The article states that the AEC knew radioactive iodine would contaminate milk and enter the population, but is quite vague on the state of knowledge of the dangers of that contamination at the time. Skimming the 1998 Senate hearing linked in the article, the link between radioactive iodine ingestion and thyroid cancer was apparently unsure even in 1998, although considered likely by then.
>Skimming the 1998 Senate hearing linked in the article, the link between radioactive iodine ingestion and thyroid cancer was apparently unsure even in 1998, although considered likely by then.
Skimming certain recent senate hearings, one might conclude that global warming is quite possibly a dark conspiracy by climate scientists.
I have worked in the nuclear industry prior to 1998, and I can tell you that the risks were well enough understood by then.
If the risks were not suspected at the time of the tests, why would anyone be thinking of disposing of milk?
The article says they argued that disposing of the milk would cause malnutrition. An obvious conclusion would be that they thought the risks from the contamination were smaller than the risks of malnutrition. They may well have known of some risks but not understood the magnitude.
When was it understood that radioactive iodine caused thyroid cancer, and that it could be mitigated by using iodine supplements? I couldn't find any info on exactly when that whole chain was put together (not that I tried super hard).
You don't actually need to dispose of it - Iodine-131 has a very short half life, so just make powdered or condensed canned milk and store it for 2 months and it's safe.
It is not that obvious when you take human nature into account - in fact, there seems to be a strong implication that the statement was transparently self-serving, and some other statements by the AEC undoubtedly were.
