5 ms·

And now they've buried this information and are building thousands of homes there. Literally thousands of families live on radioactive ground. I know because

And now they've buried this information and are building thousands of homes there. Literally thousands of families live on radioactive ground. I know because we almost bought one. https://candelasglows.com https://candelasglows.com

iancmceachern 9y ago
This (rocky flats) is the only case where on federal agency (FBI) raided another (DOE). It's a fascinating and terrifying story. Many of the employees who worked there died terrible drawn out deaths from radiation exposure during their jobs without any support. They just had 50 gallon oil drums of radioactive waste sitting in the open to the elements with visible rust holes in them for decades. They had multiple plutonium fires due to the buildup of plutonium dust in the air handling systems of the glove boxes which were supposed to contain it. They had manual machinists manually operating machine tools, mills and lathes, located within glove boxes to make the parts for the triggers. Also, on the less scary side they developed amazing ultra high speed film cameras to record the trigger explosions.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Which is a good story to tell all those techno-naive who go on about the safety of modern nuclear reactors and such (it's always past designs that are at fault)... When there's money to be made by cheapening out (on construction, safety, disposal, testing, quality of employees, etc), whether the risk to others (and sometimes even to self), some people will cheapen out. Add human error to that, and it's better if the whole thing happens to some old-style electricity factory, and not to one whose waste needs safe storage for decades, and an accident can kill hundreds of thousands.
  - wbl 9y ago
    I've got bad news for you about coal ash.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      If anything, that would be an argument against using coat factories too -- not an argument in favor of nuclear factories. That said, the whole comparison that makes it as coal factories produce "more radioactive" waste, is based on comparing with "normal" nuclear factory emissions, under their 'theoretical' operation. Not the total long term potential, when one includes catastrophes, breakdowns, lousy waste containment and disposal, or the mafia just throwing it in the sea in the calculation.
      - monocasa 9y ago
        I mean, the coal ash calculations are "normal" numbers as well.
        coldtea 9y ago
        Yes, but there are not much "abnormal" situations that can happen with those plants...
        monocasa 9y ago
        You mean other than the fairliy regular coal ash spills?
        freeone3000 9y ago
        The normal operations kill more than the abnormal situations. That doesn't make it better.
      - justinpombrio 9y ago
        > That said, the whole comparison that makes it as coal factories produce "more radioactive" waste The important thing to look at isn't what power source produces the "most radioactive" waste, it's the actual death tolls per KWh of different power sources. And coal is about 1000 times worse, both worldwide and in the US, _counting_ Chernobyl and Fukushima. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1ed1bc13709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
themodelplumber 9y ago
I'm largely ignorant of how this all works but what about somebody just going door to door with a Geiger counter to spread some awareness?
- monocasa 9y ago
  IMO, it's a complicated enough issue that typical citizen action would probably not be helpful. What we should have is other full investigations by qualified neutral third parties at regular intervals rather than the CDPHE's 'mission accomplished, everything's fine' review we had most recently. I wouldn't want people who don't really know how to account for normal environmental background radiation muddying the waters and providing a counter argument of "well, the only people complaining weren't qualified to make that judgement".
- iancmceachern 9y ago
  I can't remember where I read it, but someone tested the top soil just on the side of the road on Indiana and it was radioactive. Just dirt on the side of the road.
  - iancmceachern 9y ago
    Here it is: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-05-01.html http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-05-01.html
- JPKab 9y ago
  The problem with that approach is that the ground isn't radioactive at all, and the commenter fell for disinformation on a local antinucleaer hippy website. The houses were built upwind and uphill from the site, and the EPA, state, and local governments have all hired independent third parties to test for contamination. There is none. The area is now a wildlife refuge, and there is no trace of health effects in animals in the area. I bought a home there after investigating the data myself for over a year. I have a wife and two kids, and would never put them at risk. The amount of radiation Colorado residents are exposed to from the sun and ground minerals dwarfs anything from Rocky Flats. There is zero data to back up the hippy claims. I work with data for a living, and have actually found cancer clusters in the US around refineries and chemical plants. Tldr: a Geiger counter will show nothing here.
StreamBright 9y ago
Is this really close to Boulder? What about contamination of water?
- monocasa 9y ago
  It's on 93 about two thirds of the way to Golden.
- iancmceachern 9y ago
  The FBI agent that first did the investigation found out about it by hiring a private plane and was able to "see" the radiation in Stanley lake right there with an ir camera. I suspect that is why swimming is still not allowed in that lake. Also there are lots if cases of aweful cancer in the families that lived in the area and had well water, lots.
JPKab 9y ago
I bought a home in Candelas knowing all about the rocky flats incident. While the home builders are certainly not forthcoming on details of the incident, the site you linked to is packed with scientific inaccuracies and fear mongering. I personally know workers who performed the cleanup, and also have reviewed health data which shows zero increase in cancer in the entire area for the 30 years since the last incident. People like you are why I moved here. The houses are cheaper because of the reduced demand than they otherwise would be. I'm on a phone, but later I will post a thorough debunking of the candelas glows site. People who don't understand the difference between alpha and beta particles, not plutonium vs uranium vs strontium have no business writing this stuff. It gives actual environmental contamination awareness campaigns a bad name.
- iancmceachern 9y ago
  Regardless of the specifics, people buying homes and living there should know the details. I don't own or run that site, but people should know the history of that area. It's a simple fact that groundwater and air contamination with radioactive substances occurred there. As you say, it's far more complicated than is or isn't. For me the risk and severity of the consequenced seemed to far outweigh saving some money. The wiki article has some more background : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
- monocasa 9y ago
  I've worked with the CDPHE a few times, and given my experience don't really trust their assessment.

iancmceachern 9y ago

This (rocky flats) is the only case where on federal agency (FBI) raided another (DOE). It's a fascinating and terrifying story. Many of the employees who worked there died terrible drawn out deaths from radiation exposure during their jobs without any support. They just had 50 gallon oil drums of radioactive waste sitting in the open to the elements with visible rust holes in them for decades. They had multiple plutonium fires due to the buildup of plutonium dust in the air handling systems of the glove boxes which were supposed to contain it. They had manual machinists manually operating machine tools, mills and lathes, located within glove boxes to make the parts for the triggers. Also, on the less scary side they developed amazing ultra high speed film cameras to record the trigger explosions.

coldtea 9y ago
Which is a good story to tell all those techno-naive who go on about the safety of modern nuclear reactors and such (it's always past designs that are at fault)... When there's money to be made by cheapening out (on construction, safety, disposal, testing, quality of employees, etc), whether the risk to others (and sometimes even to self), some people will cheapen out. Add human error to that, and it's better if the whole thing happens to some old-style electricity factory, and not to one whose waste needs safe storage for decades, and an accident can kill hundreds of thousands.
- wbl 9y ago
  I've got bad news for you about coal ash.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    If anything, that would be an argument against using coat factories too -- not an argument in favor of nuclear factories. That said, the whole comparison that makes it as coal factories produce "more radioactive" waste, is based on comparing with "normal" nuclear factory emissions, under their 'theoretical' operation. Not the total long term potential, when one includes catastrophes, breakdowns, lousy waste containment and disposal, or the mafia just throwing it in the sea in the calculation.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      I mean, the coal ash calculations are "normal" numbers as well.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Yes, but there are not much "abnormal" situations that can happen with those plants...
        monocasa 9y ago
        You mean other than the fairliy regular coal ash spills?
        freeone3000 9y ago
        The normal operations kill more than the abnormal situations. That doesn't make it better.
    - justinpombrio 9y ago
      > That said, the whole comparison that makes it as coal factories produce "more radioactive" waste The important thing to look at isn't what power source produces the "most radioactive" waste, it's the actual death tolls per KWh of different power sources. And coal is about 1000 times worse, both worldwide and in the US, _counting_ Chernobyl and Fukushima. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1ed1bc13709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

themodelplumber 9y ago

I'm largely ignorant of how this all works but what about somebody just going door to door with a Geiger counter to spread some awareness?

monocasa 9y ago
IMO, it's a complicated enough issue that typical citizen action would probably not be helpful. What we should have is other full investigations by qualified neutral third parties at regular intervals rather than the CDPHE's 'mission accomplished, everything's fine' review we had most recently. I wouldn't want people who don't really know how to account for normal environmental background radiation muddying the waters and providing a counter argument of "well, the only people complaining weren't qualified to make that judgement".
iancmceachern 9y ago
I can't remember where I read it, but someone tested the top soil just on the side of the road on Indiana and it was radioactive. Just dirt on the side of the road.
- iancmceachern 9y ago
  Here it is: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-05-01.html http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-05-01.html
JPKab 9y ago
The problem with that approach is that the ground isn't radioactive at all, and the commenter fell for disinformation on a local antinucleaer hippy website. The houses were built upwind and uphill from the site, and the EPA, state, and local governments have all hired independent third parties to test for contamination. There is none. The area is now a wildlife refuge, and there is no trace of health effects in animals in the area. I bought a home there after investigating the data myself for over a year. I have a wife and two kids, and would never put them at risk. The amount of radiation Colorado residents are exposed to from the sun and ground minerals dwarfs anything from Rocky Flats. There is zero data to back up the hippy claims. I work with data for a living, and have actually found cancer clusters in the US around refineries and chemical plants. Tldr: a Geiger counter will show nothing here.

StreamBright 9y ago

Is this really close to Boulder? What about contamination of water?

monocasa 9y ago
It's on 93 about two thirds of the way to Golden.
iancmceachern 9y ago
The FBI agent that first did the investigation found out about it by hiring a private plane and was able to "see" the radiation in Stanley lake right there with an ir camera. I suspect that is why swimming is still not allowed in that lake. Also there are lots if cases of aweful cancer in the families that lived in the area and had well water, lots.

JPKab 9y ago

I bought a home in Candelas knowing all about the rocky flats incident. While the home builders are certainly not forthcoming on details of the incident, the site you linked to is packed with scientific inaccuracies and fear mongering. I personally know workers who performed the cleanup, and also have reviewed health data which shows zero increase in cancer in the entire area for the 30 years since the last incident. People like you are why I moved here. The houses are cheaper because of the reduced demand than they otherwise would be. I'm on a phone, but later I will post a thorough debunking of the candelas glows site. People who don't understand the difference between alpha and beta particles, not plutonium vs uranium vs strontium have no business writing this stuff. It gives actual environmental contamination awareness campaigns a bad name.

iancmceachern 9y ago
Regardless of the specifics, people buying homes and living there should know the details. I don't own or run that site, but people should know the history of that area. It's a simple fact that groundwater and air contamination with radioactive substances occurred there. As you say, it's far more complicated than is or isn't. For me the risk and severity of the consequenced seemed to far outweigh saving some money. The wiki article has some more background : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
monocasa 9y ago
I've worked with the CDPHE a few times, and given my experience don't really trust their assessment.