Plutonium: 'Our Country's Only Feasible
Solution'
Abstract: Should we begin to manufacture one of the most destructive and
infamous substances on the face on the Earth once again? The engineers say yes,
but the public says no. The United States stopped making this element with the
ban on manufacturing nuclear weapons. But with the continuing problem with our
ever diminishing energy sources, some want us to begin using more nuclear energy
and less energy from natural resources. This paper is going to discuss what
plutonium is, the advantages and disadvantages of its use, and why we should
think about restarting our production of this useful element.
After the United States dropped "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"
on Japan ending World War II, the public has had some type of understanding
about the power of plutonium and its devastating properties, but that is all
anyone heard.
After WWII, Americans started to think about what the atomic bomb could do to
the U.S. and its people. When anyone mentioned plutonium or the word
"nuclear" the idea of Hiroshima or Nagasaki being destroyed was the
first thing people thought about. No one could even ponder the idea that it
could be used for other more constructive things like sources of energy or to
kept a person's heart beating. Then we started to build more reactors and
produce more of the substance but mostly for our nuclear weapons programs.
Along with reactors, sometimes comes a meltdown which can produce harmful
effects if it isn't controlled quickly enough. After such instances as the
Hanford, Washington reactor meltdown and the accident in the U.S.S.R. at the
Chernobyl site, no one wanted to hear about the use of plutonium. The United
States government banned nuclear testing and also ended the production of
plutonium.(Ref. 5) Now we are in a dilemma. We are in need of future sources of
energy to power our nation. We are running out of coal and oil to run our power
plants.(Ref. 7) We also need it to further our space exploration program. People
need to understand the advantages to using plutonium and that the disadvantages
are not as catastrophic as they seem. With the turn of the century on its way,
the reemergence of plutonium production will need to be a reality for us to
continue our way of life.
In 1941, a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, discovered
something that would change our planet forever. The man's name, Glenn T. Seaborg,
and what did he discover?, the element plutonium.(ref. 10) Plutonium, or Pu #94
on the periodic table, is one of the most unstable elements on the earth. It is
formed when Uranium 235, another highly unstable element, absorbs a neutron.
Plutonium is a silvery-white metal that has a very high density of 19.816
g/cm3.(ref. 10 ) It has been rarely found in the earth's crust but the majority
of the substance has to be produced in the cores of nuclear reactors. Plutonium
can be found fifteen different forms, or isotopes and their mass number can
range from 232-246.(ref. 13) Radionuclide batteries used in pacemakers use
Pu-238, while Pu-239 is used in reactors and for Nuclear weapons.(ref. 13) This
paper will focus on the isotopes Pu-238 and Pu-239. Plutonium can be very
advantageous for the United States. It can be used for several purposes. The
three major advantages to using this element are for an energy source, power for
nuclear propulsion in space exploration and thermo-electric generators in
cardiac pacemakers. The first use for plutonium, nuclear power, is obviously the
most beneficial use. Plutonium 239 can be used to power nuclear reactors. The
average nuclear reactor contains about 325 kilograms of plutonium within its
uranium fuel.(ref. 7) This complements the uranium fission process. With the
continually decreasing supply of coal and oil to power our nation, we need a
substitute to complement our energy needs and right now the best replacement is
that of nuclear energy.(ref. 7) At the moment there are one hundred and ten
nuclear power plants in the United States and they produce one-fifth of the
nations electricity. Nuclear energy has been proven to be the cheapest, safest,
cleanest and probably the most efficient source of energy.(ref. 7)
Nuclear power plants do not use as much fuel as the plants burning coal and oil.
One ton of uranium produces more energy than several million tons of coal and
plutonium can produce much more energy than uranium.(ref. 12) Also the burning
of coal and oil pollute our air and the last thing we need is more pollution to
worsen the greenhouse effect. Nuclear power plants cannot contaminate the
environment because they do not release any type of pollution.(ref. 2) Plutonium
can also be recycled by using a enrichment process. This will produce even more
energy. Coal and oil can not be recycled. What is left by their uses is what has
been contaminating our atmosphere since the 1800's.
You might ask how exactly is plutonium converted into an energy source? Well it
is obviously quite complicated to explain. Basically, power comes from the
fission process of an atom of the element and produces over ten million times
the energy produced by an atom of carbon from coal. One kilogram of plutonium
consumed for three years in a reactor can produce heat to give ten million
kilowatt-hours of electricity. This amount is enough to power over one-thousand
Australian households.(ref. 7) Presented with this information, it is only
common sense that we should not depend upon fossil fuels to take us into the
21st century. It is obvious that our future lies in the hands of nuclear
reactors and the use of plutonium.
The second major use for plutonium is for space exploration with its ability to
power nuclear propulsion. Nuclear electric propulsion is using energy from
plutonium to power space vehicles.(ref. 3) One of the major goals of NASA space
program is to, one day, get to Mars, and it looks like the only way it is going
to happen in our current fiscal condition, is if we use plutonium, instead of
chemical fuel, to power our explorations. Nuclear electric propulsion can be
defined as using small plutonium based bricks, to power space vehicles for
interplanetary trips. Nuclear electric systems provide very low thrust levels
and use only very small amounts of fuel during the voyage.(ref. 3,4) Using
electric propulsion also allows the use of less fuel making the spacecrafts
launch weight much lower than it would be with chemical fuel.(ref. 3)
The last beneficial use for plutonium is for cardiac pacemakers. The
thermo-electric generator which is powered by radionuclide batteries that powers
the pacemaker uses Pu-238.
One of the obvious uses of plutonium, whether is an advantage or disadvantage,
is for weaponry. It is an advantage if we need to use it against a foe, but it
is disadvantageous is our foes use it against the United States.
Now that we are at the hands of the Non-proliferation Treaty and the Test Ban
Treaty, we no longer can make and/or test nuclear weapons.(ref. 5) This should
help end ideas about nuclear war and other disadvantages to having plutonium in
other countrys' supplies. Now that we have recognized three important uses for
Plutonium and that the threat of nuclear war is no longer as feasible as before,
we should recognize the disadvantages of this great energy source. They mostly
have to do with excess waste and health effects from the use of nuclear energy.
In 1986, a reactor located in Russia at the Chernobyl power plant had a meltdown
and radiation escaped from the plant.(ref. 8) Several dozen died from this
incident. Nuclear explosions produce radiation. When it comes within human
contact, radiation hurts cells which can sicken people. The cause of the
Chernobyl meltdown was mostly because of human error. They tried to perform an
experiment at a time when they shouldn't have, and many people paid for their
incompetence.
There are waste disposal problems that occur with the use of nuclear reactors.
Waste also produces radiation which can be lethal. Since waste can hurt and kill
people who come in contact with the substance, it cannot be thrown away in a
dumpster like other garbage. Waste has to be put in cooling pools or storage
tanks at the site of the reactors. Another problem is that the reactors can last
for a maximum of fifty years. Even though plutonium is chemically hazardous and
produces harmful radiation, it isn't close to being the most toxic substance on
the planet. Such substances as caffeine or radiation from smoke detectors, that
have the same amount of mass as plutonium, can have a greater toxicity.(ref. 2)
There are basically three ways plutonium can hurt humans. The first is
ingestion. Ingestion, though not totally safe, it is not as bad as we think. The
fact is, plutonium passes through the stomach and intestines and cannot be
absorbed and therefore, is released with other waste we produce.(ref. 1)
The second route plutonium can take to be hazardous is through open wounds. This
form of contact is very rare and basically cannot happen if the element is
handled correctly with protective measures such as correct clothing and health
monitor procedures.(ref. 1) The last, main threat to our society comes from
inhalation. If inhaled, plutonium is exhaled on the next breath or gotten rid
off through the mucous flow from the throat and bronchial system and released as
with ingestion. However, some could get trapped and put into the blood stream or
lymph nodes.(ref. 1) This has the possibility to cause cancer in the future.
This might sound frightening, but what we need to realize is that inhaling this
type of substance is part of some of our daily lives. The problem of inhaling
Pu-239 isn't much different than inhaling such radionuclides like decaying
particles from radon. Radon is a radioactive gas that can cause cancer.(ref. 6)
It comes from the decay of uranium in soil, rock and water. Inhaling this
substance can damage your lungs and lead to cancer over a lifetime. Everyone who
lives in homes, works in offices or goes to school, can be affected by the gas.
If you live in a brick house, you could be taking a serious risk if you don't
get the radon level tested. A 1990 National Safety Council report showed that
radon causes, on the average, approximately 14,000 deaths a year and can go as
high as 30,000 deaths a year.(ref. 6)
After learning about what radon gas can do to humans, shouldn't we be more
concerned about what a naturally occurring substance can do rather than worrying
about what plutonium, and its rare contamination might do. Also, how many
American citizens will actually have a chance to come in contact with any
plutonium isotope in their life time? As you can see, if we start to produce
plutonium once again, we will benefit greatly from its use. We can use it to
help power nuclear reactors which can power our nation. It can also be recycled
and used once again which is one thing fossil fuels cannot do. Nuclear electric
propulsion and its use of plutonium will help power space exploration into the
next century and maybe even get us to Mars. Pu-238 is also helpful in powering
cardiac pacemakers, one of the great biomedical inventions of the1900's. With
these constructive and productive uses, we shouldn't even debate on the fact
that we need plutonium for the future. You may think that by producing
plutonium, it will automatically go toward our nuclear weapons program. With
non-proliferation and testing banned, this, obviously, is no longer an option.
What about nuclear waste and radiation exposure? Well, unless an individual does
not use safety precautions and other preventive measures when and if he handles
the substance, he or she shouldn't expect anything less of radiation poisoning
and contamination. If you're still concerned about exposure to nuclear
radiation, you're in for a big surprise when you find out you can't avoid it.
There is more of a chance you will die from radon gas than there is from
plutonium.(ref. 6) After considering all these factors, whether they are
advantages or disadvantages, it is obvious that the use of plutonium is, in
fact, feasible and the disadvantages are highly unlikely to affect your health
and well being. You probably should be more worried about dying in an automobile
accident or a plane crash.
References
AEI:
May 1995, How Deadly is Plutonium
A
Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium
Nuclear
Electric Propulsion
NASA
fact sheet, Dec. 1991
Nuclear
Politics
Citizen's Guide to
Radon
Questions
about Nuclear Energy
IEER: Fissile Materials
Health & Environmental Dangers
NMI Company Overview
Background on Pu-238/239
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Core Issues no.3, The Uranium
Institute 1995
Plutonium