This web site was started to provide the book I’ve written about Rocky Flats and to publish commentaries about the now-closed site that was famous (or notorious) for producing the plutonium parts and other components for nuclear weapons. The commentaries had drifted far afield of Rocky Flats until the recent crop of negative media stories. I’ve written recent commentaries disputing that the place still is a threat to nearby residents and about the stories of health problems of workers. A common refrain of critics was or still is that “the site never researched respirable plutonium.” There is a long and well-referenced report by G. Langer that completely dispels that accusation. There was an extensive air monitoring program to collect and analyze plutonium in air at the site, near the site, and in communities. It is no surprise the critics never liked the very low results found by the extensive sampling and analysis networks. One criticism was that we were sampling at the wrong height. A sampling station was built with samplers at various heights as requested by one of our critics. As far as I know there were never any results published on the results. My guess is that the results were statistically identical at all sampling heights.

For those want to get right to the most important point, the introduction to the paper says it was the plutonium in air from the 903 pad area that presented the greatest risk. However, it also says “the concentration of respirable Pu particles…is near background levels found in the Front Range of Colorado.”  Another comment I find interesting is that “…the alpha radiation dose to the population from the RFP Pu is insignificant compared to the naturally occurring radon. The  average activity concentration of airborne Pu at the plant boundary is 0.05 fCi/m3 vs. an average radon concentration of 110,000 fCi/m3…” It is also noted that people living in the Denver area accept radon concentrations double the national average. If I may be so presumptuous, I will give you at least one reply I predict the Rocky Flats critics would make to that observation.“We accept risks from nature, but we do not accept any additional risk from the production of plutonium weapons parts.”

One thing I learned during my stint of working at Rocky Flats is that the critics were never satisfied that a study was complete if it didn’t predict the risks they expected. They would probably say the report I’ve refrenced doesn’t answer their questions and concerns. I can’t imagine what they will say is missing from the very comprehensive report.