4 ms·

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 dang

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.
    - defrost 4y ago
      Call it what it is, sure .. but why "fence it off"? The surface layers down for a few feet are highly unlikely to have any waste (assuming the US can do a rehab properly) and the actual radiation risk is likely to be far far less than hiking in totally "natural" granite ridges where radon gases pool daily until breezes clear them out.
      - iancmceachern 4y ago
        Why not? Why do we need people going there? There is so much empty space in Colorado, just go anywhere else.
        defrost 4y ago
        Your criteria for fencing an area off appears to based upon radiation hazard. I take it then you are also in favour of fencing off all the red areas in the USofA radon risk map also? It would seem to be inconsistent if you were not in favour. https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon-map.html https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon...
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        This comment is Reductio ad absurdum. My point is that we had a fenced off area where they did a bunch of bad stuff, leaked open containers of radioactive waste were left open and leaking for decades. We then went in, removed the top 3 feet of soil and replaced it with fill, and then removed the fences put trails all around and signs and advertising to call it a nature preserve. I argue that every action after and including the removal of the fencing wasn't value add to our society as a whole and shouldn't have been done. Clean it up, leave it fenced off and leave it called what it is, a nuclear waste dump that was partially cleaned up.
iancmceachern 4y ago
This is a place to start: https://candelasglows.com/ https://candelasglows.com/

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.
  - defrost 4y ago
    Call it what it is, sure .. but why "fence it off"? The surface layers down for a few feet are highly unlikely to have any waste (assuming the US can do a rehab properly) and the actual radiation risk is likely to be far far less than hiking in totally "natural" granite ridges where radon gases pool daily until breezes clear them out.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      Why not? Why do we need people going there? There is so much empty space in Colorado, just go anywhere else.
      - defrost 4y ago
        Your criteria for fencing an area off appears to based upon radiation hazard. I take it then you are also in favour of fencing off all the red areas in the USofA radon risk map also? It would seem to be inconsistent if you were not in favour. https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon-map.html https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon...
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        This comment is Reductio ad absurdum. My point is that we had a fenced off area where they did a bunch of bad stuff, leaked open containers of radioactive waste were left open and leaking for decades. We then went in, removed the top 3 feet of soil and replaced it with fill, and then removed the fences put trails all around and signs and advertising to call it a nature preserve. I argue that every action after and including the removal of the fencing wasn't value add to our society as a whole and shouldn't have been done. Clean it up, leave it fenced off and leave it called what it is, a nuclear waste dump that was partially cleaned up.

iancmceachern 4y ago

This is a place to start: https://candelasglows.com/ https://candelasglows.com/