2 ms·

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 wan

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.

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.