Document Details

(103 K)

INTERVIEW WITH DR A F STEHNEY CONDUCTED BY S MARKS AND MIAZGA AT 2:00 PM, 04/15/74

HREX; ADSORPTION; CONSENT FORM; CONSENT ISSUES; ETHICS; EXHUMATION; HUMANS; INTERNAL IRRADIATION; INTERVIEWS; PATIENTS; PLUTONIUM; PLUTONIUM INJECTION EXPERIMENT; URINE ANALYSIS; WHOLE-BODY COUNTING

Location - DOE/NNSA NUCLEAR TESTING ARCHIVE Address - P.O. Box 98521 City - Las Vegas State - NV Zip - 89193-8521 Phone - (702)794-5106 Fax - (702)862-4240 Email - NTA@NV.DOE.GOV

LEGAL DOCUMENT

1974 Mar 05

Never classified

0002

NV0700008

1994 Aug 27

2012 May 14

THIS TWO PAGE DOCUMENT IS THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE NOTES OF MARKS (NO INITIALS GIVEN) ABOUT THE MARKS AND MAIZGA INTERVIEW WITH DR. ANDREW F. STEHNEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR HUMAN RADIOBIOLOGY (CHR) (OF ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB) ON APRIL 15, 1974. BESIDES SOME MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS OF INFORMATION, THE DOCUMENT ADDRESSES SEVERAL AREAS RELATED TO CONSENT AND THE PLUTONIUM EXPERIMENTS. DR. STEHNEY SAID THAT WHEN THE CHR TOOK OVER THE STUDY, DR. WATERHOUSE DISCOURAGED DISCLOSING THE FACTS ABOUT THE PLUTONIUM EXPOSURES TO HER PATIENTS. HER REASONS WERE THAT THE DISCLOSURES WOULD HAVE A HARMFUL EFFECT ON THESE ELDERLY PEOPLE AND THAT NO GOOD PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE DISCLOSURES. THE CHR ABIDED BY DR. WATERHOUSE'S RECOMMENDATION. WITH REGARD TO PERMISSION FOR EXHUMATION OF BODIES, DR. STEHNEY'S IMPRESSION WAS THAT THE FAMILIES WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY FROM TREATMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE SINCE DECEASED PERSONS MANY YEARS AGO. DR. STEHNEY INDICATED THAT THE PATIENT FROM TEXAS WHO HAD BEEN INJECTED WITH PLUTONIUM HAD NOT SIGNED A CONSENT FORM OF THE TYPE USED BY THE CHR FOR RADIUM AND ALL OTHER HUMAN SUBJECTS. DR. STEHNEY ATTRIBUTED THIS FAILURE ON THE UNUSUAL WAY THE PATIENT HAD COME TO THE CHR. THE PATIENT WAS RELUCTANT TO FLY TO ROCHESTER SO HE CAME BY BUS. SINCE THE PATIENT PASSED THROUGH CHICAGO ON HIS WAY TO ROCHESTER, HE WAS BROUGHT TO ARGONNE FOR SUCH STUDIES AS THE CLINICAL HISTORY, RADIOLOGIC AND LABORATORY EXAMS, BUT NOT A PHYSICAL EXAM. THE CHR HAD INTENDED TO TELL HIM ABOUT HIS INTERNALLY DEPOSITED PLUTONIUM AS SOON AS THEY HAD CONFIRMED IT. WHOLE BODY COUNTING AND THE ROUTINE URINALYSIS DID NOT SHOW ANY PLUTONIUM AT THAT TIME, SO NO DISCLOSURE WAS MADE. IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY 1974 (A FEW YEARS LATER), THE CHR ANALYSTS BEGAN REQUESTING AND ANALYZING 24 HOUR URINE SAMPLES. THE SMALLER VOLUME SAMPLES PROCESSED BEFORE THAT TIME HAD A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR DETECTING SMALL QUANTITIES OF PLUTONIUM. THEN THEY CONFIRMED THAT THE PATIENT DID HAVE PLUTONIUM DEPOSITION AND, THEREFORE, FELT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISCLOSURE TO HIM. AT THE TIME OF THIS INTERVIEW, CHR HAD HELD UP THE DISCLOSURE AT THE REQUEST OF THE AEC TO PERMIT THEIR REVIEW FIRST.