My Father's Last Report (Revised and Updated)

I originally wrote this post hours before my father's death in January 2009. It was followed in the Nuclear Green sequence of posts by a notice of my father's death and then by his obituary. Of all Nuclear Green posts, this is more relevant to the current situation. in Japan. I have revised it in order to focus on my father's contention that the worst case consequences of worst possible nuclear accidents are not all that bad. The relevance of the current situation in Japan should be obvious.

This photograph was made during a June 27, 28. 1963 visit by my father, Dr. C.J. Barton, Sr., to the Atomic Research Establishment at Harwell. Seated is Alan E. J. Eggleton of the Health Physics and Medical Division of Harwell. Eggleton investigated radiation released by the Windscale reactor fire. No doubt he and my father had a long conversation about the radiation release following reactor accidents.

During my father's (C.J. Barton, Sr.) last 18 months before his retirement much of his time was spent preparing a report for the National Academy of Science. The report encountered many objections from peer reviewers. The main objections fell on Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) research that served as a basis of many of the reports conclusions. The topic of my father's report was the movement of radioisotopes in the environment, and ORNL research was clearly pointing at some of the potentially adverse human consequences for the energy policy choices of the Ford and Carter Administrations.

By the mid 1970's my father probably knew as much as anyone in the world about radio-isotopes in the environment. Indeed his knowledge of the topic was undoubtedly the reason why he had been chosen to write the report for the National Academy of Science. During the years my father was George Parker's research partner in nuclear safety research (1960-1964), Parker specialized in the study of how radioisotopes escaped reactors, while my father focused on what happen to them once they got into the environment. Even after he returned to Molten Salt research in 1964, my father was asked to study the movement of radioisotopes that had been released into the environment during cold war operations of the Oak Ridge facilities. Thus the study of radio isotopes in the environment, either from human sources or later from natural sources was my father's entry into the Health Physics and later the Environmental Studies Divisions, as the Reactor Chemistry Division of ORNL fell apart.

My father, although close to retirement, was very enterprising in promoting the study of radiation from natural sources. It appears that he was one of the pioneer researchers on the problem of natural radon in the home. In addition to Radon from subsurface sources, my father noted that natural gas was a source of radon in the home. Indeed studies of the transport of radon into American homes through natural gas pipe lines does not appear to have progressed much beyond the point my father left it in the mid 1970's. Bob Moore was associated with my father in his study of radioactive radon in natural gas. In addition Moore was also involved in a better known ORNL research project that investigated radio isotopes in coal ash. My father would have been very interested in that line of research. These lines of ORNL research were perhaps what troubled the National Academy of Science reviewers.

My father defended his report vigorously and eventually the reviewers signed off on it, but the National Academy of Science appears to have never published it. At the very least my father was never told of its publication and it is not listed among my fathers professional papers listed on the Energy Bridge. Thus the report disappeared and I suspect was suppressed. Why you might ask?

The reason might be found in a couple of my father's post retirement papers which I believe reflected some of the thinking that went into his National Academy of Science report. What was on my father's mind was simple. People were and are far more likely to be exposed to radio isotopes from the burning of fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, than they were to be exposed to radio-isotopes from power producing reactors. The "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," holds that there is no lower limits to the damaging effects of radiation. Critics of nuclear power using the Linear Hypothesis often hold that even a tiny amount of radiation that escapes into the environment from power producing reactors has an adverse impact on human health. What my father, Bob Moore and other Oak Ridge scientists had shown was that far more radiation coming from radio isotopes like radon, was escaping into the environment and entering the bodies of people from fossil fuel use, than was coming from nuclear reactors.

My father's research had shown that radioactive isotopes like radon were being transported through natural gas pipelines into homes all over the country. Other researchers had shown the presence of radioactive isotopes in coal fly ash, that was entering the lungs of people who lived in surrounding areas. From this information it was not difficult to calculate exposure rates and given the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," the effects of radiation exposure from fossil fuel burning would be very predictable in terms of its health and mortality consequences.

The Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis, is itself questionable. There is powerful evidence when people are exposed to radiation from natural sources, there is a threshold below which no adverse health consequences can be observed. It is irrational to argue that radiation from natural sources is somehow different than radiation from reactors. Radiation is radiation. Thus my father's conclusion would have been that given the facts and the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis" radiation exposures from burning fossil fuels killed tens of thousands of people. The implications of my father's report then would have been to show that a transition to nuclear power could have a positive consequence for human health and might save the lives of tens of thousands of people every year.

In effect my father would have turned the reasoning of the enemies on its head, by showing that given their own beliefs about the health consequences of radiation , a far more serious radiation problem was caused by not turning to nuclear power and continuing to burn fossil fuels. Needless to say the coal barons, the natural gas producers and anti-nuclear leaders like Ralph Nader, Helen Caldicott, Amory Lovins and Joe Romm had an interest in seeing my father's report suppressed.

My father's conclusion would have been unacceptable to the fossil fuel lobby and their
political allies, the anti-nuclear movement. There would have thus been a powerful political interest in suppressing my father's National Academy of Science report, and as far as I can determine it was in fact suppressed. To say the least, my father's conclusions were buried.

My father's research also raised questions about how dangerous radioactive fall out from nuclear accidents, such as the current accidents in Japan really are. In a post-retirement essay my father wrote with the assistance of George Parker, they reviewed the consequences of three major reactor accidents in which significant amounts of radioisotopes had been released. The three accidents involved the Windscale Pile No. 1, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The Windscale accident which my father investigated is far less known, but it resulted in a significant release of radioisotopes. My father and George Parker stated,

The second myth that we will discuss is that, because operating reactors contain large quantities of radioactivity, they are inherently unsafe. One nuclear power critic stated in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor accident : ‘There is tremendous uncertainty. mi reactors have a severe accident potential. I’ This potential was recognized in the early days of the the development of nuclear reactors and a tremendous effort has been made to minimize the likelihood that reactor accidents will result in loss of life or extensive property damage. We will discuss the three accidents in operating reactors that resulted in release of significant quantities of radioactivity: Windscale Pile No. 1, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Of these, only the latter resulted in deaths and large—scale property damage. We will compare these accidents and give reasons for our belief that loss of life from accidents in modern light—water nuclear power producing plants is unlikely.

Windacale Pile No. 1. The Windscale reactor was used to produce plutonium. In October 1957, during use of a procedure to release energy stored in the graphite moderator, the temperature in part of the reactor became high enough that some of the metallic uranium slugs and the nearby graphite moderator began to burn, releasing fission products through the stack that discharged air used to cool the reactor. effort to quell the fire with carbon dioxide was unsuccessful and it was finally quenched by the introduction of a large quantity of water. The accident made this reactor unusable.

Three Mile Island (TMI-2). This reactor located near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is the site of the most serious US. reactor accident to date and the only major accident in a large light—water reactor to date. Early on April 28, 1979, a series of events at this reactor began that resulted in a loss—of--coolant accident. (LOC).. Early report characterized the accident as a unique combination of failures, design deficiencies and operator errors. The critical error was the action of an operator who shut down the high—pressure injection of water that started automatically two minutes after the reactor shut down. If this water injection had been allowed to continue, the reactor core would have remained under water and serious core damage would have been avoided. Steps have been taken to eliminate the design deficiencies and operator errors revealed by this accident.

Chernobyl—4. This accident occurred about 80 miles north Kiev, Ukraine, in April and May, 1986. Russian report that was published several months later stated that the accident took place because of a variety of poorly conceived actions and procedures related to an experiment that was being conducted during an otherwise routine shut down of the reactor. Human errors compounded by a lack of proper procedures resulted in overriding of safety protection systems and to react.or failure evidenced by two explosions, one after the other, apparently caused by a prompt critical reactivity excursion (a sudden increase in the rate of fissioning in the reactor resulting in production of a large amount of heat in the reactor core) and steam or hydrogen explosion. The explosions blew the top off the reactor core container and the top off the the building in which the reactor was housed. The very hot reactor core released fission products directly to the atmosphere as the hot graphite moderator continued to burn until large quantities of boron carbide, lead, dolomite, sand and clay (5000 tons total) were dumped on the core by helicopters hovering over the reactor.

A report published in 1987 listed the known human casualties of this accident as 203 persons hospitalized and 31 deaths. It seems unlikely that we will ever know all the human consequences of this accident which include an unknown number of deaths from over—exposure to radiation and disruption in the lives of thousands of people who were relocated on very short notice.

My Father and Parker added,

The point of this comparison of the three reactor accidents is to make it clear that the potential for accidents is much greater for the Windscale and the Chernobyi reactors than in light water reactors. More important, however is the design and construction of these reactors which includes a very thick steel core container and a thick steel—reinforced building around the reactor. Multipie safeguards are provided, some of which have been greatly improved as the result of the lessons learned from the TM1-2 accident.

A comparison of fission products relesed in the three accidents reveals some important differences. Radioactive iodine (1—131) is a particular hazard in reactor accidents because it concenrates in the human thyroid through drinking contaminated milk or eating contaminated vegetables. The amount of this fission product released in the three accidents is (in curies):
Windocale, 20,000; T1il—2, iS to 30 Chernobyl—4, 7.3 million. The low level of iodine release from TMI—2 is believed to be due to the solubilty of the iodine in water, possibly because it combines with cesium, another fission product, to make cesium iodine. The noble gases have a very low solubiity in water and the release of these gases from TI’lI—2 is estimated to be in the rarnge 2.4 to 17 million curies as compared to 340,000 from Windscale and about 46 million from Chernobyl—4. These gases are not retained by the human body and their principal hazard is skin exposure. in the TNI—2 accident, no one received a greater dose from exposure than the average U.S. citizen receives annualy from natural radioactivity. Significant quantities of other fission products were released only in the Chernobyl accident (estimated total 22 million curies). t. TNI—2, the solubility of these fission products in water probably helped to minimize trieir release and filters in the hot air discharge tower apparently caught most of the solid materials produced by the partial burning of the Windscale reactor core.

Information Handling it TMI—2. Mental stress among the people living in the vicinity of TI1I—2 was judged to be the principal health effect of this accident. This has been ascribed in large measure to poor information handling. Initially, the plant operators were slow to recognize the seriousness of the accident and when higher authorities became involved, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, their lack of preparation for handling both the accident and relations with the news media became evident. The latter proceeded to fan the public’s already strong fear of radiation. The unneeded action of the governor of Pennsylvania in ordering the evacuation of children and pregnant women living within five miles of the plant accentuated these fears. It appears that. regarding the mishandling of news from TNI—2, there was more than enough blame to to around.

Over 20 years ago, my father and George Parker stated,

Plans for second generation nuclear power plants designed to be even safer to operate than those now in use are presently available. If the U.S. public could be convinced that the myths discussed in this article are untrue, it would expedite progress toward demonstrating the feasibility of expanding use of nuclear power generating plants. The desirability of reducing the amount of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from coal burning plants is well recognized and nuclear power is at present the most environmentally acceptable alternative for meeting our expanding need for electricity. There is a need for U.S. citizens to look beyond the media hype on the danger of reactor accidents such as that which surrounded the TMI—2 accident and for experts in the nuclear industry to make greater efforts to communicate facts to the public to replace the information being supplied by anti—nuclear groups and uninformed or poorly informed media writers and TV personnel.

No doubt this assessment would not have pleased the anti-nuclear ideologues who were given much power during the Carter Administration, and who would have been in a position to surpress my fathers report.

My father's Last Report

Last night I was awakened by the news that my father had lapsed into what was to prove a brief coma, that was to end with his death. I was unable to sleep, and my thoughts turned to my father's final unpublished report to the National Academy of Science.

During my father's (C.J. Barton, Sr.) last 18 months before his retirement much of his time was spent preparing a report for the National Academy of Science. The report encountered many objections from peer reviewers, and main objections focused on research that was being conducted at ORNL and which was reflected by the report. The topic of my father's report was the movement of radioisotopes in the environment, and ORNL research was clearly pointing at some of the human consequences for the energy policy choices of the Ford and Carter Administrations.

By the mid 1970's my father probably knew as much as anyone in the world about radio-isotopes in the environment. Indeed his knowledge of the topic was undoubtedly the reason why he had been chosen to write the report. During the years my father was George Parker's partner in nuclear safety research, Parker specialized in the study of how radioisotopes escaped reactors, while my father focused on what happen to them once they got into the environment. Even after he returned to Molten Salt research in 1964, my father was asked to study the movement of radioisotopes that had been released into the environment during cold war operations of the Oak Ridge facilities. Thus the study of radio isotopes in the environment, either from human sources or later from natural sources was my father's entry into the Health Physics and later the Environmental Studies division, as the Reactor Chemistry Division of ORNL fell apart.

My father, although close to retirement, was very enterprising in promoting the study of radiation from natural sources. It appears that he was one of the pioneer researchers on the problem of natural radon in the home. In addition to Radon from subsurface sources, my father noted that natural gas was a source of radon in the home. Indeed studies of the transport of radon into American homes through natural gas pipe lines does not appear to have progressed much beyond the point my father left it in the mid 1970's. Bob Moore was associated with my father in the natural gas research. In addition Moore was also involved in a better known ORNL research project that investigated radio isotopes in coal ash. My father would have been very interested in that line of research. These lines of ORNL research were perhaps what troubled the National Academy of Science reviewers.

My father defended his report vigorously and eventually the reviewers signed off on it, but the National Academy of Science appears to have never published it. At the very least my father was never told of its publication and it is not listed among my fathers professional papers listed on the Energy Bridge. Thus the report disappeared and I suspect was suppressed. Why you might ask?

The reason might be found in a couple of my father's post retirement papers which I believe reflected some of the thinking that went into his National Academy of Science report. What was on my father's mind was simple. People were and are far more likely to be exposed to radio isotopes from the burning of fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, than they were to be exposed to radio-isotopes from power producing reactors. The "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," holds that there is no lower limits to the damaging effects of radiation. Critics of nuclear power using the Linear Hypothesis often hold that even a tiny amount of radiation that escapes into the environment from power producing reactors has an adverse impact on human health. What my father, Bob Moore and other Oak Ridge scientists had shown was that far more radiation coming from radio isotopes like radon, was escaping into the environment and entering the bodies of people from fossil fuel burning, than was coming from nuclear reactors.

My father's research had shown that radioactive isotopes like radon were being transported through natural gas pipelines into homes all over the country. Other researchers had shown the presence of radioactive isotopes in coal fly ash, that was entering the lungs of people who lived in surrounding areas. From this information it was not difficult to calculate exposure rates and given the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," the effects of radiation exposure from fossil fuel burning would be very predictable in terms of its health and mortality consequences.

The Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis, is itself questionable. There is powerful evidence when people are exposed to radiation from natural sources, there is a threshold below which no adverse health consequences can be observed. It is irrational to argue that radiation from natural sources is somehow different than radiation from reactors. Radiation is radiation. Thus my father's conclusion would have been that given the facts and the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis" radiation exposures from burning fossil fuels killed tens of thousands of people. The implications of my father's report then would have been to show that a transition to nuclear power could have a positive consequence for human health and might save the lives of tens of thousands of people every year.

In effect my father would have turned the reasoning of the enemies on its head, by showing that given their own beliefs about the health consequences of radiation , a far more serious radiation problem was caused by not turning to nuclear power and continuing to burn fossil fuels. Needless to say the coal barons, the natural gas producers and anti-nuclear leaders like Ralph Nader, Helen Caldicott, Amory Lovins and Joe Romm had an interest in seeing my father's report suppressed.

My father's conclusion would have been unacceptable to the fossil fuel lobby and their
political allies, the anti-nuclear movement. There would have thus been a powerful political interest in suppressing my father's National Academy of Science report, and as far as I can determine it was in fact suppressed. To say the least, my father's conclusions were buried.

Blankets for Thermonuclear Reactors

One of my father's papers has just gone up on the Internet.
Contract No. W-7405-eng-26
REACTOR CHEMISTRY DIVISION
BLANKETS FOR THERMONUCLEAR REACTORS
C. J. Barton and R. A. Strehlow

Issued June 27, 1962
I. INTRODUCTION
Achievement of controlled thermonuclear power requires the solution of the very difficult problem of confining a stable energetic plasma. Concentration of research effort on this problem has resulted in little consideration of questions relating to energy extraction from a stable contained plasma. Many uncertainties exist regarding the design of a successful thermonuclear reactor but the fact remains that some fraction of the energy of thermonuclear neutrons must be removed or recovered as heat. Although this consideration alone makes necessary the presence of a heat recovery or removal blanket surrounding the reactor, the production of tritium is an equally necessary function of the blanket for a deuterium-tritium fueled (D-T) reactor. It is also essential that the highly energetic neutrons be prevented from damaging magnetic coil materials such as copper or sodium. The utilization of low-temperature superconducting coils will not, in itself, reduce the need for shielding. This report contains a brief discussion of thermonuclear reactions from the standpoint of energy recovery, a review of various blanket systems which have been suggested for use with thermonuclear reactors, some comments on problems connected with each type of blanket, and some suggestions for research on the blanket system presently considered most promising.

VI1 . CONCLUSIONS
Existing information indicates that molten LiF-BeF2 is a promising blanket material for removing energy from a thernonuclear reactor in the form of useful heat and for breeding tritium. It is also apparent that, in the interest of minimizing blanket thickness and of maximizing neutron multiplication, the possibility of including heavier elements such as lead, tin, barium, and zirconium in a fluoride salt mixture to be placed in one region of a blanket assembly should be considered. It is probably not too early to start to obtain information needed to determine the feasibility of employing molten fluorides in a thermonuclear reactor blanket. Some of the problems that need to be examined are: compatibility of molten fluorides with container and neutron multiplying materials and means of dealing with the corrosion problem resulting from charge imbalance accompanying tritium production, and solubility of tritium and tritium fluoride in molten LiF-BeF2. Due to lack of information on the configuration of a successful thermonuclear reactor, it seems obvious that it wauld not be profitable to attempt blanket design studies at the present time.

Note: My father did not open the door to thorium breeding in the blanket, but that would probably exceeded the expectation for the report. Clearly the door is cracked open, however.

A Brief History of the Fluid Fuel Reactor: The Molten Salt Reactor Adventure Begins

Eugene Wigner spent a brief period as Research Director of what was then called the Clinton Laboratories. Oak Ride was in 1943 a town that did not exist, so the Laboratory could not be named for it. Instead the assigned name that of Clinton, the old East Tennessee town that was the county seat of Anderson County, where most of the Oak Ridge complex was located. Wigner's stay was not a happy one for him, but is was exceedingly fruitful for the Laboratory. Wigner brought with him a team of brilliant scientists, and attracted more first rate researchers to Oak Ridge. Frederick Seitz, Erich Vogt, and Alvin Weinberg left a brief account of Wigner's stay in Oak Ridge:

"Wigner planned a two-pronged approach. First, he would establish a training program in which some thirty-five young scientists and engineers could learn the principles involved in nuclear reactors. These individuals would become future leaders in reactor development. Second, he would assemble an expert team to design nuclear reactors that could produce useful power efficiently and as safely as possible, placing much emphasis on the so-called "breeder" reactor. A substantial part of his research team in Chicago, including Weinberg and Young, agreed to join him there and spend the next phase of their professional careers promoting the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

Wigner quickly saw the hand writing on the wall:

"In the meantime, there was a great deal of legislative activity in Washington about the way the national nuclear energy program should be managed in peacetime. The debate was intense and protracted. The final result was the creation of a new civilian agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, which was put in charge of the operation on January 1, 1947. As the year progressed, Wigner eventually decided he was not really suited to serve as manager of a laboratory in such a complex, politicized environment. Many of the most important technical decisions would be made in Washington rather than in the laboratory".

Wigner and Weinberg remained personal friends, and wigner continued to visit the Laboratory on a regular basis. Hence in the Summer of 1971, I was offeed a chance to meet Wigner, along with other ORNL supernumeraries.

Alvin Weinbery was officially the Director oif the Laboratory's Physics Division from 1945 to 1948, when he assumed Eugene Wigner's former position. Weinberg was to become, among other things a custodian of Wigner's legacy, and much of ORNL's work on reactor development overthe next 25 years was to be guided by Weinberg's fidelity to the Wigner vision.

H. G. MacPherson's account of the history of the Molten Salt Reactor states,

"Molten salt reactors were first proposed by Ed Bettis and Ray Briant of ORNL during the post-World War II attempt to design a nuclear-powered aircraft".

Alvin Weinberg stated in 1957,"

At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory we have been investigating another class of fluids which satisfies all three of the requirements for a desirable fluid fuel: large range of uranium and thorium solubility, low pressure, and no radiolytic gas production. These fluids, first suggested by R. C. Briant, are molten mixtures of UF4 and ThF4 with fluorides of the alkali metals, beryllium, or zirconium".

Other sources tell a slightly different story. By M.W. Rosenthal, P.R. Kastin, and R.B. Briggs state "experiments to establish the feasibility of molten- salt fuels were begun in 1947 on

“the initiative of V.P. Calkins, Kermit Anderson, and E.S. Bettis.".

Ray Briant did not come to Clinton Labs until 1948, so it would appear that preliminary MSR research began before his arrival in Oak Ridge.

Rosenthall Kastin, and Briggs add, "At the enthusiastic urging of Bettis and on the recommendation of W.R. Grimes, R.C. Briant adopted molten fluoride salts in 1950 as the main line effort of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion1 program.”

Here we see a divergence between the collegiate nature of science and the conduits of information. Calkins, Anderson and Bettis appear to have decided on their own to investigate the possibility of a Molten Salt Fuel in 1947, but only Bettis gets credit for their joint invention. Bettis gets credit more for his advocacy than for the uniqueness of his role. Finally Warren Grimes got consulted on the chemistry, because his group was was to be assigned the task of researching MSR chemistry. Now the interesting thing was that in 1950 my father, C.J. Barton, Sr was the expert in Grimes' group on Fluoride Salt Chemistry. That is because my father probably participated in Grimes fluoride salt chemistry literature review that lay behind Grimes recommendation. How much of Grimes' recommendation rested on my father's judgment is probably beyond knowing.

Eugene Wigner was not a politician, not at least a politician in the way that Weinberg was. The giving and taking of credit was an important part of the management system of ORNL in the Weinberg era, and upper level managers were to use the giving and taking of credit to aggrandize themselves, and to reward and punish their subordinates, and not always for the best of reasons.

Bettis, Calkins, and Anderson could not have initiated research without an idea about what they were doing, thus they must jointly be credited with the MSR idea. It would appear that Briant later made the suggestion that thorium could be added to the MSR fuel mix. But note, the idea of converting thorium to U-233 in a fluid fuel reactor goes back to Wigner.

In 1947 a small group of K-25 engineers in Oak Ridge engineers, V.P. Calkins, Kermit Anderson, and Ed Bettis were assigned the task of developing a reactor for the Air Force that could power a bomber. During World War II the Hungarian genius, Eugene Wigner had invented a sodium cooled reactor, an invention which Wigner himself did not like, but in 1947 sodium cooled reactors were all the rage among people who were thinking about advanced nuclear technology. Calkins, Anderson, and Bettis were not working for Eugene Wigner at the X-10 laboratory. Instead they worked for K-25 and someone high up in the management of K-25 had decided that the Air Force needed a sodium cooled reactor to power their bombers. The more the young Oak Ridge engineers looked at the sodium cooled reactor, the less they liked it. It would be, they determined dangerously unstable. The hotter it got, the more power and hence more heat it produced. It could run away in a way similar to the way the Chernobyl reactor did some 39 years later. The young engineers decided that they needed to find a reactor concept that would tend to shut down as soon as it started to over heat. Liquids expand as the become hotter, and the young engineers thought that if the fuel was dissolved in a liquid, the liquid would expand out of the reactor's core as it heated, carrying U-235 out of theu core with it as it expanded, slowing the ongoing nuclear reaction in the core. Wigner was at that time interested in fluid core reactors that used heavy water as a core fluid, but heavy water was not a good candidate for what the K=25 engineers had in mind. K-25 was the world's leading center for fluoride salt chemistry in 1947, and the enginerrs thought that if fluoride salts were heated past their melting point would make an ideal carrier fluid for their reactor. It was a daring and even outrageous concept. In 1950 the project to build a reactor to power the atomic power bomber was turned over to Eugene Wigner's brilliant protoge, Alvin Weinberg, wh had remained in Oak Ridge after Wigner returned to Prinston. Ed Bettis approached scientist who had started thinking about the aircraft reactor project. He quickly convinced a small group of scientists including Ray Briant, Warren Grimes and my father C,J. Barton, Sr., about the liquid salt reactor idea. For the next 25 years, the idea of building a fluid aalt core reactor mesmerized Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

C;J. Barton, Sr. at Harwell

This photograph was made during a June 27, 28. 1963 visit by my father to the Atomic Research Establishment at Harwell.  Seated is Alan E. J. Eggleton of the Health Physics and Medical Division of Harwell.  Eggleton investigated radiation released by the Windscale fire.  No doubt he and my father had a long conversation about the radiation release following reactor accidents.  

Health Effects of Generating Electricity With Coal and Uranium

My father appears to have prepared this brief talk comparing nuclear power safety to coal fired power generation safety around 1990. His thinking about coal was influanced by his research on radon in natural gas, and the realization that radiation is radiation, whether or not it comes from nuclear sources. In addition to radioactive materials, coal smoke and fly ash contain numerous toxic and cancer causing materials. Note the way my father related information as fact, rather than playing on the emotions of his audience. My father shows data that indicates that as many as 116 premature deaths may occur every year per every MWy of coal generated electricity, yet he does not call special attention to the the estimate. My father's concern about the health and safety aspects of coal use complimented Alvin Weinberg's concerns about CO2/climate change. Unlike Alvin Weinberg my father focused to what happened to people in the short run as the result of burning coal to produce electrical power.

Health Effects of Generating Electricity With Coal and Uranium
By C.J Barton, Sr.

Question: Would you rather live close to a coal-burning power plant or a nuclear power plant? Why? If you said you prefer to live near a coal-burning plant because nuclear power is more dangerous, you would be in agreement with the majority or the American public. A 1980 survey showed that 80% believe that it is more dangerous to generate electricity with a nuclear reactor than by burning coal. I hope to give you a different view or this very important subject, which will be debated in the establishment or our future energy policy.

The comparison that I will present will be in terms or health effects and we will need to think about risk. This is defined as the chance or injury. damage or loss. One way or expressing risk is loss-or-life expectancy (LLE). This is the average amount by which one's life is shortened by the particular risk under consideration. For example, for smoking one pack or cigaffetes per day the LLE is 6.4 years for men and 2.3 years for women. The risk or lung cancer is 17 times greater for smoking two packs per day than for smoking one. Other examples are an LLE or 2.5 years for being 30 pounds overweight and the LLE for all accidents is 435 days. Table I compares a number or common risks with that or living near ~ nuclear power plant.

Table I
Loss of Life Expectancy for Various Risks

Type or Risk	Loss-or-life expectancy
Cigarette smoking (1 pack/day)	1600 days
Type Working in mines	1100 days
Type Cancer	980 days
Type All accidents	435 days
Type Motor vehicle accidents	200 days
Type Drowning	40 days
Type Hurricanes, tornadoes	1 day
Type Living lifetime near a nuclear power plant	0.4 days [theoretical]

Now we will start to think about risk from exposure to radiation. Most people do not realize that we are all exposed to radiation every day or our lives. The average U.S. citizen receives 100 millirems per year from natural sources (30 from cosmic rays, 20 from the ground. 20 from walls and 25 internal). Anything less than 10,000 millirem (10 rem) is commonly considered to be low-level radiation.

We tend to think or the potential health effects or electricity generation solely in terms or the exposure to products released from the electricity generating plants. However, the comparison that I am making considers the complete fuel cycle as shown on the screen.

Table II

Fuel Cycle-Electricity Generation From Coal

Mining ---------> Transportation --------> Electrical Generation ------>-Disposal of Ash

Fuel Cycle-Nuclear Power Generation

Mining ---------> Conversi on to Fuel ------>Electricity Generation ------->Waste Disposal

You will notice that there are some differences between the two fuel cycles and we need to consider the health effects of each stage in the fuel cycle, as shown in the next table.

Table III
Premature Deaths Per Year Associated With the Operation or a 1000-MWe Power Plant (Comar and Sagan-Lowest & Highest Estimates)

[Workers]	Coal	Oil	Gas	Nuclear
Mining accident	.45 to .99	.06 to .21	.021 to .21	.05 to .2
Mining disease	0 to 3.5	none	none	.002 to .1
Transportation
accident	.055 to 0.4	.03 to .1	.02 to .024	none
Processing
accident	.02 to .04	.04 to 1	.006 to 1	.003 to .2
disease	none	none	none	.013 to .33
Electrical Generation
Accident	.01-.03	.01 to .037	.01 to .037	.01
Disease	none	none	none	.024
Subtotals
Accident	.54-1.5	.14 to 1.5	.057 to .28	.065 to .41
Disease	0-3.5	none	none	.035 to .45
General Public	Coal	Oil	Gas	Nuclear
Transportation	.55 to 1.3	none	none	none
Processing	1 to 10	none	none	none
Generation	.067 to 100	none	none	.11 to 0.16

Here I have separated occupational health effects from those in the general public. You will note that a large fraction or the health effects in the coal cycle come from mining and transportation and in the uranium fuel cycle from mining. In the U.S. about 60 miners lose their lives each year from accidents and others die from exposure to coal dust in the mines (black lung). In mining uranium, the principal risk is from exposure to radon gas in the underground mines. Since about 100 carloads or coal are burned each day in a large coal-burning plant and about 50% or our electricity is generated in such plants, a number or people are killed each yaar by collisions at crossings.

In the uranium fuel cycle, the quantity of fuel burned is so small that we can neglect the transportation steps, but this is replaced by the conversion of ray uranium into fuel (U02 clad with Zirconium, a zirconium allow). The uranium is enriched to contain about 3% U-235. The last step in the fuel cycle, disposal of ash for the coal cycle, about 30 carloads per day, and storage or burial of used fuel in the uranium cycle, about one carload per year, have received less attention in risk evaluation studies than other parts of the fuel cycles but the health effects of these operations are considered to be low.

In comparing the health effects of effluents from coal-burning and nuclear power plants, we find a surprising fact, the effects of exposure to low levels of radiation are better known than the effects of products from burning coal. The bad effects of burning coal have been recognized for centuries. In fact, during the 13th century the King of England banned the burning of coal in London. Fortunately for the forests of England, the ban did not last long but in 1952 a period or bad weather conditions in London resulted in about 4000 excess deaths, primarily from coal combustion products. The reason the effects of low-level exposure to radiation are so yell known is that from the early forties to about 1975, approximately $ 2 billion had been spent on such studies, far more than has been spent on the effects of exposure to coal combustion products. Consequently, the uncertainty in estimating the health effects of effluents from coal burning plants is much greater than for nuclear power plants but the best estimates show an LLE of 13 days for coal plants as compared to 0.025 days for nuclear plants.

In conclusion, I will make a few remarks about the safety of nuclear power plants. The most common type of plant in the U.S. is the pressurized water reactor (PWR). The next figure shows a diagram of such a plant and the final figure shows the barriers against radioactive release from such reactors. At the end of 1990, there were 111 nuclear power plants in the U. S. generating about 20% of our electricity. In spite of all that you may have heard about the accident at Three Mile Island, the worst to date in this country, there has never been a death from radiation exposure in a U. S. nuclear power plant and no one in the vicinity of Three Mile Island received a radiation dose higher than that received [annually] by the average U. S. citizen (100 mrem) from natural sources. The accident at Chernobyl [involved] a much different type of reactor which would not meet U.S. safety standards. Improvements in the safety of nuclear power plants and in the training of plant operators have occurred in recent years. However, the U.S. public seems to be demanding an even greater degree of safety before allowing additional nuclear power plants to be built and it is possible that future plants may be quite different from
those presently operating.

LIST OF HEALTH EFFECTS COMPARISONS

1. C.L. Comar and L.A. Sagan, Annual Review or Energy, Vol 1. 581 (1976).
2. L.B. Lave and L.C. Freeburg, Nuclear Safety Vol 14 (5) 408 (1973) .
3. Nuclear Power-Issues and Choices (Ballinger, 1977).
4. R.L. Gotchy- NUREG-0332 (1877).
5. D.J. Rose, P.W. Walsh and L.L. Leskovjan, American Scientist (Vol. 64, 281 1976 ).
6. H. Fischer et al. , BNL-51481 (Sept., 1981)

Two public statements on energy by C.J. Barton, Sr.

Two comments on energy and CO2 by George Parker and C.J. Barton, Sr.

From his retirement from ORNL in1977 onward my father continued to speak out on nuclear power, fossil fuels, CO2, and global warming.  He and George Parker continued to collaborate on statements in support of nuclear power.  They had first called attention to the problem of global warming in 1977, and 18 years later their concerns had grown.  I believe that the 1995 statement, published in the Oak Ridger, was the last public statement they made together.  Below I have also included my fathers last published statement on energy issues to date.  In that statement he called for a National Energy Policy.   He speaks as a scientist, and calls attention to the wastefulness of using oil and natural gas -  nonrenewable natural resources - for energy rather than as feed stock for the petrochemical industry.   My father was 91, when his wrote the last statement, and although almost every voice of his generation had been silenced by time by death or old age, he still spoke out firmly. The same year he also published a statement of opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Nuclear power less damaging to environment than coal
By Charles J. Barton, Sr. and George Parker (The Oak Ridger, 1995)

The protest demonstration at the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant and efforts to prevent its starting show that opposition to nuclear power production in this country is alive and flourishing. Even more convincing evidence of anti-nuclear sentiment is that no new U.S. nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978.

Two aspects of the Watts Bar demon­stration need particular attention: the state­ment of the demonstrators that their aim is to protect the environment and their signs attempting to associate the Watts Bar plant with the Chernobyl disaster.

There are presently 419 operating nu­clear power plants worldwide (108 in the United States). Of these, 330 are light-wa­ter moderated, as is the Watts Bar plant, Many of them have been safely operated for 10 to 20 years. To date, there has been only one major accident in an operating reactor of the light-water type.

The accident at Three Mile Island at­tracted a tremendous amount of TV and newspaper attention. However, the fact that no one exposed to radiation from that, accident received a radiation dose greater than that which the average U.S. citizen receives from natural sources in a year has largely been ignored.

The Chernobyl-type reactor is far from reaching the safety requirements for nucle­ar power plants in this country. In fact, this country and several European nations have offered Ukraine substantial inducements to close power plants of this type because of doubts concerning their safety.

Coal-burning power plants produce about 52 percent of the electricity used in this country. Coal contains a small amount of radioactive materials: 1.3 parts, per mil­'lion,ofuranium and 3.2 ppm of thorium on the average.

Because of the tremendous amount of coal required to produce electricity, 4 mil­lion tons per year for a 1000-megawatt plant, a significant quantity of these natu­rally occurring radioactive materials is dis­tributed to the environment around coal burning plants in fly ash.

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory have calculated that people in the vicinity of such plants receive a radia­tion dose from this source about 100 times greater than that which they would receive from a nuclear power plant.

The above-mentioned radiation dose from uranium and thorium in fly ash is of small consequence when compared to the adverse effects of other impurities in coal. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides in coal combustion gases is an important contrib­utor to acid rain. The increasing concen­tration of carbon dioxide in the atmo­sphere (greenhouse effect) is also believed to contribute to global warming.

Unfortunately, health effects of coal combustion products are not nearly as well known as the effect of radioactive materi­als, but studies at the Electric Power Re­search Institute and elsewhere have shown the total health effects of generating elec­tricity with coal are greater than for nucle­ar power plants.

Accidents in coal mines, health effects in mining (black lung) and accidents at railroad crossings are principal contribu­tors to the total health effects of the coal­plant fuel cycle. The health effect of min­ing uranium, principally lung cancer from exposure to radon, is an important contrib­utor to the health effects of the nuclear re­actor fuel cycle.

The information cited above provides evidence that nuclear power plants are less harmful to the environment than coal­burning plants.

This raises the question: Why are peo­ple in groups like Earth First willing to risk being jailed in efforts to, as they view it, protect the environment?

Richard Roberts, an official in the Energy Research and Development Administration, a Department of Energy predecessor agency, stated in 1976 that our country seemed to be swept by a virulent form of "nuclearphobia" exhibited by a disbelief in any encouraging thing that experts in the nuclear energy area might say. There does not seem to have been much improvement in this situation in the last 18 years.

One cause of nuclearphobia is an appar­ent lack of interest on the part of newspa­pers and TV news people in positive news. It seems that anyone can produce an arti­cle saying that something will hurt you, especially radiation, and can get the atten­tion of news people.

Efforts to rebut misinformation seldom get published in newspapers or aired on TV, the only sources of most of the pub­lic's information. Better educated news people should be able to weigh the evi­dence and, at least, present both sides of such arguments.

A large effort has been put forth in this country in recent years to develop new standard nuclear power plant designs.

These plants will be even safer to operate than those presently in use and can proba­bly be built more economically. As aging nuclear power plants are retired and elec­tricity requirements continue to increase, electric utilities will have to choose the technology for future power plants.

In spite of wishful thinking about new power sources such as wind and sun, the choices for large power plants presently are coal and nuclear.

Some countries, notably France, Japan and Great Britain, have already made their choice in favor of nuclear power. France is already producing 75 percent of its elec­tricity in such plants.

Our choice for meeting future electricity needs should be based on facts, not fear.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerns about use of fossil fuels and global warming
By Charles J. Barton, Sr., (The Oak Ridger, 2003)

Hans Blix, outgoing director general of The IAEA published an article entitled Atomic Energy in the 21st Century in the September Issue of Nuclear News, a publication of the American Nuclear Society.

This excellent article considers factors affecting energy policy from the global viewpoint that his position provides..

I will discuss here the pressing need for adopting a national energy policy to guide the expansion of U.S. electrical power production in the 21st century.

First, a little history. In 1975 I attended a Project Independence hear­ing in Philadelphia at the request of Ed Struxness, my boss at the time. This was one of a series of 10 such hearings held at various locations around the country.

Their announced objective was development of a national strategy to reduce the likelihood of a repetition of the scarcity of oil caused by the earlier Arab embargo on oil shipments to the United States. This strategy, if it had been achieved, could have served as a limited na­tional energy policy.

My report to Struxness on the Philadelphia hearing was subtitled "An Axe-Grinders Convention."

Many speakers were scientists es­pousing various energy-producing techniques such as solar and wind power or use of renewable fuels for electricity generation.

These speakers were obviously hoping for funds to further develop their pet projects. Other axe ­grinders were politicians ranging from senators and governors to mayors, with a wide range of objectives.

The results of the Project Inde­pendence hearings were to be sum­marized in a report soon after the hearings were concluded and, pre­sumably, actions to reduce our de­pendence on imported oil were to be undertaken.

Although a number of projects that I heard discussed at the hearing continued to be funded, only the fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - have been widely used for large scale production of electricity.

The principal result of the early 1970's oil shortage was the storage of a large quantity of oil in under­ ground salt mines.

Nothing resembling a national energy policy emerged. Although nuclear power plants produce ap­proximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity, there have been no new orders for nuclear power plants in the United States since 1978;

Blix points out the advantage of nuclear power as compared to use of fossil fuels. He says that, world­wide, the fossil fuels provide about 85 percent of commercial energy, divided as follows: 37 percent for oil, 25% for coal, 21 percent for gas. The balance is divided nearly equally between hydro and nuclear power.

In the United States, coal burning power plants produce more than 50 percent of the electricity used.

One advantage of nuclear power that Blix emphasized is the limited volume of nuclear waste in comparison to coal. He stated that the limited volume of nuclear waste is one of the greatest advantages of nuclear power.

This statement is in contrast to the common belief that nuclear wastes are one of the greatest liabil­ities of nuclear power.

Blix introduced me to the concept of energy density. He says that one kilogram (kg) of firewood pro­duces about one kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity; 1 kg of coal produces about 3 kWh; 1 kg of oil produces about 4 kWh; 1 kg of natural uranium produces about 50,000 kWh; and 1 kg of plutonium produces about 6,000,000 kWh.

The latter figure confirms my be­lief that President Jimmy Carter dealt a major blow to the U.S. nu­clear power industry by eliminating the used fuel reprocessing option.

Although there are significant en­vironmental effects of coal-burning power plants resulting from produc­tion of huge qualities of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and waste, the most worrisome factor ls the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, an effect coal shares with oil, gas and other burnable fuels.

It seems like an argument to limit worldwide production of carbon dioxide will be reached in the near future. The only options for a large scale increase in the production of electricity that do not produce carbon dioxide are nuclear and hydro power.

In most country these are for new dam projects. Blix states: “If the fear of global warming after all were to be unfounded, nothing would have been lost by greater use of nuclear power, as the cost of nuclear power is roughly competitive with fossil fuel alternatives.

Not mentioned in Blix' article but of concern to me as a chemist is the continued use of oil and natural gas for the generation of electricity. These non-renewable resources, particularly Natural gas, could be better used in my opinion for future production of petrochemicals.

I believe that all of the above-mentioned factors and others discussed by Blix need to be carefully examined in preparation for the adoption of a US energy policy, which is long overdue.

Health Effects or Generating Electricity With Coal and Uranium

My father appears to have prepared this brief talk comparing nuclear power safety to coal fired power generation safety around 1990. His thinking about coal was influanced by his research on radon in natural gas, and the realization that radiation is radiation, whether or not it comes from nuclear sources. In addition to radioactive materials, coal smoke and fly ash contain numerous toxic and cancer causing materials. Note the way my father related information as fact, rather than playing on the emotions of his audience. My father shows data that indicates that as many as 100 premature deaths may occur every year due to the generation of electricity by coal, yet he does not call special attention to the the estimate.

Health Effects or Generating Electricity With Coal and Uranium
By C.J Barton, Sr.

Question: Would you rather live close to a coal-burning power plant or a nuclear power plant? Why? If you said you prefer to live near a coal-burning plant because nuclear power is more dangerous, you would be in agreement with the majority or the American public. A 1980 survey showed that 80% believe that it is more dangerous to generate electricity with a nuclear reactor than by burning coal. I hope to give you a different view or this very important subject, which will be debated in the establishment or our future energy policy.

The comparison that I will present will be in terms or health effects and we will need to think about risk. This is defined as the chance or injury. damage or loss. One way or expressing risk is loss-or-life expectancy (LLE). This is the average amount by which one's life is shortened by the particular risk under consideration. For example, for smoking one pack or cigaffetes per day the LLE is 6.4 years for men and 2.3 years for women. The risk or lung cancer is 17 times greater for smoking two packs per day than for smoking one. Other examples are an LLE or 2.5 years for being 30 pounds overweight and the LLE for all accidents is 435 days. Table I compares a number or common risks with that or living near ~ nuclear power plant.

Table I
Loss of Life Expectancy for Various Risks

Type or Risk	Loss-or-life expectancy
Cigarette smoking (1 pack/day)	1600 days
Type Working in mines	1100 days
Type Cancer	980 days
Type All accidents	435 days
Type Motor vehicle accidents	200 days
Type Drowning	40 days
Type Hurricanes, tornadoes	1 day
Type Living lifetime near a nuclear power plant	0.4 days [theoretical]

Now we will start to think about risk from exposure to radiation. Most people do not realize that we are all exposed to radiation every day or our lives. The average U.S. citizen receives 100 millirems per year from natural sources (30 from cosmic rays, 20 from the ground. 20 from walls and 25 internal). Anything less than 10,000 millirem (10 rem) is commonly considered to be low-level radiation.

We tend to think or the potential health effects or electricity generation solely in terms or the exposure to products released from the electricity generating plants. However, the comparison that I am making considers the complete fuel cycle as shown on the screen.

Table II

Fuel Cycle-Electricity Generation From Coal

Mining ---------> Transportation --------> Electrical Generation ------>-Disposal of Ash

Fuel Cycle-Nuclear Power Generation

Mining ---------> Conversi on to Fuel ------>Electricity Generation ------->Waste Disposal

You will notice that there are some differences between the two fuel cycles and we need to consider the health effects of each stage in the fuel cycle, as shown in the next table.

Table III
Premature Deaths Per Year Associated With the Operation or a 1000-MWe Power Plant (Comar and Sagan-Lowest & Highest Estimates)
[Workers] Coal Oil Gas Nuclear

Mining accident .45 to .99 .06 to .21 .021 to .21 .05 to .2
Mining disease 0 to 3.5 none none .002 to .1
Transportation
accident .055 to 0.4 .03 to .1 .02 to .024 none
Processing
accident .02 to .04 .04 to 1 .006 to 1 .003 to .2
disease none none none .013 to .33
Electrical Generation
Accident .01-.03 .01 to .037 .01 to .037 .01
Disease none none none .024

Subtotals
Accident .54-1.5 .14 to 1.5 .057 to .28 .065 to .41
Disease 0-3.5 none none .035 to .45

General Public
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear
Transportation .55 to 1.3 none none none
Processing 1 to 10 none none none
Generation .067 to 100 none none .11 to 0.16

Here I have separated occupational health effects from those in the general public. You will note that a large fraction or the health effects in the coal cycle come from mining and transportation and in the uranium fuel cycle from mining. In the U.S. about 60 miners lose their lives each year from accidents and others die from exposure to coal dust in the mines (black lung). In mining uranium, the principal risk is from exposure to radon gas in the underground mines. Since about 100 carloads or coal are burned each day in a large coal-burning plant and about 50% or our electricity is generated in such plants, a number or people are killed each yaar by collisions at crossings.

In the uranium fuel cycle, the quantity of fuel burned is so small that we can neglect the transportation steps, but this is replaced by the conversion of ray uranium into fuel (U02 clad with Zirconium, a zirconium allow). The uranium is enriched to contain about 3% U-235. The last step in the fuel cycle, disposal of ash for the coal cycle, about 30 carloads per day, and storage or burial of used fuel in the uranium cycle, about one carload per year, have received less attention in risk evaluation studies than other parts of the fuel cycles but the health effects of these operations are considered to be low.

In comparing the health effects of effluents from coal-burning and nuclear power plants, we find a surprising fact, the effects of exposure to low levels of radiation are better known than the effects of products from burning coal. The bad effects of burning coal have been recognized for centuries. In fact, during the 13th century the King of England banned the burning of coal in London. Fortunately for the forests of England, the ban did not last long but in 1952 a period or bad weather conditions in London resulted in about 4000 excess deaths, primarily from coal combustion products. The reason the effects of low-level exposure to radiation are so yell known is that from the early forties to about 1975, approximately $ 2 billion had been spent on such studies, far more than has been spent on the effects of exposure to coal combustion products. Consequently, the uncertainty in estimating the health effects of effluents from coal burning plants is much greater than for nuclear power plants but the best estimates show an LLE of 13 days for coal plants as compared to 0.025 days for nuclear plants.

In conclusion, I will make a few remarks about the safety of nuclear power plants. The most common type of plant in the U.S. is the pressurized water reactor (PWR). The next figure shows a diagram of such a plant and the final figure shows the barriers against radioactive release from such reactors. At the end of 1990, there were 111 nuclear power plants in the U. S. generating about 20% of our electricity. In spite of all that you may have heard about the accident at Three Mile Island, the worst to date in this country, there has never been a death from radiation exposure in a U. S. nuclear power plant and no one in the vicinity of Three Mile Island received a radiation dose higher than that received [annually] by the average U. S. citizen (100 mrem) from natural sources. The accident at Chernobyl [involved] a much different type of reactor which would not meet U.S. safety standards. Improvements in the safety of nuclear power plants and in the training of plant operators have occurred in recent years. However, the U.S. public seems to be demanding an even greater degree of safety before allowing additional nuclear power plants to be built and it is possible that future plants may be quite different from
those presently operating.

LIST OF HEALTH EFFECTS COMPARISONS

1. C.L. Comar and L.A. Sagan, Annual Review or Energy, Vol 1. 581 (1976).
2. L.B. Lave and L.C. Freeburg, Nuclear Safety Vol 14 (5) 408 (1973) .
3. Nuclear Power-Issues and Choices (Ballinger, 1977).
4. R.L. Gotchy- NUREG-0332 (1877).
5. D.J. Rose, P.W. Walsh and L.L. Leskovjan, American Scientist (Vol. 64, 281 1976 ).
6. H. Fischer et al. , BNL-51481 (Sept., 1981)

C.J. Barton, Sr: Project Independence

Introduction: Following the end of the Gasbuggy project, my father was not assigned to another research project. As a senior scientist he was viewed as an appropriate representative of ORNL. One of his assignments took him to Philadelphia for Project Independence hearings. Project Independence came as almost the last gasp of the discredited Nixon Administration., althought the Ford Administration tried to carry the project out. Needless to say, Project Independence failed, and American energy policy lacked direction for the next generation.

The discussion of coal probably did not sit well with him. Before he left ORNL he was highly critical of the use of coal in electrical generation. This must be viewed as growing out of his research because my father had no personal reason to object to coal. He had grown up in Jellico, Tennessee, a small commercial center for coal mines in North East Tennessee and South East Kentucky. Both my father and my mother had brothers in the coal industry. My father's assesment of the danger of radon in natural gas, undoubtedly colored his thinking about radioisotopes and other toxic minerals in coal.

This hearing was part of the process in which coal was chosen over nuclear power as the predominate source of energy for electrical generation in the United States. The politics of that choice was clearly in play at the Philadelphia hearing my father attended.

INTRA-LABORATORY CORRESPONDENCE

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

October 10, 1974

To: E. G. Struxness

From: C. J. Barton

Subject: Project Independence (PI) Public Hearings in Philadelphia or an Ax Grinders· Convention in the City of Brotherly Love

General Comments

Before attending the PI hearings in Philadelphia, the 9th in the series of 10 such hearings being held, I referred to it by the above subtitle and nothing I heard at the hearings changed my opinion. The purpose of PI and the public hearings is set forth in the attached statements. The general format consisted of 10-minute statements (governors and United States senators excepted) by witnesses followed by questions from a four-man panel made up mostly of federal officials of varying rank. The opening session Monday morning was the only one attended by the top rank (Sawhill, Train, Peterson). Questions or comments from the audience were not allowed. The witnesses were per­mitted to submit longer statements for the record of the hearings. Handouts obtained include “Environmental Effects of Eastern Coal Development,” “Environmental Effects of Alaskan Oil Development,” "Fact Sheet on the Outer Continental Shelf," and "Fact Sheet on Solar Energy." Copies of these documents will be furnished on request. I feel that attendance at the hearings increased my understanding of the problems of the coal and other industries in meeting government regulations.

Summary

Most of the witnesses that I heard in the 2-2/3-day part of the hearings that I attended stuck pretty close to one or both of the themes of the Philadelphia hearings. By the third day, much of the facts or opinions expressed by some speakers had been heard before; so it was a good time to leave.

Eastern Coal

Problems of the Eastern Coal industry were discussed by many speakers. These seemed to fall into five main categories: government regulations, capital requirements for new mines, manpower requirements, availability of machinery, and transportation. The last four are non­controversial, but uncertainties in regard to future requirements of the Clean Air Act were said to be a deterrent to financing new mines ($20 to 40 million). As Arch Moore, Governor of West Virginia, ex­pressed it, “You can't love coal today and forget it tomorrow.” He also said that there is nothing more worthless than a nonproducing coal mine. He recommended government guarantees of mine investments.

On the manpower problem, Moore stated that 6000 more miners could be used right now in his state if they were available. Recruitment and training programs are either underway or planned to alleviate this man­power shortage. Another speaker stated that miners can now earn $18,000/year with some overtime. It was stated that 2 to 6 years may be required to obtain the complex machinery needed for underground min­ing, but this is apparently not considered a major problem. The transportation problem was mentioned by several speakers. Lack of availability of coal hoppers is limiting production at some mines, and needed improvements in roadbeds were also mentioned. There was comparatively little discussion of this problem and less on the solution to it.

Differences of opinion on government regulations between industry representatives and federal government offiicals were quite evident. These regulations include the 1969 health and safety law, strip mining, and air purity requirements. Problems in this area were said to be compounded by lack of clarity of the laws and lack of consistency in their application. The mine health and safety law put many small producers out of business, and it is causing problems for the big mines as well. Edgar Speer, chairman of United States Steel Corporation, cited a drop in coal production from 14 tons to 10 tons/manshift following passage of the law. In regard to strip mining, industry representatives seemed to be waiting for the shoe to drop in Washington.

The gamut of views included the belief that there is no acceptable way of strip mining coal and the thought that this is the only hope for an early increase in coal production.

As might be expected, the regulation that is causing coal users the greatest problem, the limit on S02 emissions or air concentration, got a lot of attention. One speaker stated that the Clean Air Act represents overkill. Although the TVA was not represented, other utility representatives voiced the TVA viewpoint that ground-level air concentration should be the controlling factor rather than the amount of S02 emitted. EPA representatives cited the lIacid rainll problem and other evidence of S02 damage to the environment in support of their policy of limiting the S content of fuels, regardless of the height of the stack through which the combustion products are discharged. As one speaker expressed it, “Pollution dilution is not the solution to our energy problem.” Environmentalists felt that S02 requirements should be tightened, while utility and coal industry people pleaded for a loosening of regulations, including greater flexibility than is now allowed and a delay of several years in application of stricter limits. They strongly maintained that stack scrubbers for control of S02 emissions are not ready for installation, while EPA maintains that they are ready.

It was quite clear from the numerous discussions of the problems of the coal industry that increased production of Eastern Coal will not be quickly or cheaply obtained and is not likely to have a major effect on our energy shortage over the next several years. In the period from approximately 1980 to 2000, the general view seemed to be that heavy reliance should be placed on coal as an energy source because of the tremendous reserves that are available. Minimization of the impact on the environment of increased coal production and use will require a lot of money for R & 0, for emission controls, and for land recla­mation.

Alternate Energy Sources and Their Environmental Effects

Divergent viewpoints on energy sources other than coal were much
in evidence. Opponents of nuclear power reactors were better repre­sented than proponents. For example, Coleman Raphael, President of Atlantic Research Corporation, stated that the radioactive waste problem is insoluble and that uranium supplies will be exhausted in 30 years. He cited the tons of plutonium that will be produced by reactors as the largest threat to mankind. A later witness, William Steigelman of the Franklin Institute, in response to a question from the panel, refuted Raphael's statement about waste disposal and pointed out that plutonium will be recycled and used as fuel. Unfortunately, this witness tarnished his credibility, in my view, by stating that the long-lived isotopes can be “burned up” in nuclear reactors, While this statement is correct, there must be cheaper solutions to the problem. Raphael's solution to the long-term energy problem is solar energy. He stated that enough energy falls on 2% of the area of Texas to supply all the energy needs of the United States. He didn't discuss the environmental effects of covering 5000 square miles of land and a few other problems such as the amounts of energy-intensive metals required to collect the solar energy. Other speakers took a more practical approach to solar energy and advocated solar energy for home heating and air conditioning and similar applications to larger buildings. Economical production of electricity and energy storage on a practical level are apparently a long way down the road.

A representative of a company called Sea Solar Power described their approach to solving the energy problem. It utilizes the tem­perature differential between warm surface water and the colder water several hundred feet below the surface. He claimed that sea thermal power will provide electricity, fuel, and freshwater without polluting the environment. A small demonstration plant is under construction.

I understand that there are a few engineering details to be worked out before this concept reaches commercial viability, but these were glossed over in the presentation.

A representative of Alaskan Arctic Pipeline Company described the extensive environmental studies made of the possible environmental ef­fects of the construction and operation of a pipeline to bring gas from Alaska to the lower 40 states. He stated that this would be the largest construction project in history. Federal Power Commission approval for this pipeline which would increase United States gas supplies initially by 5 or 6% has not been received.

Conservation

Various methods of conserving energy in general and oil in par­ticular were discussed. John Sawhill supports construction of more nuclear reactors to meet our growing electricity needs. He stated that there is general agreement on the need to cut down on gas01ine consump­tion, but it was quite evident that agreement on the best ways to bring this about was lacking. The proposed increase in gasoline tax designed to decrease gasoline consumption and increase use of urban transit sys­tems was a bone of contention. Politician types from the United States Senator level to city mayor were sharply critical of the proposal, while federal officials on the panel were following the “party line” (which was reversed by President Ford later in the week) and support­ing the proposal.

Several industry representatives cited efforts of their companies to effect energy savings, and it was apparent that significant increases in efficiency can be achieved by thorough-going programs. Further savings, in some industries, will require substantial capital invest­ments. An interesting sidelight is the fact that United States Steel requires 36 million Btu/ton of steel shipped, while Armco uses 27 million. The difference can presumably be accounted for by the high fraction of scrap used by Armco (40% of total production). Thirteen million Btu/ton are consumed in converting iron ore to metal. The steel industry is substituting coal for gas and oil wherever it is possible to do so. In general, the big companies have their own coal mines. United States Steel sells as many Btu's as they buy.

Russell Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, tried to give conservation a local flavor by paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, “A Btu saved is a Btu earned.” Governor Shapp (Pennsylvania) stated that Franklin wouldn't have said that because he didn't like the British.

Miscellaneous Comments

Of the three United States senators who spoke during the Monday morning session (Scott and Schweiker, Pennsylvania and Biden, Delaware), I was most impressed by Biden. He is young, intelligent, and highly articulate. I also learned that Governor Shapp's background is in engineering, and it was not completely obscured by the political flavor of his speech. He and several other speakers emphasized the need to reduce the impact of increasing energy costs on poor people. An energy stamp program possibly supplementing the existing food stamp program, seemed to be the most likely way of dealing with this problem.

A.V. Grosse, Mayor's Council of Science and Technology, City of Philadelphia, made an interesting comparison of the amount of excava­tion required to replace the 10 million barrels per day of imported oil expected in 1980 with lignite or oil from oil shale. He stated that 240 million yd3 were excavated in digging the Panama Canal. To provide the 2 billion tons/year of lignite needed, we would need to dig the equivalent of 11 Panama Canals/year. Only 0.5 Panama Canal would need to be dug to provide the same amount of energy from oil shale, accord­ing to Grosse's calculations. Grosse also suggested that we should trade our knowhow to make the Arab's deserts bloom for their oil. Tom Fa1kie, Bureau of Mines Director, stated that some high-level exchanges with Saudi Arabia are in progress.

Conclusions

If the other nine Project Independence Public Hearings generated as much testimony and controversy as the one I attended, the staff of the Federal Energy Administration and other officials who are charged with the task of providing the blueprint for Project Independence cer­tainly have a huge amount of material and sharply divergent views to consider. The social and economic consequences of Project Independ­ence as well as its environmental effects need to be weighed carefully. Increased coal use can significantly reduce our need for imported oil, but it will not be quickly or cheaply obtained by mining Eastern Coal. It is clear that the long-needed national energy policy that the Project Independence blueprint presumably will represent cannot please everyone. Complete independence of imported oil may not be economically or politically desirable.

C.J. Barton
Environmental Sciences Division

CJB:jmd
Attachments 2
cc: S. V. Kaye
S. 1. Auerbach
J. A. Blasy
J. O. Duguid
File (3)

Robert (Bob) E. Moore

(BOB Moore is cross posted on bartoncii,)

My father, who was 96 last week, has outlived almost all of his generation of scientists. My father cared very much about his co-workers and associates, and in a number of instances he wrote tributes to them after they died.

In this tribute to Bob (Robert E.) Moore, my father reveals the human side of science. My father was Bob Moore's group leader in the early 1950's. Nearly 20 years later my father still felt responsible for Bob, and rescued him for the collapse of the ORNL Reactor Chemistry Division. What comes through is this brief memorial is my father's care for his associates, and the deep human spark between my father and the dying scientist captured ever so briefly by the last sentence.

RECOLLECTIONS OF ASSOCIATION WITH BOB MOORE (SEPTEMBER 1994)

By Charles J, Barton, Sr.

My first contact with Bob occurred in early July 1950 when he reported for work at ORNL, in the Y-12 area, fresh out of school at-the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project (ANP) at ORNL was just getting underway. Bob joined a group formed to make a literature study that initiated the effort to find a mixture of salts containing uranium tetra fluoride for an experimental molten salt reactor. I was put in charge of a group including Bob that did phase studies to define a fuel composition for this reactor.

Bob worked with me for a time on this project and his name appears on the publication or part or this research (J.Phys. Chem. Vol. 52, 555, 1953). Our boss, Warren Grimes, and I received a patent on the mixture or sodium fluoride, zirconium tetra fluoride and uranium tetra fluoride that was used in the ANP Reactor, the world's first molten salt reactor. This operated briefly in 1954, before the phase studies were completed, Bob was transferred to measurement or the physical properties of molten salt mixtures, outside of my jurisdiction, although he
worked nearby in the Y-12 area.

For a number of years Bob's work and mine went in different directions. In 1959 the Reactor Chemistry Division, headed by Warren Grimes, was having hard sledding and I went on loan to the Health Physics Division to work on the Plowshare Program with Don Jacobs. In 1971 Don had departed the scene and I was in charge or what was left of the program. Bob was part or a small group o~ ORNL scientists who had no program support and were taking intensive training in computer programming. Word reached me that Bob was among those who might get shipped out if work was not found for them. I badly needed someone with computer know how to help me in the Plowshare program and I put in a bid for him. Gerry Keilholtz also went to bat for him. I had the more urgent need and the money so Bob came to work with me in the section or the Health Physics Division that later became a part of the Environmental Science Division. Bob had an unusual ability to combine his knowledge of mathematics, physical chemistry and computer programming. His assistance contributed to completion or several aspects of the project. Bob's name appears on five Plowshare publications. His name properly preceded mine on one publication (Nuclear Tech., Vol. .24, 238, 1974). Word or Bob's computer prowess soon spread in our division and Bob became an indispensable person in our group.

I left the Lab in early 1977 and Bob was only a few years behind me. We had a rather loose connection for years, but I appreciated Bob's occasional phone calls that kept me in contact. In my brief visits during his last months, I tried to maintain a positive note. One statement about my difficulty in getting an article published elicited a laugh, giving me assurance that he understood what I was saying.

Note 2/10/08: Bob Moore, along with J. P. McBride, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco was a coauthor of a famous paper, "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" published in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine.

C.J. Barton, Sr. at ORNL: Radon in the Home

It took me along time before I fully realized what a good scientist my father was. I was aware of his career problems. By the time I went i went to work at ORNL in 1970, Oak Ridge gossip had it that my father could no longer cut it in the Lab. This was nonsense, but I did not know it at the time. Many of my fathers problems as a scientist, stemmed from his social, and cultural heritage which was different from that of the ORNL leadership, and from his speech problem. Scientists like George Parker, with whom he shared a common cultural background, and a passion for lab research, held my father in high regard. My father was about to prove that he still was a very capable scientist.

The crises that gripped ORNL in the late 1960's and early 1970's is not fully appreciated now. There were three different issues that were effecting ORNL funding: the war in Vietnam, the space program, which was sucking up research dollars for Werner von Braun's trip to the moon, and the efforst of Congressman Chet Holifield, and AEC big wig Milton Shaw to destroy ORNL, in order to silence ORNL researchers on nuclear safety.

In 1969 the crumbling Reactor Chemistry Division loaned my father to the well funded Health Physics Division. My father was never to be involved in reactor chemistry again, and a couple of years later he was administratively transfered to the new Environmental Studies Devision. He fit right in with his new associates. The Gasbuggy project grew out of the illusion that nuclear explosions could be used for peaceful purposes. When my father went to work on the project, it had already seen better days, but when he took it over, with the assumption that a retiring scientist could close the door behind him as he left ORNL, my father had other ideas. This account demonstrates how he latched on to the problem of environmental radon, and the enterprise he showed in conducting underfunded research. It is perhaps not fair to say that my father discovered the problem of radon in the home, but he clearly recognized the problem to a much greater extent than prior researchers, and he pushed for a more through investigation. He has never been fully credited with this effort.

RADON IN HOMES AND NATURAL GAS
Charles J. Barton, Sr.

Introduction

The great surge or attention to radon in homes that has resulted in numerous studies and articles has been or considerable interest to me because or my involvement in this subject at a time when interest was too low for me to obtain funding for extending the study that I had conducted as part or the Plowshare Project. The following is an account or my involvement in efforts to learn the possible effects or radon and its daughter products in homes, in particular the contribution or radon in natural gas to exposure in homes, and a somewhat larger study or radon in natural gas.

Radon In Natural Gas

In late 1969, the Reactor Chemistry Division at ORNL was experiencing hard times with sharp funding reduction and I was asked to go on loan to the Health Physics Division to work on the Plowshare Program with Don Jacobs. Don left in 1971 for a two-year stint at the IAEA in Vienna, leaving me in charge or the project. At that time the Plowshare program, with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory having the principal responsibility was being cut back. Earlier, a variety or peaceful uses or nuclear explosives had been considered such as excavating harbors and enlarging the Panama Canal. The role or ORNL was limited to estimating doses that people might receive from these peaceful uses or nuclear explosives and. in particular, the use or these explosives to increase production or natural gas in rock formations underlying large areas or several western states such as Colorado and Utah. These formations are known to contain large quantities of natural gas but because of low permeability, the output of gas resulting from use of conventional drilling techniques is too low to be economical. It was expected that use of nuclear explosives would break the rock into small enough pieces to permit gas to flow at a reasonable rate. At the time I joined the project. The first experiment or this type, called Gasbuggy, had been performed, with the co-operation or the El Paso Natural Gas Company, near Farmington, New Mexico.

The Gasbuggy study showed that tritium in the gas produced by use or a nuclear explosive was the isotope of principal concern and that exposure to people in homes using the slightly radioactive natural gas was the exposure mode of principal concern. It was known that all natural gas contains a small amount or natural radioactivity in the form or radon. Don asked me to look into the question or how much radon .is in the natural gas used in homes and also the amount or radon entering homes from other sources. I conducted a fairly extensive review or the literature and round that there was a rather large number or measurements or the level or radon in gas at the wellhead in this country, made principally by Allan Tanner at the U.S. Geological Survey. I visited his Off1ce in Washington and obtained access to all his published data and some that had not previously been published. However, neither he nor anyone else had measured the radon concentration at points or use. Since radon has a 3.8-day half-life and several days may be required to move the gas from the wells to the point or use there can be a significant drop in radon concentration during transmission.

I also round a fair amount or data on radon concentration in homes, principally in the U.S. and Sweden. The New York Health and Safety Laboratory, operated by the AEC had made a few measurements in homes in their area. The only area where the measured level or radon was high enough to be considered a problem at that time was in Grand Junction, Colorado, where contractors had used tailings from a uranium mill as rill material under and around homes.

After considering making my own measurements of the radon concentration at various points or use around the country. I concluded that was impractical and I devised a strategy for getting the job done by others. By judicious enquiry, I learned the name and phone number or the highest placed official in the major gas pipeline companies supplying several metropolitan areas, whom I thought would understand my request for help. I went into this project with the notion that the big gas companies might consider radon in the gas they were selling to be something to be swept under the rug but, instead all the companies 1 contacted proved to be cooperative in meeting my request to supply samples or their gas once per month over a period or one year. This would help to determine whether there was any seasonal variation in the radon concentration in the gas. I also had to rind laboratories willing and able to measure radon. In some cases the gas pipeline company bore the cost or the sampling and analysis but none or the cost was borne by my project. Five big pipeline companies supplied gas samples representing gas supplied to four metropolitan areas once per month over a period or nearly a year and four laboratories measured the radon in the samples.

The next step was to calculate the radon daughter concentrations in homes that would result from using gas-containing radon in a vented home appliance. To do this I enlisted the help or Bob Moore who worked out a computer program to perform the necessary calculations. Paul Rohwer furnished the dose factors for converting the radon daughter concentrations into doses to the bronchial epithelium, which we assumed to be the critical tissue exposed to the radon daughters. We used the average or the radon measurements throughout the country TO calculate doses in homes under a variety or assumed conditions, thus satisfying the needs or the project. A literature survey supplied another bit or data needed in making these calculations: the average concentration of radon in outside air entering the home as ventilation air. All soil contains some uranium, which decays to produce a low level or radon in air.

Radon In Homes

I mentioned earlier that my literature survey completed in the early part or 1970 revealed a comparatively small amount or data on the concentration in homes and other structures in this country. Interest in this subject began to pick up in the early 70s. A team from the New York Health and Safety Laboratory came to Oak Ridge to make some measurements. According to my recollection they limited their choice or homes here-to those in the Woodland area on the theory that Chattanooga shale, which is known to contain a relatively high concentration or uranium, was used in making the concrete blocks in all the Woodland home walls. Their measurements indicated that the radon level in these homes was not high enough to get excited about. From here they went on to Florida where much or the sandy soil is known to contain a rather high concentration or uranium. There also, I think that their data did not cause a great deal or concern, possibly because most Florida homes are well ventilated at the time they were making their study.

Also, in the middle 70s, a team from ORNL equipped with a mobile laboratory started making surveys or abandoned former uranium mining sites in several western states. These were, in general, located in uninhabited areas so there was relatively little danger or human exposure to radon released from the uranium tailings. However, some instances or use or tailings in the vicinity or homes were uncovered by these studies. Before the ORNL team could rind time to prepare reports on their extensive surveys or mining and mill-tailing sites they were drafted for surveys or sites where uranium had been processed to supply uranium to the governments gaseous diffusion plants. These sites are located in general near inhabited areas and exposure of people in the vicinity or the sites to radon and its daughters was of greater concern than in the mining studies. These surveys and the resulting remedial work to clear the sites for other uses (the FUSRAP project) produced data on radon in homes and. probably stimulated other investigations in this area. Incidentally after my retirement from the lab in 1977, I was hired by ORNL through a contract with Science Applications to prepare reports on the surveys or the mining and mill tailing sites and to help with preparation or some or the early FUSRAP reports.

Conclusion

Where are we now in our knowledge or the concentration or radon in U.S. homes and their possible health effects on occupants or the homes? Two excellent reviews on this subject have come to my attention: Science. 29 April. 1988 and ANS News, June 1888. Results or a 1987 survey quoted in the latter source showed 34.070 measurements in the Northeast part or the country, 18.481 in the Northwest, 2.118 in the Mountain States. 1.582 in the Southeast, and 1,486 in the Midwest, The high number of measurements in the Northeast reflects the fact that hot spots n several states in this area. Forty four percent of the measurements in this area were above the 4 picocuries per liter guideline adopted by the EPA for occupied homes. Above this the EPA recommends that remedial action be taken but that he discretion or the homeowner. It is estimated that to 20,000 lung cancers a year may be attributed to radon ion in the United States. These figures, which are based on extrapolation or observed cancer deaths at much higher radon primarily among miners of uranium deposits, should be compared to the annual death rate from lung cancer in the U.S. of approximately 130.000. About 70% of these are attributed to cigarette smoking.

The radon level in homes having high levels lowered usually can be lowered at a comparatively low cost. The Science article indicates that the simplest way or dealing with the problem is to drill through the basement floor to the stone ballast below and continuously pump the air there the house. In this area (Oak Ridge and West Knoxville) a team from the Health and Safety Division, ORNL made measurements for radon and a number of other indoor pollutants in several homes including mine. They reported that the radon level in homes on the ridge, where our house is located, had a higher concentration (6.3 average in the basement. 4.4 in the living areas) as compared to those in the valley (3.3 in the basement, 1.7 in the living area) (Concentrations in picocuries per liter). However, the measured radon levels do not appear enough to warrant remedial action. I was pleased to learn that ORNL did get around to making these measurements in the April1982-February 1983 period, although I could not stir up interest in doing the job in the mid-70s. The technology for doing many or the measurements reported by the Health and Safety group did not exist at the time or my proposal.