4 ms·

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

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.

concordDance 4y ago
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?
- blululu 4y ago
  I’m not sure if this is a helpful comment. Yeah the dose matters. Do you have any numbers on the contamination levels of this site? Groundwater/soil contamination is notoriously hard to measure and the variance can be much bigger than the average. Given this history of government obfuscation around this issue, would you even trust their numbers? The concern is based on risk which needs to factor in more than the latest government estimate.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    It's a helpful comment if people reflexively go "there's radiation?! That's dangerous!", which they do in my experience. Reminders that things need quantification are often helpful to prevent people getting worked up over nothing or ignore important issues. Without knowledge of the numbers saying "There's radioactivity!" should just cause a shrug.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  True, and the amount of radiation left in thr Rocky Flatts area is dangerous, simple fact.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    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.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
      - concordDance 4y ago
        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.
- code_duck 4y ago
  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.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is. There's already a fair bit in our water.
    - code_duck 4y ago
      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 https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm
seventytwo 4y ago
Do you have evidence of this? I’ve looked into Rocky Flats specifically because I live in the area, and I can’t find any evidence that radiation levels are dangerous.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I was about to mention Rocky Flats. It’s very easy to find the published evidence. This is from the EPA and mentions what was not cleaned up (of course that says it is safe): https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0800360#Status https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fus... But I would not believe that’s full disclosure. The EPA has a vested interest in finalizing superfund cleanups successfully. As far as I know, there is no oversight or third party auditing.
  - defrost 4y ago
    You can always self audit or ask a friend ... the 2022 Technical Report (400 pages) linked from your link https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1985514.pdf https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1985514.pdf discusses the surface and groundwater monitoring of the downgradient plume samples and flowcharts the technical evaluation process without (that I saw on a cursory glance through) providing the raw data. You should be able to request the raw data (Government data, freedom of infomation, etc) and chase up what it means or ask around your nearest university | friend in radiology | medicine, etc. Not all 'radiation' is harmful, it has to be either ingested (and strong enough | toxic enough to cause health issues) or rise in concentration (outgassing of radon | other gases into enclosed basement spaces. Currently they are monitoring the traces in downstream groundwater and staing that radiological isotopes are present (as expected) but ever downgrading (as they do). Judgement of personal risk in that area should be made on the basis of degree of exposure to the area groundwater and its current state as time goes on.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      My issue with it is captured in this quote from the website candelisglows.com: "The area is an industrial nuclear waste site, not a nature preserve. If you want to learn about prairies and wildlife, there are plenty of other non-contaminated areas in Colorado to visit and learn." My opinion is that they are intentionally deceiving the unwitting public when they call a place like this a nature preserve and put trails on it. If it was called so and so former nuclear waste site people would make the decision to hike elsewhere. Just call it what it is, fence it off from the public, and move on. Same with the neighborhood.
dmwood 4y ago
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 about 25 milliSieverts. Scope out rockyflatsneighbors.org for actual reliable Rocky Flats data. Former Rocky Flats workers contributed more than any other non-Soviet group to knowledge of biological effects of Pu on humans.
- gdmt 4y ago
  A chest X ray is about 0.1 mSv.
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    A chest X ray doesn't get inhaled, to provide a constant 0.1 mSv internally for the next 15 years or up to 24,000 years.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > or up to 24,000 years. On the one hand, it's a lot of radiation, but on the other hand, that's a very long time to live. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      That's smaller than the difference between nearby towns far from nuclear power plants. Its not something even worth the mental space to think about when deciding where to move to. A very slightly worse school will likely have a much bigger effect on your kids life expectancy.
  - dmwood 4y ago
    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-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-jan-2018.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ioni...
arethuza 4y ago
A good book about the history of Rocky Flats: https://unmpress.com/books/making-real-killing/9780826327987 https://unmpress.com/books/making-real-killing/9780826327987
code_duck 4y ago
It's similar. There are many sites around the country that contributed to nuclear weapons development back then and have been left with pollution problems. Hanford, for instance, up the river from Portland, is a fair bit of a disaster.

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.

concordDance 4y ago

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?

blululu 4y ago
I’m not sure if this is a helpful comment. Yeah the dose matters. Do you have any numbers on the contamination levels of this site? Groundwater/soil contamination is notoriously hard to measure and the variance can be much bigger than the average. Given this history of government obfuscation around this issue, would you even trust their numbers? The concern is based on risk which needs to factor in more than the latest government estimate.
- concordDance 4y ago
  It's a helpful comment if people reflexively go "there's radiation?! That's dangerous!", which they do in my experience. Reminders that things need quantification are often helpful to prevent people getting worked up over nothing or ignore important issues. Without knowledge of the numbers saying "There's radioactivity!" should just cause a shrug.
iancmceachern 4y ago
True, and the amount of radiation left in thr Rocky Flatts area is dangerous, simple fact.
- concordDance 4y ago
  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.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
    - concordDance 4y ago
      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.
code_duck 4y ago
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.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is. There's already a fair bit in our water.
  - code_duck 4y ago
    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 https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm

seventytwo 4y ago

Do you have evidence of this? I’ve looked into Rocky Flats specifically because I live in the area, and I can’t find any evidence that radiation levels are dangerous.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
I was about to mention Rocky Flats. It’s very easy to find the published evidence. This is from the EPA and mentions what was not cleaned up (of course that says it is safe): https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0800360#Status https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fus... But I would not believe that’s full disclosure. The EPA has a vested interest in finalizing superfund cleanups successfully. As far as I know, there is no oversight or third party auditing.
- defrost 4y ago
  You can always self audit or ask a friend ... the 2022 Technical Report (400 pages) linked from your link https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1985514.pdf https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1985514.pdf discusses the surface and groundwater monitoring of the downgradient plume samples and flowcharts the technical evaluation process without (that I saw on a cursory glance through) providing the raw data. You should be able to request the raw data (Government data, freedom of infomation, etc) and chase up what it means or ask around your nearest university | friend in radiology | medicine, etc. Not all 'radiation' is harmful, it has to be either ingested (and strong enough | toxic enough to cause health issues) or rise in concentration (outgassing of radon | other gases into enclosed basement spaces. Currently they are monitoring the traces in downstream groundwater and staing that radiological isotopes are present (as expected) but ever downgrading (as they do). Judgement of personal risk in that area should be made on the basis of degree of exposure to the area groundwater and its current state as time goes on.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    My issue with it is captured in this quote from the website candelisglows.com: "The area is an industrial nuclear waste site, not a nature preserve. If you want to learn about prairies and wildlife, there are plenty of other non-contaminated areas in Colorado to visit and learn." My opinion is that they are intentionally deceiving the unwitting public when they call a place like this a nature preserve and put trails on it. If it was called so and so former nuclear waste site people would make the decision to hike elsewhere. Just call it what it is, fence it off from the public, and move on. Same with the neighborhood.

dmwood 4y ago

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 about 25 milliSieverts. Scope out rockyflatsneighbors.org for actual reliable Rocky Flats data. Former Rocky Flats workers contributed more than any other non-Soviet group to knowledge of biological effects of Pu on humans.

gdmt 4y ago
A chest X ray is about 0.1 mSv.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  A chest X ray doesn't get inhaled, to provide a constant 0.1 mSv internally for the next 15 years or up to 24,000 years.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > or up to 24,000 years. On the one hand, it's a lot of radiation, but on the other hand, that's a very long time to live. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    That's smaller than the difference between nearby towns far from nuclear power plants. Its not something even worth the mental space to think about when deciding where to move to. A very slightly worse school will likely have a much bigger effect on your kids life expectancy.
- dmwood 4y ago
  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-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-jan-2018.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ioni...

arethuza 4y ago

A good book about the history of Rocky Flats: https://unmpress.com/books/making-real-killing/9780826327987 https://unmpress.com/books/making-real-killing/9780826327987

code_duck 4y ago

It's similar. There are many sites around the country that contributed to nuclear weapons development back then and have been left with pollution problems. Hanford, for instance, up the river from Portland, is a fair bit of a disaster.