6 ms·

Pretty lacking on specifics. What was the actual radiation level measured? I would assume these were not buckets of pure uranium, but of uranium ore that is nat

Pretty lacking on specifics. What was the actual radiation level measured? I would assume these were not buckets of pure uranium, but of uranium ore that is naturally all over the place in the West, and not terribly radioactive in its natural state.

_bxg1 8y ago
True, it was a little vague. They mentioned the measured levels after the bucket was removed, but not before.
- snazz 8y ago
  There is one quote that leads the reader to believe that the radiation was pretty strong: > at levels he calculated to be 1,400 times the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safe level for children. Note that it doesn’t mention the timeframe that the children would have to be exposed to the buckets to get that number. It mentions 30 minutes earlier, but it’s unclear whether 30 minutes was used to get the “1400 times” figure.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    Yeah, I've always found vague calculations of radiation exposure like this to be highly inaccurate, mostly because people can't into inverse square law and fuck up the units. I'll wait until the OSHA investigation to reveal more accurate information; my opinion is that it's the lifelong employees who hung around the area who should actually be worried, instead of some kid who went on a field trip there six years ago.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
* 800 mR/hr if you physically touched the rocks * 280-320 mR/hr if you physically touched the bucket(s) * 13.9 mR/hr if you were within 5 ft * 1.85 mR/hr inside the building more than 5 feet away. Also can be thought of as "0 mR/hr above background" * 2.02 mR/hr outside, in the park, on a bright sunny day. 2.02 is "background". i.e. the levels everyone is getting from natural sources outside. 13.9 mR/hr is 139 microsievert (µSv) per hour So, really its that being near the buckets was 139 µSv/hr. A child would get ~70 µSv in that half hour, in theory. If we believe Randall Munroe's (of xkcd fame) sourcing in https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/, then that means the kid got less than a round-trip flight from NY to LA sitting there for 30 minutes. "1400 times" sounds like one heck of a scare tactic. Not saying this was smart, but its overly alarmist. Numbers are from a picture I found. Scroll down a section on "Takeaways from the report" where it summarizes the exposure. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  You do get a lot more exposure if you’re working at the museum every day though.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Only if you spent hours within 5 feet of the bucket. (That's what the comparison with sunlight is aboot)
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      They are cumulative, if you walk around the museum every day you could easily rack up hours with 5 feet.
  - dmckeon 8y ago
    Note that the South Rim of GCNP is at 7,000 feet (2100m) elevation. Also, next week, Feb 26, GCNP is 100 years old.
    - mauvehaus 8y ago
      Note also that GCNP contains all kinds of radiation sources. I was there with my wife a year ago doing some backcountry hiking. We went in via Horseshoe Mesa. There are signs near the campground on Horseshoe Mesa warning you to stay out of areas where there was mining activity. We shoved on from there because our permit for the night was for further down rather than any concern about radiation. More titillating is the warning in the backcountry hiking guide for the Tonto Trail from the Bright Angel Trail to the Hermit Trail: "There is water in the bed of Horn Creek about half the time, but unfortunately it is radioactive so don't drink it unless death by thirst is the only other option. The source of the radioactivity is a deposit of high quality uranium contained within a collapsed cave system geologists call a breccia pipe." [0] [0] https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/campsite-information.htm https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/campsite-information....
trimbo 8y ago
From a screenshot at [1] * 800 mR/hr if you touched the ore * 280 mR/hr on the surface of the bucket (sealed) * "0 above background" if you were 5 ft away from the bucket * 2.5 mR/hr if you were touching the cabinet it was in [1] - https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...
- gotocake 8y ago
  Basically unless you were having a very prolonged and loving relationship with the bucket, you were exposed to nothing of consequence. That doesn’t excuse the morons who kept this stuff, and if a kid took a souvenir home or there had been a fire it could have been a lot worse. They may have also had unacceptable levels of radon. If I worked there I’d want to know more, but just as a visitor I’d shrug and get on with life. I’m wondering why they used R instead of Sv though. It’s a single source with a single quality factor, and were only concerned with the impact on humans.
  - sandwall 8y ago
    Roentgens are historical units of exposure, it's simply what a lot of older meters read. Roentgens can be assumed to safely equal RADs (although they don't, conversion is less than 1 for kV), the historical unit for "Radiation Absorbed Dose." For photons this would be equal to REM "Radiation Equivalent Man." All old units; conversion to S.I., 100 rad = 1 Gray (J/Kg), 100 rem = 1 Sievert. Essentially, who ever wrote the report was old and conservative. The occupational risk is also essentially nil. This is much ado about nada.
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      assuming inhalation if dust was not an issue..
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        5gal buckets are designed to be handled by all manner of people who don't have enough time to give a crap and still get to their destination without leaking. A properly sealed 5gal bucket will remain air tight even if it's bouncing around inside a tote in the bed of a truck on rural gravel roads for ~10mo (the tote flooded at some point but the bucket wound up dry). Sitting in a cabinet the risk of dust making it out of the bucket would have been nonexistent so long as the lid was on it.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>Stephenson said the containers were stored next to a taxidermy exhibit, where children on tours sometimes stopped for presentations, sitting next to uranium for 30 minutes or more. By his calculation, those children could have received radiation dosages in excess of federal safety standards within three seconds, and adults could have suffered dangerous exposure in less than a half-minute. >The Nuclear Regulatory Commission measures radiation contamination in millisieverts per hour or per year. According to Stephenson, close exposures to the uranium buckets could have exposed adults to 400 times the health limit — and children to 4,000 times what is considered safe. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2905358002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/02/18/grand-...

_bxg1 8y ago

True, it was a little vague. They mentioned the measured levels after the bucket was removed, but not before.

snazz 8y ago
There is one quote that leads the reader to believe that the radiation was pretty strong: > at levels he calculated to be 1,400 times the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safe level for children. Note that it doesn’t mention the timeframe that the children would have to be exposed to the buckets to get that number. It mentions 30 minutes earlier, but it’s unclear whether 30 minutes was used to get the “1400 times” figure.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  Yeah, I've always found vague calculations of radiation exposure like this to be highly inaccurate, mostly because people can't into inverse square law and fuck up the units. I'll wait until the OSHA investigation to reveal more accurate information; my opinion is that it's the lifelong employees who hung around the area who should actually be worried, instead of some kid who went on a field trip there six years ago.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

* 800 mR/hr if you physically touched the rocks * 280-320 mR/hr if you physically touched the bucket(s) * 13.9 mR/hr if you were within 5 ft * 1.85 mR/hr inside the building more than 5 feet away. Also can be thought of as "0 mR/hr above background" * 2.02 mR/hr outside, in the park, on a bright sunny day. 2.02 is "background". i.e. the levels everyone is getting from natural sources outside. 13.9 mR/hr is 139 microsievert (µSv) per hour So, really its that being near the buckets was 139 µSv/hr. A child would get ~70 µSv in that half hour, in theory. If we believe Randall Munroe's (of xkcd fame) sourcing in https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/, then that means the kid got less than a round-trip flight from NY to LA sitting there for 30 minutes. "1400 times" sounds like one heck of a scare tactic. Not saying this was smart, but its overly alarmist. Numbers are from a picture I found. Scroll down a section on "Takeaways from the report" where it summarizes the exposure. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...

tinus_hn 8y ago
You do get a lot more exposure if you’re working at the museum every day though.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Only if you spent hours within 5 feet of the bucket. (That's what the comparison with sunlight is aboot)
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    They are cumulative, if you walk around the museum every day you could easily rack up hours with 5 feet.
- dmckeon 8y ago
  Note that the South Rim of GCNP is at 7,000 feet (2100m) elevation. Also, next week, Feb 26, GCNP is 100 years old.
  - mauvehaus 8y ago
    Note also that GCNP contains all kinds of radiation sources. I was there with my wife a year ago doing some backcountry hiking. We went in via Horseshoe Mesa. There are signs near the campground on Horseshoe Mesa warning you to stay out of areas where there was mining activity. We shoved on from there because our permit for the night was for further down rather than any concern about radiation. More titillating is the warning in the backcountry hiking guide for the Tonto Trail from the Bright Angel Trail to the Hermit Trail: "There is water in the bed of Horn Creek about half the time, but unfortunately it is radioactive so don't drink it unless death by thirst is the only other option. The source of the radioactivity is a deposit of high quality uranium contained within a collapsed cave system geologists call a breccia pipe." [0] [0] https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/campsite-information.htm https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/campsite-information....

trimbo 8y ago

From a screenshot at [1] * 800 mR/hr if you touched the ore * 280 mR/hr on the surface of the bucket (sealed) * "0 above background" if you were 5 ft away from the bucket * 2.5 mR/hr if you were touching the cabinet it was in [1] - https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...

gotocake 8y ago
Basically unless you were having a very prolonged and loving relationship with the bucket, you were exposed to nothing of consequence. That doesn’t excuse the morons who kept this stuff, and if a kid took a souvenir home or there had been a fire it could have been a lot worse. They may have also had unacceptable levels of radon. If I worked there I’d want to know more, but just as a visitor I’d shrug and get on with life. I’m wondering why they used R instead of Sv though. It’s a single source with a single quality factor, and were only concerned with the impact on humans.
- sandwall 8y ago
  Roentgens are historical units of exposure, it's simply what a lot of older meters read. Roentgens can be assumed to safely equal RADs (although they don't, conversion is less than 1 for kV), the historical unit for "Radiation Absorbed Dose." For photons this would be equal to REM "Radiation Equivalent Man." All old units; conversion to S.I., 100 rad = 1 Gray (J/Kg), 100 rem = 1 Sievert. Essentially, who ever wrote the report was old and conservative. The occupational risk is also essentially nil. This is much ado about nada.
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    assuming inhalation if dust was not an issue..
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      5gal buckets are designed to be handled by all manner of people who don't have enough time to give a crap and still get to their destination without leaking. A properly sealed 5gal bucket will remain air tight even if it's bouncing around inside a tote in the bed of a truck on rural gravel roads for ~10mo (the tote flooded at some point but the bucket wound up dry). Sitting in a cabinet the risk of dust making it out of the bucket would have been nonexistent so long as the lid was on it.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

>Stephenson said the containers were stored next to a taxidermy exhibit, where children on tours sometimes stopped for presentations, sitting next to uranium for 30 minutes or more. By his calculation, those children could have received radiation dosages in excess of federal safety standards within three seconds, and adults could have suffered dangerous exposure in less than a half-minute. >The Nuclear Regulatory Commission measures radiation contamination in millisieverts per hour or per year. According to Stephenson, close exposures to the uranium buckets could have exposed adults to 400 times the health limit — and children to 4,000 times what is considered safe. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2905358002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/02/18/grand-...