Plutonium and Bombs

  • Bernard L. Cohen


The very existence of plutonium is often viewed as the work of the devil.* As the most important ingredient in nuclear bombs, it may someday be responsible for killing untold millions of people, although there are substitutes for it in that role if it did not exist. If it gets into the human body, it is highly toxic. On the other hand, its existence is the only guarantee we have that this world can obtain all the energy it will ever need forever at a reasonable price. In fact, I am personally convinced that citizens of the distant future will look upon it as one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. Between these extremes of good and evil is the fact that if our nuclear power program continues to be run as it is today, the existence of plutonium will have no relevance to it except as a factor in technical calculations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. R. Best and M. J. Driscoll, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 34, 380 (1980).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. L. Cohen, Breeder Reactors—A Renewable Energy Source, American Journal of Physics, 51, 75 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Avery and H. A. Bethe, “Breeder Reactors; The Next Generation,” in Nuclear Power: Both Sides, M. Kaku and J. Trainer (eds.) ( Norton, New York, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. G. Ayers etal., LMFBR Program Review, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration ( 1978 ); Report of the Task Forces to the LMFBR Review Steering Committee, Energy Research and Development Administration (April 1977).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Review of National Breeder Reactor Program (January 1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Wilson, “Report on the Safety of a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor,” Electric Power Research Institute ( Palo Alto, CA, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. B. Yasinsky (ed.), “Position Papers on Major Issues Associated with the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor,” Westinghouse Electric Corporation ( Madison, Pennsylvania ) 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milton R. Benjamin, Washington Post (July 20, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atomic-Industrial Forum, “Light Water Reactor Fuel Cycles—An Economic Comparison of the Recycle and Throw-away Alternatives” ( February 1981 ). This presents analyses by six different groups.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robert Lesch, “World Reprocessing Facilities,” Worldwide Nuclear Power (January 1982 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shelby T. Brewer, “Letter to Recipients of Worldwide Nuclear Power” (dated March 4, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Meyer, S. K. Loyalka, W. E. Nelson, and R. W. Williams, “The Homemade Bomb Syndrome,” Nuclear Safety, 18, 427 (1977).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Starr and E. Zebroski, “Nuclear Power and Weapons Proliferation,” American Power Conference (April 1977).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy ( Ballantine Books, New York, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Safeguarding a Domestic Mixed Oxide Industry Against a Hypothetical Subnational Threat,” NUREG-0414 (May 1978).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 5.55; Standard Format and Content of Safeguards Contingency Plans for Fuel Cycle Facilities”; also “Regulatory Guide 5.54: Standard Format and Content of Safeguards Contingency Plans for Nuclear Power Plants” (1978).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 5.56: Standard Format and Content of Safeguards Contingency Plans for Transportation” (1978).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Willrich and T. B. Taylor, Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards (Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. H. Schmidt and D. Bodansky, The Energy Controversy: The Fight over Nuclear Power ( Albion Press, San Francisco, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. L. Cohen, “Plutonium—How Great is the Terrorist Threat,” Nuclear Engineering International ( February 1977 ). The quote from Kinderman is given there. It was taken from a book, but I cannot recall the name of the latter.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) Safeguards Program, Background Statement (March 10, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Nader, speech at Lafayette College (Spring 1975 ).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Task Group on Lung Dynamics, “Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of the Human Respiratory Tract,” Health Physics, 12, 173 (1966).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), “Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” (1980).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UN- SCEAR), “Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation” (1977).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. L. Cohen, “Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity,” Health Physics, 32, 359 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Medical Research Council, The Toxicity of Plutonium (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1975); C. W. Mays, “Discussion of Plutonium Toxicity,” in R. G. Sachs (ed.), National Energy Issues—How Do We Decide (Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. J. Bair, “Toxicity of Plutonium,” Advances in Radiation Biology, Vol. 4, p. 225 (1974).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. H. Rothchild, Tomorrow’s Weapons ( McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. E Park, W. J. Bair, and R. H. Busch, “Progress in Beagle Dog Studies with Transuranium Elements atBattelle-Northwest,” Health Physics, 22, 803 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. R. Tamplin and T. B. Cochran, “Radiation Standards for Hot Particles,” Natural Resources Defense Council Report (1974). Also, “Petition to Amend Radiation Protection Standards as They Apply to Hot Particles,” submitted to EPA and AEC (February 1974).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Academy of Sciences, “Health Effects of Alpha Emitting Particles in the Respiratory Tract,” Environmental Protection Agency Document EPA 520/4–76–013 (1976); National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Alpha Emitting Particles in Lungs,” NCRP Report No. 46 (1975); United Kingdom National Radiological Protection Board, Report R–29 and Bulletin No. 8 (1974); W. J. Bair, C. R. Richmond, and B. W. Wachholz, “A Radiological Assessment of the Spatial Distribution of Dose from Plutonium,” U.S Atomic Energy Commission Report WASH–1320 (1974); see also The Medical Research Council, ref. 27.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G. L. Voelz, “What We Have Learned About Plutonium from Human Data,” Health Physics, 29 (1975).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. W. Gofman, “The Cancer Hazard from Inhaled Plutonium,” Committee for Nuclear Responsibility Report CNR 1975–1, reprinted in Congressional Record- Senate 31, (July 1975), p. 14610.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. W. Albert et al., Archives of Environmental Health, 18, 738 (1969); Archives of Environmental Health, 30, 361 (1975).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. J. Bair, “Review of Reports by J. W. Gofman on Inhaled Plutonium,” Battelle Northwest Laboratory Report BNWL-2067; C. R. Richmond, “Review of John W. Gofman’s Report on Health Hazards from Inhaled Plutonium,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-TM-5257 (1975); J. W. Healy et al., “A Brief Review of the Plutonium Lung Cancer Estimates by John W. Gofman,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-UR-75–1779 (1975); M. B. Snipes et al., “Review of John Gofman’s Papers on Lung Cancer Hazard from Inhaled Plutonium,” Lovelace Foundation (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Report LF-51 UC-48 (1975); “Comments Prepared by D. Grahn,” Argonne National Laboratory (1975).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Nader, Family Health (January 1977), p. 53.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “Meteorology and Atomic Energy,” p. 97ff (1968). This gives the calculational procedures used in ref. 26.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    K. Stewart, in The Resuspension of Particulate Material from Surfaces, B. R. Fish (ed.), ( Pergamon Press, New York, 1964 ); L. R. Anspaugh, P. L. Phelps, N. Kennedy, and H. C. Booth, Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental Behavior of Radionuclides Released in the Nuclear Industry, International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    H. R. McLendon et al. International Atomic Energy Agency Document IAEA– SM–199/85, p. 347 (1976)—Savannah River Plant; R. C. Dahlman, E. A. Bond– ietti, and L. D. Eyman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Publication 870 (1976)—Oak Ridge; F. W. Wicker, Colorado State University Report C00–1156–80 (1975)—Rocky Flats, Colorado; E. M. Rom– ney, A. Wallace, R. O. Gilbert, and J. E. Kinnear, International Atomic Energy Agency Document IAEA–SM–199/73, p. 479 (1976)—Eniwetok.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Gofman, National Forum (Summer, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    B. L. Cohen, “Plutonium Containment,” Health Physics, 40, 76 (1981).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, 40, 23420 (1975).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    U.S. Atomic Energy Agency, “Plutonium and Other Transuranic Elements: Sources, Environmental Distribution, and Biomedical Effects,” Document WASH-1359 (1974).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. R. Lamarsh, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Report of the Task Group on Reference Man, ICRP Publication 23 ( Pergamon Press, New York, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Recommendations of ICRP, ICRP Publication 26 ( Pergamon Press, New York, 1977 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bernard L. Cohen 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard L. Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations