Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–254 of 254 posts

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

#251

Post by code_duck »

Maursault wrote: post #249
code_duck wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Northern NM in general is fantastic. If in Los Alamos I definitely suggest the drive west of town past the Valle Grande, which ends up going through Jemez Canyon and wrapping up to Zia Pueblo NE of Rio Rancho. Bandolier is definitely worth a visit as well. Also, just about any way you can get to Taos from Santa Fe or Los Alamos is highly scenic.

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

#252

Post by code_duck »

logifail wrote: post #188
ethbr0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nuanced question, given the fact that toxicity depends on many characteristics: method of exposure, dose to body weight, bioaccumulation, etc. For a substance that needs to be ingested in high doses for an average human (even a small child) over an extended period of time, what's the harm of having a contaminated park? You have relatively infrequent exposure, and you likely don't eat / drink from the area. Tha…

> For a substance that needs to be ingested in high doses for an average human (even a small child) over an extended period of time, what's the harm of having a contaminated park? You have relatively infrequent exposure, and you likely don't eat / drink from the area Based on my experiences with how our children behave when they're playing in parks, I much prefer the thought of parks not being contaminated! Small kid…

I agree. Children have a much higher hand-to-mouth propensity than adults and are also more affected by certain types of toxins.

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

#254

Post by dmwood »

gdmt wrote: post #166
dmwood wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pu in soil within the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge contributes (NIST soil standard data) about 0.8% of total soil radioactivity. Remembering that 239Pu emits almost no gamma rays, it's no surprise that annual doses from soil inhalation plus ingestion give 50 year doses of less than 0.1 milliSievert. By contrast, ANNUAL doses from background radiation around RF are about 1850 times larger, and a chest X-ray is…

A chest X ray is about 0.1 mSv.

Yes. Thanks. The link below has the most up to date comprehensive diagram of typical doses. For the uninitiated: the 'relative biological effectiveness' of photons (X rays, gamma rays) is typically taken to be one; by contrast, for alpha particles it is generally taken to be 20 since they dump much more energy per unit path length than do photons.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ioni...

Post reply on HN