Replies

Seems the kid even flunked as a Boy Scout.

This is my response to the article "Tale of the Radioactive Boy Scout" (Reader's Digest, March 1999).

I very much agree with Mark Demma's comments on the unfair negative connotations given to Scouting and the Boy Scouts of America by this article (please see Mark A. Demma #3 ).

Merit badges are designed to foster new interests in a young man and to broaden his hands-on experiences. This rounding out of the adolescent is crucial to his mental and physical development, as the skills and information learned from working on merit badges far outlast the Scouting experience.

Merit badges absolutely do not promote irresponsibility and the "wielding of knowledge without the temperament of wisdom." On the contrary, merit badges provide a channel to focus the Scout's interest via a well-planned curriculum, an initial resource base (e.g., background information in the provided merit badge pamphlet), and adult guidance:

On his own initiative, the Scout selects one of the 119 available merit badges that interests him. His Scoutmaster then pairs him with an adult volunteer (with experience in the chosen field) who is available to answer questions, teach, and help guide the Scout through the badge's requirements.
To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Scout must earn 21 merit badges -- including twelve badges required of all Scouts (e.g., first aid, citizenship, communications, personal fitness, personal management, etc.) and nine individually-chosen badges (e.g., atomic energy).

After earning a merit badge, Scouts are certainly encouraged to continue both independent study and guided investigation into the subject or related fields. However, the combination of adult guidance and the depth of the material covered by a Scout should adequately prepare him to avoid dangerous situations like the one created by David Hahn.

For example: I am an approved counselor for the Atomic Energy merit badge mentioned in the article. Two weeks ago I worked with eleven Scouts as they completed the requirements for this merit badge. My focus with the Scouts was for them to receive either:

a solid foundation for future study toward a career in nuclear engineering or nuclear theory,
a good introduction to concepts they will later use in high-school and college-level science and engineering courses and in science-related jobs, or
a broader general understanding of science concepts.
In addition, I stressed laboratory and material safety, even to the point of non-nuclear related safety (e.g., safe chemical and biohazard handling and disposal, high-school and college laboratory safety, and others; please refer to my merit badge resources page). I cannot imagine a merit badge counselor who would not emphasize the very real danger of working with radioactive materials, or a Scout who would not have learned of the consequences of concentrated radiation exposure after completing this badge.

Requirement 6c of the merit badge states:

Build a model of a reactor. Show the fuel, the control rods, the shielding, the moderator, and any cooling material. Explain how a reactor could be used to change nuclear into electrical energy or make things radioactive.
Even here, there are stark differences between satisfying the merit badge requirements and David Hahn's subsequent actions. In addition to a Scout noting the need for thick shielding around working reactors, he would learn of the radioactive byproducts of the fission reaction, the effect of the fission process on surrounding materials (e.g., it "makes things radioactive"), the harmful effects of ionizing radiation on living tissue, the need for neutron absorbers and moderators in fission reactions, and so on.

I certainly cannot speak of the reasons behind David Hahn's disregard for nuclear reaction safety principles, although perhaps his cavalier statements in the postscript lend some insight toward his actions. I strongly doubt his disregard stems from a failure of the Atomic Energy merit badge requirements or of the Boy Scouts of America to teach him practical responsibility, and I am disappointed in Reader's Digest and Harper's Magazine for using the title and text of this article to make this harmful insinuation.

John Linwood Griffin
March 18, 1999