by CKR
U.S. Has Plans to Again Make Own Plutonium
Oh man! Big problems for nonproliferation! The warmongers are at it again!
Well, no. The story is about the impending production of plutonium 238 in a reactor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Plutonium 238 can't be used to make a nuclear weapon. It is a pretty fierce alpha emitter and thus heats itself up. That heat is used to provide electrical power to space probes like Cassini and, yes, spy devices.
The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.No again. Or rather yes, if you pay close attention to the words. Can cause cancer. So can natural chemicals in parsnips and celery, not to mention smoking and chewing tobacco. And some of the metals, like selenium, which are needed in small amounts to maintain health.
Bill Broad should know better. He's been writing about this stuff for years. Maybe that's why the cliche just slips out without thought.
During the Manhattan Project, a number of people were exposed to plutonium and carried it in their lungs until they died in their eighties from all the things that other people die from--heart disease, strokes, and, yes, cancer. I don't believe there's an epidemiological study available, but I've been aware of them as members of the community.
All other things being equal, it's better not to be exposed. Breathing it in (the route of most Manhattan Project exposures) is the most likely to cause cancer. It's better not to spread it around in the atmosphere, but the amounts that we currently breathe are probably a lot less dangerous than the exhaust from that automobile in front of you on the freeway. Seems to me I've seen a lot more smoking trucks lately; let's get that a headline in the NYT.
The current generation of plutonium power sources are packaged so that all of them that have been in accidents have been recovered whole. That's what we learned from that crash in 1964. They are the only power sources that can work for deep space probes and probably the best for a base on the Moon, with its two-week nights.
But there is a story here, even though Broad (or his editors?) has buried it toward the end. Maybe two stories.
The first is the question of what the plutonium 238 will be used for. Given the administration's apparent push to weaponize space, it's a good question. But the investigation in the article is limited to a quote from a local anti-nuclear group.
The big story is that the Idaho laboratory probably will use this project as justification to build a plutonium-handling facility. The argument will be that they have the reactors to produce the plutonium, and it will be safer not to transport the plutonium to Los Alamos, the only facility that currently can package it. Nuclear weapons need to be rebuilt every so often. Right now, it looks like the lifetime is 30 years, and the US hasn't had an operating rebuild facility for more than a decade. Los Alamos is trying to regain this capability, but it's had numerous difficulties with the project, not to mention its overall management.
There is some sense to the argument that the entire plutonium operation should be done in one location. There will be NIMBY arguments against it in Idaho and in Los Alamos. But this applies only to plutonium 238. The nuclear weapons are stored in Amarillo, Texas, from which the trip to Los Alamos is shorter than to Idaho Falls. And, as I've argued, if the US's nuclear arsenal is reduced to what is necessary, Los Alamos, possibly with minor expansion, will suffice.
Broad aims for the currently easy target, Los Alamos, with a (I guess it's supposed to be) horror story about someone dropping, yes dropping, a plutonium 238 generator pellet. "Beeping radiation detectors" is always good to scare people. Hey, I've worked there, and the beeps, from cosmic rays, come one every few seconds. Not a problem. Broad doesn't say that the drop most likely took place inside a glove box, so that anything that happened would be contained. He also doesn't say whether this was a plutonium pellet before or after it was sealed into its protective metal container.
And yes, I'll admit to some home-team prejudice. I've fought Idaho when they tried to steal my project. I've watched them present Los Alamos work as though it was their own. I watched them do a similar project to one of mine. Mine was on time and under budget. Theirs expanded without apparent end. There are good people at Idaho, but I suspect Los Alamos is better, even with its current difficulties. And do we really need two pit rebuild facilities?