|
Plutonium is one of the elements that occur naturally, in tiny amounts, in pitch blade and other ores. However, these "tiny amounts" can pose a significant threat when synthesized and used improperly. Plutonium (PU-239) was first synthesized in 1940 by Glenn Seaborg, but now it can be produced easily and in greater quantity from the more abundant element of Uranium. Although Plutonium is dangerous to handle, difficult to store, damaging to public health, a terrorist risk and impossible to dispose of, it is still widely used (Hutchison, p.460).
Plutonium has several nuclides, the most important of which is PU-239. It is used for the manufacture of nuclear bombs. It takes one ten-millionth of an ounce to cause cancer when injected under the skin of mice. Once in the air, tiny particles of Plutonium, which are easy to ignite, remain suspended for a long time, on reason why Plutonium fires occur so frequently at the Rocky Flats Plutonium plant in Colorado (Ratical p.6, 7).
Nuclear bombs made from this Plutonium are so damaging to the environment that the testing of them was banned in a 1963 agreement between the U.S. and Soviet Union. This ban was a result of controversy over the radioactive fallout that occurred during the tests. The tests produced results equivalent to 400 megatons of TNT and contaminated land, water, vegetation animals and people. Recently however, the power of the treaty is weakening. In the U.S., new developments and installations are on the increase. A single large nuclear-power plant produces as much radioactive material in one year as a 25-megaton atomic bomb (Ratical, p.1).
However, history shows that even peaceful use of Plutonium has resulted in great loss of life. At Big Rock, Michigan the infant mortality rate rose to 448% higher than the national average after the construction of a spent-nuclear fuel storage facility. Other communities have experienced more specific incidences that have put them in danger. In Miamisburg, Ohio, there was a laboratory leakage of Plutonium, which contaminated the Erie Canal. In India, five workers stole 3.6kg of Uranium to transport through Nepal to Hong Kong. In Windscale, U.K., monitoring failure at a reprocessing plant allowed a worker to leave with Plutonium on his shoes (Nuclear Files p.3, 4, 6).
However, nothing seems to have stopped the growing interest in Plutonium and the number of people that use it.
In fact, just last year, the Private Fuel Storage - a Wisconsin consortium of eight power companies won the right to build a "spent-nuclear" fuel storage facility on the Goshute Indian reservation in the Utah desert. To dispel any fears the community had about the project, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Evaluation Report expressed that it would meet all federal safety requirements. The report also stated that the massive steel and concrete storage casks would be impervious to explosions, aircraft crashes and the impact of errant missiles. The Goshute Indians, despite the dangers, responded favorably to their proposal because they were eager to cooperate with any project that would benefit their desperately impoverished community economically (Hansen, p.1, 2).
In Britain, another Plutonium plant was also recently approved. The new £472 million plutonium fuel plant is to be located in Sellafield, Cumbria.
However, in regards to the Sellafield plant, people were not as eager to support the project as the Goshute Indians were. Environmentalists immediately condemned this new plant, as it would initiate a worldwide trade in Plutonium-based fuel known as MOX. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace planned to take the government to court on the basis that it can never be economically viable enough to justify the expected radioactive discharges, which is a requirement under European law. They also argued that the plant would present an unacceptable terrorist threat because the MOX Plant would take spent nuclear fuel and mix it into pellets to make new fuel for reactors. Although there are orders from Germany and Switzerland, British Energy refuses to use the expensive MOX (Brown p.11).
The Khushab plutonium reactor in Pakistan produces enough plutonium annually to make up to three bombs, depending on the design. Plutonium is the preferred material for building light, sophisticated warheads (Indiapak, p.1) and up until last year, Pakistan possessed 16 nuclear sites; India, 16; Britain, 7; and the USA, 21 (Nuclear Files, p.1).
The bottom line is that fuel reprocessing plants leave behind large amounts of radioactive waste from the reclaimed material (Ratical, p.2), which either have to be stored or recycled for some other use in order to avoid any backlash. This problem then ricochets into all areas of life, such as public health and the environment.
Even as far back as the 1968 June issue of Wall Street Journal, questions were raised about the safety of these plants. The Journal stated that, "Scientists are raising a horrendous new possibility. It is far too easy, they say, for a crazed man, a revolutionary or a criminal to make an atomic bomb" (Ratical, p.8).
Sources:
- Brown, Paul. "Plutonium Plant Wins Approval." Guardian Weekly.165:16 (2001)11.
- Brown, Paul. "Nuclear Plants Shut Down." Guardian Weekly. 165:14 (2001) 9.
- Hansen, Brian. "Nuclear Waste Storage a Utah Tribal Land Wins Safety Approval." The Lycos Network: Environmental News Service. 11/04/00.
- Hutchinson. "Dictionary of Science." Britain: Helicon Publishing Ltd. 1994.
- Indiapak.net. "Khushab." Intelligensia Associates. Indiapak.net. 10/17/01.
- NuclearFiles.org. "Nuclear Sites." Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 10/17/01.
United States
India
Pakistan
Britain
- NuclearFiles.org. "1974 Nuclear Accidents." Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. NuclearFiles.org. 10/17/01.
- Ratical.org. "The Nuclear Legacy - Radioactive Wastes and Plutonium." Ratical.org. 10/17/01.
|
