Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia (review)

Russell J. Dalton, Paula Garb, Nicholas O. Lovrich, John C. Pierce, and John M. Whiteley, Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999. 457 pp. $27.50.

At first glance, Critical Masses appears to be an important book on a long-neglected topic: the environmental impact of nuclear weapons production programs in the United States and the former Soviet Union and the response of citizens in both countries once this impact came to light. Unfortunately, the book suffers from an excessive number of authors whose contributions are of uneven quality, a tone that is so academic and laced with sociological and statistical terminology that it will likely repel all but the hardiest readers, and findings that are both dated and unsurprising. This is a shame, for the subject is one that deserves the widest possible audience.

Had Critical Masses been written as a much shorter journal article, some of its flaws would have been excusable. But too much secondary material has been used as filler for the authors' original research, making the book a chore rather than a pleasure to read.

The authors seek to focus their study by comparing two roughly analogous facilities: the Hanford Reservation in southeastern Washington state and the Mayak Chemical Combine (formerly known as Chelyabinsk-65) in the southern Urals of Russia. Hanford, established during the Manhattan Project, produced nearly all the plutonium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Mayak performed the same function in the Soviet Union.

The authors wisely assume that most readers are unfamiliar with the history of these facilities. The first two chapters describe the operations of Hanford and Mayak as well as the severe environmental problems that each facility created. Readers who are aware of these issues can easily skip over the initial chapters, as there is nothing new in them. For others the chapters will prove somewhat helpful in setting the scene for what follows. Unfortunately, though, the workmanlike prose and density of data about this or that accident serve to deaden what could have been a lively yet informative discussion of some of the most toxic and radioactive substances ever known. Moreover, the authors do not provide an explanation of how radiation damages human cells; nor do they quantify the risk posed by the huge quantities of radioactive waste that have been accidentally (and more often deliberately) disposed of in haphazard ways in both countries.

To find out how and why some of the people living in the vicinity of Hanford and Mayak became aware of the problems posed by the facilities and then took an active role in trying to address them, the authors conducted surveys of nearby residents. For comparative purposes, they also surveyed people living in another part of the same region that was not directly affected by the facility. Efforts were made to collect valid data not only from the cities in which the employees of each facility lived, but also from downwind communities and minority communities (the Yakima Indians near Hanford and the Tatars and Bashkirs near Mayak).

The surveys were conducted in four cities around Hanford in late 1993 and early 1994 (yielding 1,403 completed questionnaires) and in four cities and villages around Mayak (among 1,169 residents) in late 1992 and early 1993. Because six to seven years elapsed between these surveys and the publication of the book, readers may wonder how well they reflect reality today. The results can certainly provide a snapshot of the sentiment around each site during the early post-Cold War years, but they may be less accurate than a more recent survey. This is especially true in Russia, which has experienced extreme political and economic changes since the surveys were completed. Although it is instructive to look back at the data...