Contaminated, Betrayed, Can America Trust Again? : Nuclear: Colossal episodes of radiation exposure have soiled the planet. Yet nuclear power should still be salvaged.

The Chernobyl nuclear accident, whose fifth anniversary we mark this week, dramatically changed attitudes toward nuclear issues--especially regarding the potential consequences of a nuclear war.

A few years ago a Soviet general told me, “We have looked into hell with Chernobyl.” Reactions like this surely influenced the Soviet Union’s willingness to negotiate the intermediate nuclear forces (INF) reduction treaty and led, ultimately, to ending the Cold War.

With this phase of our postwar history ended, the United States is now tallying the cost. Ironically, Americans may have been the major victims. The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency recently disclosed data on the handling of radioactive substances at nuclear weapons facilities, especially plutonium production at Hanford, Wash.

The Hanford plant, besides contaminating the air, dumped radioactive materials into the soil that ultimately reached the water supply, including the Columbia River, where radioactive fish have been detected. The result was that almost 250,000 persons in Washington, Oregon and Idaho were exposed to various forms of radioactive iodine, strontium-89, cesium-137 and other radionuclides.

Some young children living downwind of the plant received estimated thyroid radiation doses that can cause hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. Especially troubling is a recent disclosure that technetium-99 and iodine-129 were found in soil samples. If you think Styrofoam boxes are a problem, consider these radioisotopes, which will be around from 2 million to 160 million years.

Making matters even worse is a recent Department of Energy report that several radioactive-waste storage tanks at Hanford produce combustible gases and pose an imminent risk of exploding. Similar problems are thought to affect other nuclear weapons production, research and testing facilities throughout the United States.

The Department of Energy has recently released data regarding radiation exposure to workers in nuclear weapons plants and at test sites, affecting about 600,000 people. Other civilian exposures occurred at or near sites in Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia and Ohio.

After 45 years, the burden of proof is shifting from the victims to the government. All told, as many as 2 million Americans may have been exposed to radiation because of the nuclear arms race.

Certainly similar events have occurred in the Soviet Union. Claims of radiation-related ill-health from Soviets living downwind of the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan are remarkably similar to American “down-winders.” Also, the Soviet authorities recently released data confirming an explosion at the Kyshtym nuclear wastes storage site in the Urals in 1957; scores of towns suddenly disappeared from official maps; a huge area remains contaminated. In September, an explosion in a nuclear fuels plant at Ust-Kamenogorsk released beryllium, a toxic non-radioactive chemical, over a large and densely populated area.

Why has the U.S. government suddenly decided to discuss these issues? Several factors are most likely responsible. First, the end of hostilities and seeming imminent economic collapse of the Soviet Union make it difficult to justify classifying such data as military secrets. Next, the environment is rapidly becoming the global political issue for the 1990s. Finally, these are problems that will not go away with time (the half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years). Better address them now.

Solving the problems left by the nuclear arms race will not be easy. Some estimates suggest that decontamination of nuclear weapons production facilities and test sites and relocation of radioactive wastes may require 10 to 20 years, with a cost exceeding $50 billion.

But I believe the most serious cost is further loss of credibility of the U.S. government in nuclear issues. Americans feel betrayed. They feel they were exposed to health risks in what they now perceive to have been a fruitless exercise. While this notion is probably incorrect, it is impossible to prove that the nuclear arms race was necessary to contain the Soviets, or that it ultimately led to the collapse of communism. And there may have been no choice, once the Soviets embarked on a parallel course of nuclear-weapons development.

Can the government regain public trust with these recent disclosures? Yes, but that is unlikely. Not only are the departments of Energy and Defense in trouble, but also the Nuclear Regulatory Agency--a body charged with protecting the public from nuclear risks.

A better strategy might be to create a Cabinet-level department of nuclear affairs, to oversee both military and peaceful applications, with close links to the National Academies of Science and Engineering and other scientific organizations. Such an agency might also help three important but flagging projects: developing a next generation of advanced nuclear reactors, safe disposal of high-level radioactive wastes and harnessing nuclear fusion.

This could help to restore public confidence in nuclear power, whose role in global energy production might increase in parallel with increasing concern regarding global warming and use of fossil fuels.

The Persian Gulf War shows how dangerous is dependence on Middle East oil. Governmental direction is badly needed.