Now that there is actual public discussion about Site 300, instead of the speak no evil, hear no evil approach Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was taking before, the public is getting a lot of information.

Activists like Bob Sarvey are speaking against the potential dangers of allowing Lawrence Livermore to increase the amount of particulate matter it flings into the air via explosives testing at its bomb testing grounds near Tracy. Meanwhile, the lab is firing back, saying that alarmists and fearmongers (myself included) are overstating the dangers these explosions pose, and that Tracy residents have nothing to worry about.

The main concern voiced by those in opposition to the increased testing is that bomb explosions on the doorstep of Tracy could subject residents here to potentially dangerous levels of depleted uranium (a radioactive heavy metal) and tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen used in triggering thermonuclear blasts). Sufficient exposure to depleted uranium can result in kidney failure and other symptoms of heavy metal poisoning, and possible increased risk of cancer if the uranium is absorbed into the skeletal system or if windblown particles containing uranium lodge in the lungs, where they can remain for years. That’s especially a concern here, because tests at Site 300 will send uranium into prevailing winds, making it ripe for inhalation around Tracy.

Tritium, a beta-particle emitter that might be used in future tests, can also be harmful if present in the human body.

Following the questions and concern, scientists are telling the community that there is virtually no threat posed by large explosions next door to Tracy that will pepper the air with atomized depleted uranium and tritium. They say it’s impossible for any resident here to inhale enough of the radioactive substances to cause harm.

Even if they are correct, it doesn’t answer the one question that all Tracy residents should be asking, possibly the most telling question in this whole debate and the one question that, so far, has not been asked: How does the testing of explosives involving radioactive materials benefit Tracy?

The simple answer: It doesn’t.

There is no possible beneficial outcome for Tracy regarding these tests. Residents will certainly hear the explosions from Site 300. Residents might be exposed to trace amounts of hazardous, radioactive materials. And there’s the possibility that it could increase the likelihood of developing cancer while living in Tracy.

That’s all Tracy gets — potential downside, no potential upside. There’s been no suggestion that Site 300 testing is a boon for our community, only statements that it shouldn’t make us glow in the dark. And aside from possible health risks, increased testing could drive down property values in the future Tracy Hills and decrease the attractiveness of the whole area to potential residents. On the flip side, it could give Tracy a new catchphrase for tourists: “Tracy, where tritium is only a stone’s throw away.”

But I really wonder why this testing is conducted near a populated area at all. The government must have other sites that deal with explosives — and radioactive materials — far enough from cities that there would be no concern about impact on nearby human populations because there would be no nearby human populations. Why Site 300, on the doorstep of Tracy, is the subject of increased tests is beyond me, but common sense tells me there’s a better location for explosions with radioactive materials.

That might be a complaint better directed at government officials than the operators at the lab, but Tracy residents have an opportunity to tell the lab that explosions of any kind aren’t welcome in this Central Valley neighborhood. We don’t want to export the tests to someone else’s backyard, but we certainly shouldn’t want them in our own.

Even if the lab’s paid experts are correct and the explosions pose no outspoken danger, there’s still no benefit to having them so close to a downwind residential area. The “unlikely” possibility of harm, in this case, outweighs the certainty of no benefit.

That’s something not even a Ph.D can argue with.

Jon Mendelson is a copy editor at the Tracy Press. To reach him, e-mail jmendelson@tracypress.com.