How the Manhattan Project's Radioactive Waste Still Affects Health Today
More than 80 years later, science is still uncovering the health effects of the atomic age's forgotten victims.
When we think of the Manhattan Project, we often picture the brilliant scientists at Los Alamos, the terrifying mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the dawn of the nuclear age. But there's another, quieter legacy that persists in communities across the United States—one of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production that continues to raise concerns about public health decades later. The full health implications of exposure to low-level radiation from this waste remain the subject of intense scientific investigation, blending historical analysis with cutting-edge epidemiology to protect those who may have been unknowingly exposed.
To understand the health concerns around radioactive waste, we first need to understand what radiation is and how it affects our bodies. Ionizing radiation is energy that can remove electrons from atoms, potentially damaging the delicate molecular structures within our cells, including DNA 3 .
The Manhattan Project left behind various types of radioactive materials, each with different health implications:
When radiation damages DNA, our bodies have remarkable repair mechanisms, but sometimes the repairs aren't perfect. Incorrect repairs can lead to mutations that, years later, might develop into cancers or cause other health problems 3 . The risk depends on many factors—the type of radiation, whether exposure was external or internal, the duration of exposure, and individual susceptibility, with children and fetuses being particularly vulnerable 3 .
| Radiation Type | Penetration Ability | Shielding Required | Primary Health Concerns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alpha (α) | Low (stopped by skin) | Sheet of paper | Internal exposure (inhaled/ingested) damages tissue and DNA |
| Beta (β) | Moderate | Aluminum foil | External can cause skin burns, internal also damaging |
| Gamma (γ) | High | Thick lead or concrete | Whole-body exposure, increased cancer risk |
In July 2024, a startling new study published in JAMA Network Open revealed compelling evidence about the long-term health effects of radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project 7 . The research focused on Coldwater Creek, Missouri, where nuclear waste from uranium processing had been improperly stored in open drums next to the creek from the 1940s through the 1960s.
The Harvard-led research team took an innovative approach, using data from the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey that collected teeth from children born between 1945 and 1966 7 . They tracked down 4,209 of these tooth donors and analyzed their childhood addresses in relation to Coldwater Creek, then compared this with their lifetime cancer history.
The findings were striking: people who lived within one kilometer of the creek as children were 44% more likely to develop any type of cancer over their lifetimes, and 85% more likely to develop cancers particularly sensitive to radiation, compared to those who lived more than 20 kilometers away 7 . Senior author Marc Weisskopf noted: "We actually saw something quite dramatic, not only elevated risk of cancer, but one that increased steadily in a sort of dose-response manner the closer the childhood residents got to Coldwater Creek" 7 .
| Distance from Contaminated Creek | Increased Overall Cancer Risk | Increased Radiation-Sensitive Cancer Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Within 1 kilometer | 44% higher | 85% higher |
| Further than 20 kilometers | Baseline (reference group) | Baseline (reference group) |
The researchers made another intriguing observation: male study participants showed higher cancer rates than females 7 . They hypothesized that in the post-World War II era, boys might have been more likely to play in the creek, potentially receiving greater radiation exposure—a theory they hope to test by measuring remaining radioactive strontium in the preserved baby teeth 7 .
Higher cancer rates in males possibly due to different play patterns
Decades before the Coldwater Creek study, researchers had begun investigating potential health effects around Manhattan Project sites. In 1984, a thesis study examined areas surrounding a former Department of Energy thorium processing facility that had operated from 1941 to 1973 1 . The researcher mailed questionnaires to 400 families, receiving 112 responses representing 362 people, and analyzed data on "lifestyle, occupation, reproductive history, cancer and other disease states" 1 .
Nuclear waste improperly stored in open drums near Coldwater Creek, Missouri
Early thesis study investigates health effects near thorium processing facility 1
Harvard study published in JAMA Network Open reveals definitive link between childhood proximity to contaminated creek and cancer risk 7
While this early study didn't find statistically significant increases in cancer or miscarriages, it noted concerning patterns: higher rates of liver disease, jaundice, birth defects, and leukemia among those living closer to the site 1 .
That study of 26 plutonium workers found four deaths by 1987—fewer than the 9.2 statistically expected—though causes included lung cancer and, in a later death, osteogenic sarcoma 5 .
Understanding how researchers investigate these complex health questions requires a look at the methods they use:
Researchers compare groups of people with a disease (cases) to similar people without the disease (controls), then look back in time to see if the cases had higher exposure to suspected risk factors 4 . This approach is especially useful for studying rare diseases.
These provide a "snapshot" of a population at a single point in time, often used to assess disease prevalence 4 .
Each method has strengths and weaknesses, and the gold standard—randomized controlled trials—isn't ethical for studying harmful exposures like radiation 4 . This forces researchers to rely on careful observation and natural experiments, like the accidental contamination of Coldwater Creek.
| Research Tool | Function | Application Example |
|---|---|---|
| Bioassays (e.g., urine tests) | Measures internal radioactive contamination | Tracking plutonium levels in Manhattan Project workers 5 |
| Dosimetry badges | Monitors external radiation exposure | Worn by radiation workers to track occupational exposure |
| Geiger counters / Scintillometers | Detects and measures environmental radiation | Mapping contamination levels around waste sites |
| Biological sampling | Analyzes radioactive isotopes in tissues | Measuring strontium-90 in baby teeth 7 |
| Environmental sampling | Tests soil, water, and air for contamination | Identifying polluted areas around Coldwater Creek 7 |
One of the most contentious questions in radiation health is exactly how risky low-level exposures are. The conventional model used by regulatory agencies like the EPA is the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, carries some cancer risk, and that risk decreases linearly as the dose decreases 3 .
Assumes any radiation exposure carries some cancer risk, with risk proportional to dose. Used by regulatory agencies for conservative protection standards.
Proposes that low doses of radiation might actually have beneficial effects by stimulating cellular repair mechanisms. Challenged by many in the scientific community.
This conservative approach is used for radiation protection standards worldwide, but some scientists challenge it, pointing to evidence that low doses might actually have beneficial effects—a phenomenon called radiation hormesis 8 . The debate continues as researchers work to better understand the precise relationship between low doses and health risks 6 .
What remains clear is that certain populations exposed to radiation from nuclear weapons production have suffered documented health consequences, leading the U.S. government to establish compensation programs, albeit often after significant delays 2 . As one editorial noted, the government has even issued an apology: "The Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation to the individuals described... and their families for the hardships they have endured" 2 .
The story of the Manhattan Project's radioactive waste continues to unfold, with new scientific discoveries like the Coldwater Creek study revealing the long-term health consequences that extend far beyond the original atomic blasts. These findings underscore the importance of continued monitoring, thorough cleanup efforts, and compassionate compensation for those affected by nuclear weapons production.
What makes this research particularly compelling is that it represents a convergence of historical investigation, cutting-edge epidemiology, and molecular science—all aimed at understanding and addressing the invisible legacy of our nuclear history. As we continue to produce radioactive materials for energy, medicine, and other purposes, these studies provide crucial lessons about safety, transparency, and our responsibility to protect both workers and communities from potential harm.
The Manhattan Project may have ended decades ago, but its full impact on human health is still being calculated—one study, one discovery, and one life at a time.