Live data from Hacker News

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

science.org

241–250 of 254 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the same story as Rocky Flats west of Denver. Same thing, after "Cleanup" it's a (still radioactive) nature preserve and housing development now.

The world is full of radioactivity, including the banana you eat and the partner you sleep next to. What matters is the amount, is it dangerous?

Radioactive metals are heavy metals, and uranium for instance, even without the radioactivity, is dangerous in the same way as lead. It's definitely not something you want in your water.

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

#242
post #176

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 ten…

I wonder why they didn't travel further to dump it. The ocean in particular was a popular dumping ground in Europe after world war 2 for anything toxic related to the war. Old warships was loaded to max and intentionally moved and then sunk in an undocumented regions in order to make sure that no one could recover it.

The military basically threw anything anywhere until the 60s. There wasn't much of a concept of being careful with it.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between escape and release. Not sure why you put words in my mouth.

I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth. You asked why you were being downvoted. I mentioned that there's a conspiracy theory along the lines of what you're saying. In no way did I say, "YOU'RE propagating a conspiracy theory". Just that there is a thing, and that thing is in some way influencing people's opinion on your comment. That does not imply intent.

> You asked why you were being downvoted.

I did not.

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, and the amount of radiation left in thr Rocky Flatts area is dangerous, simple fact.

I'm assuming you're assuming the linear no threshold model here otherwise this statement doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "dangerous"? Because having sex with your wife is dangerous in that it increases the risk of heart attack. Some dangers are negligible increases that are worth the risk. A 0.00001% increased risk of lung cancer is negligible compared to things like air pollution from living in a city.

I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is full of radioactivity, including the banana you eat and the partner you sleep next to. What matters is the amount, is it dangerous?

Radioactive metals are heavy metals, and uranium for instance, even without the radioactivity, is dangerous in the same way as lead. It's definitely not something you want in your water.

Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is.

There's already a fair bit in our water.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming you're assuming the linear no threshold model here otherwise this statement doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "dangerous"? Because having sex with your wife is dangerous in that it increases the risk of heart attack. Some dangers are negligible increases that are worth the risk. A 0.00001% increased risk of lung cancer is negligible compared to things like air pollution from living in a city.

I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...

That list is sadly lacking in quantification.

Having read the article I am no wiser as to whether or not the risk is greater or lesser than a +0.001% risk of lung cancer.

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

#247

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 ten…

I drove through Los Alamos in the mid-1990s. It's an incredibly beautiful area, great topography dotted with such charming pre-kitschy neighborhoods and neato futuresce 1950's homes. Am I going to be ok?

No, 100% of people who drove through Los Alamos in the 90s will eventually die.

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radioactive metals are heavy metals, and uranium for instance, even without the radioactivity, is dangerous in the same way as lead. It's definitely not something you want in your water.

Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is. There's already a fair bit in our water.

They detected plutonium in the water supply of Santa Fe in the 70s and according to this article, as recently as 2006. The ideal quantity of plutonium in your water is zero.

https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drove through Los Alamos in the mid-1990s. It's an incredibly beautiful area, great topography dotted with such charming pre-kitschy neighborhoods and neato futuresce 1950's homes. Am I going to be ok?

No, 100% of people who drove through Los Alamos in the 90s will eventually die.

You're probably right because I just did. For anyone who's never been to Los Alamos... worth it.

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

#250
Because of the nature of criticality, no amount of traditional "training" or additional bureaucracy/procedures can fix this problem, it requires a new approach to give an much better intuition of the dangers, PLUS some new safety gear that is always giving feedback to the wearer when things go bad, along with networking/surveillance.

First - They need a VR/AR training system that shows danger levels visually, audibly, and via any other sense that make the user instinctively aware of what they're getting themselves into. In training, they should go through all the ways you can die, just like pilots do in simulators.

Second - There needs to be new safety gear that is an interactive, networked, set of sensors to detect radiation all the way from alpha through fast neutrons, and gives immediate feedback anytime things start to go south to the user. It should also warn everyone immediately in a criticality event.

Think of it like you would the explosive gas detectors that coal miners use, but more powerful/integrated into the network.

There should be very strict rules about the access of the data gathered, to ensure people feel it won't be abused for normal office politics, etc.

Third - A management system that catches the failures in safety, and discusses them, and a rate of zero failures/year is obviously unobtainable, and should also be unacceptable. There are always mistakes, they need to be caught.

Fourth - Everyone who works in criticality related materials should be required to have a will, advanced medical directives, and recorded preferences about euthanasia signed and witnessed, to stress the ultimate danger.

Fifth - Psych screenings (One would hope they do this, but probably not)

Sixth - Review these things every 5 years.

Post reply on HN