Tests Show Workers At Hanford Nuclear Facility Inhaled Radioactive Plutonium (king5.com) 158
An anonymous reader quotes a report from King 5, a local news station for Seattle, Washington: On June 8 approximately 350 Hanford workers were ordered to "take cover" after alarms designed to detect elevated levels of airborne radioactive contamination went off. It was quickly determined that radioactive particles had been swept out of a containment zone at the plutonium finishing plant (PFP) demolition site. The work is considered the most hazardous demolition project on the entire nuclear reservation. At the time Hanford officials called the safety measure "precautionary." Officials from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, which owns Hanford, and the contractor in charge of the demolition, CH2M Hill, downplayed the seriousness of the event with statements including, it appeared "workers were not at risk", "(the alarm went off) in an area where contamination is expected" and there was "no evidence radioactive particles had been inhaled" by anyone.
The KING 5 Investigators have discovered those statements are incorrect. An internal CH2M Hill email sent to their employees on July 21 was obtained by KING. It states that 301 (test kits) have been issued to employees and of the first 65 workers tested, a "small number of employees" showed positive results for "internal exposures" (by radioactive plutonium). Sources tell KING the "small number of employees" is twelve. Twelve people out of 65 is 20 percent. Still outstanding are 236 tests. A communication specialist with CH2M Hill sent a statement that more positive results are expected. "We expect additional positive results because analytical tests like a bioassay can detect radiological contamination at levels far lower than what field monitoring can detect," said Destry Henderson of CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company.
The KING 5 Investigators have discovered those statements are incorrect. An internal CH2M Hill email sent to their employees on July 21 was obtained by KING. It states that 301 (test kits) have been issued to employees and of the first 65 workers tested, a "small number of employees" showed positive results for "internal exposures" (by radioactive plutonium). Sources tell KING the "small number of employees" is twelve. Twelve people out of 65 is 20 percent. Still outstanding are 236 tests. A communication specialist with CH2M Hill sent a statement that more positive results are expected. "We expect additional positive results because analytical tests like a bioassay can detect radiological contamination at levels far lower than what field monitoring can detect," said Destry Henderson of CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company.
It's not the radioactivity... (Score:3)
Re:It's not the radioactivity... (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that Plutonium is highly toxic, but an airborne particle is probably not enough to cause significant health effects from that (the toxology profile [cdc.gov] suggests the level for that is 10 ppm) - depending on how many are inhaled of course.
But the radiation is indeed the bigger hazard. Plutonium's long half-life means it's not as dangerously radioactive as some other elements - so long as exposure is relatively brief or distant (inverse square law applies). When it gets inside you though, it sticks in there for decades, and at that extremely close range the radiation is a lot more powerful, so your chances of cancer go up significantly.
Re:It's not the radioactivity... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Plutonium is, it wanders into the bone marrow.
That means even very small amounts are deadly. Per kg weight the deadly dose is about 0.32mg.
Of course it is unlikely the workers inhaled that much. OTOH, a lower dose might be deadly, too. If you have bad luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thieves Who Stole Cobalt-60 in Mexico Are Likely Dead Or Dying
Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
Mexican cobalt-60 thieves will soon die of radiation exposure
Stolen cobalt-60 found in Mexico; thieves may be doomed
The Reality; All were released from the hospital, with only one showing some exposure effects. None is likely to have any long term health issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/... [cnn.com]
Of course when I argued at the time that the fears were overblown right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Six people have been arrested in connection with the theft this week of a truck carrying highly radioactive waste in an episode that caused an international scare and raised concerns about the transporting of nuclear material. The group was arrested Thursday night and taken to a hospital in Pachuca, 60 miles north of here and not far from the small town where the truck and the material, cobalt 60, were found Wednesday after armed robbers stole them Monday. One of the people, a 16-year-old boy, was vomiting and had signs of possible radiation sickness, while the others were taken to the hospital as a precaution before all were cleared and released in the late afternoon and turned over to the federal police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They could do the trick where you fill the lungs with breathable fluid and vacuum it back out. That might get most of it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds expensive. These are private contractors.
Re: (Score:3)
Smokers are exposed to the highest levels of alpha radiation encountered by any group of humans on the planet (polonium), but the vast majority of cancers which develop in ex-smokers seem to be catalysed by the breakdown products of that radiation (berylium features heavily in the decay chain and it's a major carcinogen) rather than the radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
That's a Wheeler-ism : "not even wrong".
Polonium has isotopes
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that Plutonium is highly toxic, but an airborne particle is probably not enough to cause significant health effects from that (the toxology profile [cdc.gov] suggests the level for that is 10 ppm)
This is talking about plutonium oxide and not plutonium chloride which is more soluble.
Iron-binding, as in it's an iron analogue to the body. So this seems to be saying that plutonium oxide does becomes organically bound, which means it can accumulate in the lungs, dammit, I thought it was e
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, like when someone is severely bleeding or when they have a marrow transplant.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says nowhere that a "lifetime's" dose is only 1 mrem - the contractor said only that "a dose of less than or equal to 1 millirem" had already been detected in the affected people, and that 1 mrem over 50 years is insignificant.
But this completely glosses over the real issue, that with alpha-emitting particles lodged in your body all that time, you will be continually irradiated. Which is why the article continues on to cite four radiation experts including Dr Kaltofen, who called the contractor'
Re: (Score:3)
Pu is not toxic in these doses. It will pretty reliably cause lung-cancer from the radioactivity though.
Re: (Score:2)
Pu is not toxic in these doses. It will pretty reliably cause lung-cancer from the radioactivity though.
No, it almost certainly will not cause lung cancer in these amounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it will. They are talking 1 milirem, which as high-energy Alpha, directly on vulnerable lung tissue is quite a lot. The number is only that low because Alpha has basically no reach. That does not protect the cells in reach at all though. Misdirection of this type is quite common in the utterly criminal nuclear industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it will. They are talking 1 milirem, which as high-energy Alpha, directly on vulnerable lung tissue is quite a lot. The number is only that low because Alpha has basically no reach. That does not protect the cells in reach at all though. Misdirection of this type is quite common in the utterly criminal nuclear industry.
No, it most likely won't. The fact that you speak in absolute terms tells me you are ignorant to the associated risk. There is an increase in risk, but that does not make it probable. Stating untruths based on your ignorant assumptions helps no one.
Humans can't be trusted with this technology (Score:1, Interesting)
The *first* reaction when these events occur is to lie and initiate a cover-up, followed by down-played reports from "officials".
This happens **EVERY** time.
See - 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hanford, etc. etc. etc And the list goes on.
THERE IS ALWAYS A LIE AND A COVER UP... EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I bet (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: I bet (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't Hanford intended for nuclear weapons development?
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, starting with the Manhattan Project. It's been producing plutonium for bombs [wikipedia.org] since 1943.
Re: I bet (Score:5, Informative)
Wasn't Hanford intended for nuclear weapons development?
Yep, the unheard of twin, the plutonium used in the second bomb on Japan was produce at Hanford. Production continued till Chernobyl blew up (steam explosion). They were a carbon moderated reactor as was the last operating nuclear production reactor at Hanford.
Re: I bet (Score:2, Informative)
Hanford was from the bad old days of nuclear weapons development where everything was done as fast and cheaply as possible. It has nothing to do with power generation
Re: (Score:2)
Military sites worldwide are responsible for the vast majority of nuclear accidents and pollution.
Civil sites have tended to be risk-averse but military operated reactors and processing plants have always played fast and loose with protocols and safety.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people have died of black lung?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How many have died from solar, wind, or wave?
15,000 killed in one day by wave when the Fukushima plant failed. Zero by radiation.
Funny how some people forget that perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.boem.gov/Ocean-Wav... [boem.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you deliberately trying to sound stupid by inappropriate use of the work "fucking", you shit-eating cunt-faced Trump-voter?
Its called context. Few have died from solar, wind, waves, or nuclear energy. Twice nothing is nothing.
Large-scale fatalities have occurred from coal and hydroelectric.
Look at numbers per GW.hr, and don't forget the effects of coal smog, acid rain, and global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
15,000 killed in one day by wave when the Fukushima plant failed.
It is called context.
Not a single fucking person died at Fukushima because of an accident in the wave energy production industry. Pompeii wasn't an accident in the geothermal industry, hurricane Katrina wasn't an accident in the wind energy industry, and the Carrington Event wasn't an accident in the solar energy industry.... and a fucking tsunami isn't an accident in the wave energy industry, no matter how much of a fucking imbecile you are. YOU are the dipshit that said it.
As for grab-them-by-the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not being able to move back because there is rubble that needs to be hauled away is very different from not being able to move back because the ground is radioactive........... But they seem almost the same, and radiation is invisible, so it must be safe, right?
The impacts are the same in terms of human ability to live there. Radiation is different in that there is an irrational fear due to years of FUD. People aren't so scared of getting a sunburn for some crazy reason. People displaced by hydro power water reserves will never be able to return, and all the natural life in that land area was also displaced or killed. But there's that scary radiation.
I find your 'radiation is invisible, so it must be safe" quip quite ironic, as the fact that people can't see r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really trying to tell me that Fukushima is not currently leaking radioactive material into the ocean.
No, I never said that. How did you read that into anything I said?
Or is it that you say that is safe?
I didn't say that either, but yes, the levels released into the ocean are so low they are perfectly safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you simply trying to distract from the conversation by bringing up other disasters? Bhopal had nothing to do with energy production, via wave, solar, wind, or nuclear. Maybe we could bring up the 2004 tsunami in SE Asia too? I mean, it at least has the word "wave" involved
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a hint... learn to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [wikipedia.org]
171,000 killed, or 40x the deaths attributable to the Chernobyl disaster.
You can say we (mostly) don't build dams like that anymore, but we don't build reactors like Chernobyl anymore either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More than 9,000 per year from skin cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Just in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Try to make some minor effort to know what you're talking about. The issues with Hanford have nothing to do with civilian power generation. Just quoting the summary: "...radioactive particles had been swept out of a containment zone at the plutonium finishing plant (PFP) demolition site."; Or you could try Hanford Site [wikipedia.org]: "The Hanford Site is a mostly decommissioned nuclear production complex"
Even if this was an inci
Re:I bet (Score:4, Insightful)
How many people died because of Three Mile Island?
None.
As for contamination. You DO realize exactly how much Thorium and Uranium are present in the ground beneath your feet right? Where do you think radon gas comes from?
Done SAFELY, nuclear is essentially carbon-free.
And the problems with current nuclear can be solved by moving to a different reactor model. One that's inherently safe and runs no risk of steam explosions.
Unlike the solid fuel reactors, it burns ALL of it's fuel, so you're not pulling fuel that's only 10-15% spent.
And while the byproducts which aren't medically or scientifically useful are VERY radioactive, they're only this way for short periods of time.
And even if it was megaton quantities (like the waste from solid fuel reactors from the past 60 years), it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what's gone up the flues of coal-fired plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Done SAFELY, nuclear is essentially carbon-free.
In addition to the point of the AC here, a second reason that nuclear power is not carbon-free is the massive amount of concrete used to build nuclear plants, far exceeding that of any other power generation save hydro. Cement production is a giant CO2 emitter, roughly the second largest CO2 source mankind has. And while not a lot of the annual concrete production goes into nuclear power plants, when it does, the amount is not negligible. Just doing a quick google, 200,000 tons of concrete for a nuclear pl [ecolo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much ALL types of power facilities have carbon costs in building them.
Wind and solar might offset sooner.
But, in terms of power density, a nuclear plant will generally deliver far more power over it's lifetime in terms of offset.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people died because of Three Mile Island?
None.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.pennlive.com/specia... [pennlive.com]
Re:I bet (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Fukushima: "None of the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site have died from acute radiation poisoning,[17] though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the earthquake and tsunami damage to the site.[17]" "Although it was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines, there were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, but 34 people died as a result of the evacuation.[4]"
Chernobyl: "56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[2][3][4]"
Nuclear is pretty clean. Fukushima is an accident, but to call it a disaster is an insult to the earthquake and tsunami that were the ACTUAL disaster:
"On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,894 deaths,[37] 6,152 injured,[38] and 2,562 people missing[39] across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation.[40]"
Nuclear is like anything else, it can be very dangerous when in the wrong hands. When used for power generation it might kill approximately ZERO people. When made into a bomb: "According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees.[32] "
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but those are not direct and immediate deaths. If anything it would be reduced lifespans for those exposed. Could be a few years on some, could be a decade or two on some. This is not even close to the same as a direct death from an accident.
Re: (Score:3)
The "fixation" is that we use a lot of it.
If the rest of the planet had done what France did back in the 70s, we wouldn't have a global warming problem.
Re: (Score:2)
1: Since when was Chernobyl the US nuclear industry's fault? Chernobyl was a bunch of Russian idiots playing with a reactor.
2: When was Fukushima the US nuclear industry's fault. Fukushima was a bunch of cheapshits at TEPCO IGNORING engineering recommendations to make the sea wall higher so the site wouldn't get flooded out.
3: There's no such thing as "clean" power. All forms of power have some form of byproduct. The one that's the biggest concern today is CO2, because of AGW concerns. Sure, building a
Re: (Score:2)
And, even if I were talking about continuing with solid fuel reactors.
If all the primary power generation comes from nuclear power, how much CO2 is put into the air enriching uranium?
Luckily I'm not talking about solid fuel reactors. They need to go away. They're too much of a Rube Goldberg Machine in terms of safety. When 10% of the total facility is the reactor and the other 90% is the safety systems, something's out of whack.
Re:I bet (Score:4, Informative)
I bet these workers are so incredibly glad nuclear power is such a clean source of energy.
But since Hanford was a nuclear weapons plant, this story has nothing to do with sources of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet these workers are so incredibly glad nuclear power is such a clean source of energy.
I can tell you for a fact they are. Hanford was the employer of an entire town at one time (Richland). It was built to house them. Now the only jobs available are what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Smallwood, 2013 [wiley.com]
And what superpowers did they get? (Score:1)
X-ray vision's not as appealing as it was in the 1950s because there are so many obese American women now, so they should probably hope for the ability to keep over tall buildings instead.
Not on /. (Score:3)
Twelve people out of 65 is 20 percent.
18.5%, if you round up, mathlete.
Re: (Score:2)
Rounding percentages on workers whose lives are threatened, meh, 20% or less easy to replace. I also really like this bit of PR twaddle, "the person with a does of one millirem would receive a dose less than a tenth of a standard xray", there not so bad, but fuckers, they are having that 1/10th xray every second of everyday for the rest of their expected to be fairly short lives. They had alarms where they expected there might be exposure, then why the fuck were they not in suits with contained air, oh I kn
"an anonymous reader"? (Score:4, Insightful)
How likely is it that this anonymous reader is mdsolar?
Re: (Score:2)
Level of Exposure? (Score:3)
There's one part where CH2M Hill claimed less than you would receive during a chest x-ray, but then it quotes someone else who claims that claim is BS.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary and the articles leave out some pretty important information. How much radiation were workers exposed to?
If they inhaled particles, some of the particles still may be in their bodies, and they're still being exposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Plutonium's a heavy metal. It's also quite chemically active. Probably most of what they inhaled that wasn't exhaled in the next breath will stay with them for life.
I'm no expert, but if that isn't true, I'd like to know the mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
The mucus in the lungs will capture a lot and the cilia will transport it up to the throat where it will be swallowed. Most of that will then transport through the digestive system and excreted. Some will be taken up by the body and at that point you have the various blood filters like the kidneys and liver capturing some and excreting it. The efficiencies of the various mechanisms will vary based on the chemical state of the Pu as inhaled and as its processed in the digestive system.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is true of a non-reactive dust, like, say coal. But Plutonium is supposed to have a strong affinity for tissue that tends to lead it to lodge in the bones. So I don't think the kidneys and liver would excrete much. I suppose being a *heavy* metal wouldn't impair the actions of the mucus/cilia much, but I believe it would result in extensive absorption in the intestines.
If you are an expert in the field, then I apologize, for being so dubious about your explanation, as it *could* happen that
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that "how much exposure" may not be the right question.
The plutonium was inhaled. Which means we're now talking about chemistry and physiology, not just physics. Inhalation is not like getting irradiated from an external source, the exact chemical form of plutonium (oxide? nitrate?) makes a difference because it determines where it goes. Is it excreted? Does it stay in the lungs? Does it migrate somewhere else?
So it's not easy to come up with a single number which characterizes the seriou
Re: (Score:3)
Plutonium migrates into the bone marrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons plutonium isn't very radioactive (as in - slightly, but not as much as you'd think) - which is why it has such a long halflife.
Some isotopes are more radioactive (and hence have shorter halflives), but you don't want these in a nuke as they cause premature detonation or a fizzle.
Given this is Hanford, the odds are good that the plutonium involved is the former type, not the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
Any amount ingested/inhaled is considered unsafe and the idea is to get it out before it's been in there so long. Then it's the cancer lottery - was there enough damage while it was in there for only a tiny chance or certain cancer?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Level of Exposure? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason is quite simple, alpha radiation has extremely poor penetration capability (2-3 layers of paper is enough to stop it, which is less than the layers of dead skin cells we have on top of our actual skin). As a result, external alpha sources are not very dangerous. But put that source inside the body, where it is past the dead skin that protects you, and suddenly, you have a cancer generator sitting right next to cells that it can reach.
Given that this was Hanford, it was most likely Pu-239 that we are dealing with, which has a half-life of 24,100 years. The only way it will exit the body once ingested or inhaled is if it manages to be coughed up (unlikely), or absorbed into the blood stream/lymphic system and manage to travel out as excrement without getting trapped in say the liver, kidneys, lymph nodes, or any of the other pathways within the body (at which point it will then most likely cause enough DNA damage to surrounding cells to create cancer).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think it would have been a good idea to find out the difference between a rad and a rem before you typed that all out?
Re: (Score:2)
No way man! Nuclear = EVIL! So anything he says will be okay!
Re: (Score:2)
The odds of cancer being generated from alpha emission is slim to almost nonexistent. The typical reaction of a cell hit by alphas is to _die_ and if it doesn't, it will probably be killed by its neighbours.
Polonium-as-a-poison works by exposing someone to high enough doses that large numbers of body cells are killed - it's straight out radiation poisoning, not cancer. That's a dose thousands, if not millions of times higher than the amounts found in a smoker's lungs.
Nuclear radiation doesn't guarantee canc
Re: (Score:2)
After 40 years that biological half-life would have removed > 24% of the Pu. Wouldn't be surprised if the life expectancy of the workers was at least 40 years. Losing a quarter of something isn't quite the same as keeping 'pretty much all of' it.
Re: (Score:2)
I did a calculation several years back based on environmental levels of Plutonium and it came out to a few million atoms of Pu are passed every time you go to the bathroom. It's all in the dosage. Essentially everybody is contaminated from the above ground nuclear bomb testing days.
Whole body scan is needed (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
These workers that have been identified as possibly exposed should have a "Whole body scan" that will be the gold standard. My prayers go out to them and their families.
One reactor that melted in Japan was being used for nuclear reduction - unenriched Uranium mixed with plutonium.
Re: (Score:2)
Not effective with internal alpha contamination. The radiation can't escape the body since alphas interact so strongly with matter and their energy is completely absorbed. At this point you need to do measurements of excreta. Hopefully it'll be at the undetectable levels.
Think of the down winders! (Score:2)
That would be me and three cities, Hanford is next door to us. Local Paper on event http://www.tri-cityherald.com/... [tri-cityherald.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get your water? One reason for the cleanup is that it started leaking into the water. (They may have caught this almost immediately, I read the story a few years ago, but that was what finally convinced them to do the cleanup.)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get your water? One reason for the cleanup is that it started leaking into the water. (They may have caught this almost immediately, I read the story a few years ago, but that was what finally convinced them to do the cleanup.)
The clean up is the closure of Hanford, water leaking may have accelerated the process. It's a very large "Production area". extrusion for fuel production, to the Reactors, to the Plutonium Finishing Plant. They have been at it for many years now and still good work (salary wise) if you can get it.
All of the decomissioned reactors were cleaned up and "moth balled" or buried as can be seen with Google Earth. They lined the river, the one with a steam plant and off to the side moved earth is where the reactor
"...Inhaled Radioactive Plutonium" (Score:2)
"Radioactive" Plutonium?
Is there any other kind?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Is there any other kind?"
Well, there's the Pu-36, that goes into the Explosive Space Modulator. When not inserted, it is quite harmless. It's got Electrolytes.
(This is a decades long joke by Seaborg, who nicknamed Plutonium "Pee U", from the Latin "Puteo", which means "It Stinks". He was expecting to be overruled, expecting "Pl" instead, since "Pt" was already taken by Platinum. However his original suggestion stuck. When it came to naming his own Element, Seaborgium, "S" was taken by Sulfur, "Se" was take
The industrial accident is tragic but ... (Score:4, Informative)
The point here is not about using nukes or not (the stuff exists and has to be dealt with), it's about the lying sacks of shit who hurt everyone by doing so - even their own cause.
Nuke fanboys, if you want to know why we don't have reactors everywhere it's due to these lying sacks of shit making it so an entire industry is not trusted and not the powerless hippies you keep blaming.
Could be worse (Score:2)
If you're going to get a dose, there are a lot worse ways it could happen. The only thing to watch is a whole lung exposure might be low but the pulmonary macrophage in your lungs concentrate the dose as they clean up the particulates.
I've been in those buildings and worked on that cleanup. Compared to some of the routine doses workers used to get in the old days that wasn't all that large. If you adjust the cancer rate for age, Hanford workers have a lower cancer rate than the broader population.
Re:Could be worse (Score:4, Funny)
No, no! This is an official Mdsolar Anti-Nuke Story(tm). You are not allowed to bring facts or data into the discussion. You are not allowed to mention hormesis. You must bow down before LNT. You must, like the doctors in the article, speak in vague generalities - "Well gosh, radiation is invisible and scary. Forget the data, anything at all could happen if you get some in your body!"
I've come to recognize that Nuclear Derangement Syndrome was a practice run. The symptoms are identical to the new trendy disease: Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Obvious solution! (Score:2)
Won't actually solve any problems; but should reduce the number of reports of problems.
Too bad. Still better than coal. (Score:2)
That's too bad. But even if those twelve people all die, it will be fewer than those that are killed by coal. According to one study, a single coal power plant kills more people in one week. And dying due to lung disease is a shitty way to go. Wikipedia on mortality associated with coal power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The government wouldn't lie... (Score:2)
Radioactive Plutonium?! (Score:2)
Radioactive Plutonium?!
You don't say!
Ever seen non-radioactive plutonium?
Re: (Score:1)
The margin of error at that sample size is larger than the difference you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't looked at Wikipedia's "Hanford Site" page, you are in for an education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
>
This started the concern of the reactors in this area, not so much the isotopes but the heat plumes.
"A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before its release into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotope
Re: (Score:2)
I think the grammar is meant to be like the phrase, "news about laptop manufacturer Lenovo"--it's a description, not a specifier.