Historical+Background_pedlt3

National security, especially around such a powerful weapon during times of hot and later cold war, was considered paramount at the Hanford nuclear reservations creation. While at least some of the dangers to human health that Plutonium and other materials being produced at Hanford were known and while at least some policies were put in place to protect employees and the public, public health was often sacrificed in the name of national security and nuclear dominance. The most infamous example is [|Green Run], the intentional release by the US government and GE of thousands of curies of Iodine 131 and tens of thousands of curies of Xenon-133 in 1949, probably in an attempt to figure out how to monitor Soviet nuclear activities.

These experiments did not come to light until a FOIA request resulted in the release of 19,000 classified documents in 1986, which the [|Hanford project argues] led to a public outcry about both the problem of “[|downwinders]”—those nearly two million people whose health had been sacrificed in the name of national security—and the high level of contamination, not all of which was public knowledge. Indeed, early in the [|project’s history] officials simultaneously began encouraging the public to consume more Iodine fortified salt in order to reduce the effects of Iodine-131 and testing milk for radiation (they said it was for bacteria), while claiming that there had been no radioactive releases (“not one atom”) at all.

Since 1986, there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct the doses that various populations of downwinders have received, as well as litigation and laws offering compensation (I am still trying to understand who was and was not included in the relevant laws—I think they dealt mostly with those affected by atmospheric testing, not all of the problems at Hanford). While it is still a very restricted site, public tours are now offered periodically, and releases are (at least one hopes) reported in a timely manner. The DoE even has a [|Hanford specific webpage], and can be found on Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, and other social media accounts. There are stakeholder processes, chances for public comment, and occasionally public meetings.

Secrecy at the site is not what it used to be, but that doesn’t mean that it is gone. Scientists at the national laboratory on site still have some trouble collaborating because of differences in security clearances. There is also the issue of contractors (and sub contractors, etc.), that have been criticized for suppressing dissent (e.g., about the large vitrification plant). The DoE, in fact, actually pays for the legal fees (at least in part) of companies trying to punish whistleblowers.