Live data from Hacker News

A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

science.org

41–50 of 254 posts

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#41
post #15

Today I learned: don't bring radioactive material close together... I know about criticality. But I always thought you needed a conventional explosive to kickstart the chain reaction.

You're absolutely right. The idea that bringing a few bars of plutonium next to each other for a photo could result in a criticality event is completely bogus. The real issue of course, is that you want people at a facility that handles plutonium to adhere very strictly to procedures. If you don't freak out when they take some selfies, next day they'll do something else. And one day, one of these things will be stupi…

I mean no, it's completely correct. Criticality happens when there's enough plutonium in a small enough space (or not enough plutonium, but in a space with a high density of neutron reflectors).

The demon core incident(s), the Cecil Kelley criticality incident, and others don't involve explosives. Just read through the wikipedia list[0], and you'll see that causes included dropping a tungsten brick, an unexpected pool of water, and a human torso all acting as neutron reflectors and causing unexpected criticality.

Like, dissolved plutonium solutions have to be one of the most wickedly, unexpectedly dangerous things out there, because pouring them from one container into another, stirring them vigorously, or standing too close to them can all cause them to go from "safe" to "deadly".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#Known_inc...

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#42
post #28

Putting a profit motive anywhere near anything that is safety critical is almost never a good idea. Naval Nuclear Power has it's issues, yet it is so safe that we have almost no incidents. That's because things like this don't happen there due to the culture of safety. That said, this is about production rather than operation, but the overall communities are relatively small and aligned.

> Putting a profit motive anywhere near anything that is safety critical is almost never a good idea. Why? And exactly how do you mean that? Is the safety track record of private industry worse than that of eg non-profit or state owned industry.

It’s hard to do a direct comparison as government jobs tend to inherently be more risky and accident reporting rates vary. An Air Force pilot isn’t directly analogous to an airline pilot nor is a police officer even vaguely equivalent to private security.

Private sector hospitals, which are arguably the closest direct analog with public sector counterparts, have higher rates of workplace injury than public sector hospitals. By comparison private teachers have lower rates, but work with less at risk populations etc.

PS: Reports of illness are noticeably higher in the public sector, but that likely relates to differences in PTO etc.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#46
post #37
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'The Rock' came out in 1996. Which dossier are you talking about?

2002 according to https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obv...

Oh, I misread _dain_'s comment. I thought they said The Rock was based on the dossier. Obviously, they meant it the other way round.

I remember the official reasons for attacking Iraq back then being obvious bullshit. But that might have just been a function of living in Germany where the media was against the war (because the German public was a against the war), so the media would give that impression anyway.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#47
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the article said that after those criticality events, those in charge of the facility and safety of personnel just had people keep working instead of evacuating. And how exactly did they convince those employees to keep working? The employees are not making extra for not following rules, do people really just not care about their lives? (I don't for a second believe someone working in a nuclear lab would be una…

There is a very gung ho culture in labs about safety. It slows you down to do things right and when it comes to reviews the cowboys (and girls) who do things wrong but fast get better reviews because they get more done. Nuclear labs kill the people inside them at worst. Bio labs ... Well there's a reason why I think covid was the worst lab accident in human history.

I’m not sure why you’ve been downvoted but this is a very prevalent attitude at hazardous facilities that are run by contractors. In particular, when the hazards are relatively low probability events and there are perverse incentives to roll the dice in the name of productivity.

In a previous job in a hazardous facility, I’ve had very senior managers sit me down to tell me I don’t want to get the reputation for slowing things down by enforcing safety rules. I’m personally glad I’ve moved on with my career.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#48

So, has the management at Los Alamos been replaced? That's clearly the cause of the problem. It's been 5 years now. What's happened?

Yes actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory...

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#49
My favorite nuclear disaster! Criticality events.

I lived in Los Alamos for a while. I looked into renting a studio space. I became curious about the property across the street from my prospective rental which was surrounded by a chain link fence with green canvas. I researched and learned it was the site of an original Manhattan site waste dump which had, a few years prior, been enclosed with a negative pressure tent and cleaned up at a cost of 2-3 billion. Apparently the government had dumped an unknown quantity of high level nuclear waste there in an unlined pit in the dirt in the 40s. This led me to research the history of the area.

After a couple of months I figured out that my house in White Rock was about 3/4 of a mile from the current waste dump for the entire lab, known as TA-53 or MDA-C or something. They were in the process of excavating the three 200 foot deep pits of MDA-C - one for low level nuclear waste, one for transuranic (as they call “high level” these days) and one for classified waste. If I stood on my roof I could see the negative pressure tents surrounding them. My favorite non-classified project which was disposed of there was the “experimental high temperature plutonium reactor”, from the 90s.

The lab has some rather interesting history. There was no concept at all of safely disposing of anything or even recording what they dumped and where until the 60s. The first ever radioactive metal working facility, out on a ridge by the entrance to town (TA 21? 23?) dumped all of their wastewater directly into the canyon untreated. This has recently been cleaned up at a cost of several billion dollars also, and now they are building homes there. The heavy/radioactive metal plumes went down into the earth over 500 feet. In fact, all of the waste from the entire lab used to be dumped into a stream in the middle of town. They cleaned it up, opened it as a park (“Acid Canyon”), then after heavy rains found some barrels they missed which were determined to contain plutonium waste. Oops, cleaned that up some more and now it’s a nature preserve and hiking area. There are still untouched facilities from the 50s where Feynman worked on polonium experiments sitting a few hundred feet from the banks of the Rio Grande.

There was a power plant right on the edge of a native reservation neighboring the lab. According to the federal government, the plume of chromium contamination it left ends exactly on the property line of the lab to the reservation.

Everyone I met in Los Alamos had zero concerns about pollution having an impact on them.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#50
post #24

I would have though the decision tree for placement of concentrated plutonium was firmly established after the demon core incidents, set roughly in stone as the following: Should I bring high purity plutonium samples together? | V Do you want to die a horrible radiated death taught in textbooks for decades? | | V V No. Yes | | V V Then don’t you’re fired. It seems like Los Alamos may be in need of a fresh printout of…

Fired or fried?

That would depend on whether they read the flow chart before or after coming to a decision. But I think it would almost always be an either/or, not both:

It would seem a little unethical to fire someone after they fried themselves & thereby performed a great service, making the next generation of techs much more likely to keep themselves both in the gene pool & lifelong contributors to scientific knowledge through their career.

Consider those fried persons & object lessons to be sort of the “Leeroy Jenkins” of their profession.

Post reply on HN