. Department of Energy's Transportation
Safeguards Division, which ferries nuclear materials between military
bases and nuclear weapons facilities. The government has worked hard to
prevent such a catastrophe. Couriers are trained to protect their cargo
from the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear devices, including
accidents and terrorist sabotage. Their schedules and activities are
shrouded in secrecy. They carry badges and are permitted to use deadly
force. They travel in convoys that include well-armed tactical teams of
up to 23 agents.
The tractor-trailers that carry the nuclear materials are
technologically designed to protect their cargo. The armored 18-wheel
"Safe Secure Trailers' are built to withstand devastating collisions.
They can endure raging fires without endangering the nuclear materials
they carry. The trailers are accompanied by special vans carrying
additional couriers and equipment ranging from night-vision goggles to
pistols, M-16 rifles and 12-gauge shotguns.
These safeguards arguably have served the government and the public
well. The agency reports no terrorist attacks or deadly accidents
involving a nuclear weapons shipment to date. The drivers, however, may
not be so lucky. Evidence gathered in the case of whistleblowing courier
James Bailey indicates that couriers suffer not only from punishing
working conditions, but from potential exposure to dangerous levels of
radiation.
cut
The Department of Energy's investigative panel issued its final report
on the courier program in November 1997. Its findings are extremely
damaging to DOE. The report confirms that couriers were subjected to
radiological conditions that could result in unmonitored exposures to
contamination . . . DOE management responded to the findings not by
correcting the problems, but by retaliating against couriers who had
taken part in the investigation. The retaliation was sweeping and
systematic. Three managers formed a "Blue Ribbon Panel," which Met with
every courier in the Oak Ridge Division. All courier assignments out of
Oak Ridge were suspended until the panel had inter-viewed everyone.
Couriers were told to answer three questions and informed that their
answers would be reviewed and their futures in the program would be
adjusted accordingly.
Not surprisingly, the investigation had a chilling effect among the
couriers at Oak Ridge. One courier described the experience to GAP
investigators, "I answered 'don't know' to all three questions on the
survey, and would soon regret it during my hearing before [the
supervisors]. I spent approximately 35 degrading minutes before these
individuals, who told me that my answering 'don't know' won Id result in
my [security clearance] being rescinded. I was provided a new
questionnaire, which I hurriedly filled out the way they wanted (yes
responses) and said, put me in the good guy club. I want to keep my job.
Coercion. There was no question in my mind that this entire humiliating
and debasing experience was done to seek out persons not considered
loyal to the management. . .'