4 ms·

- "This particular example came from a 55 gallon drum of tape dispensers that the U.S. Army was about to dispose of as radioactive waste." This is a common bea

- "This particular example came from a 55 gallon drum of tape dispensers that the U.S. Army was about to dispose of as radioactive waste." This is a common beach sand [0]. It illustrates something absurd, I can't quite put my finger on what, about the relation between human society and technology. No one knows anything about the physical or chemical properties of sand on the beach. No one asks; no one cares. There are no EPA surveys of beach radioactivity. No beach signs warning beachgoers "do not eat the sand", or, "this beach is known to the state of California to cause cancer". But you take one handful of the beach into a plastic box, and accidentally walk it past the wrong regulatory compliance officer, and suddenly the US Army is burying your one-handful-of-beach-sand in a 55-gallon drum packed in bentonite. It's one lens for nature, and one lens for the anthropogenic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite

SpaceFarmer 2y ago
I know what you mean! I found a random field like 20 miles from my house where the radioactivity was like 100x normal due to Thorium in the dirt. How many spots like that have a house built over them and no one knows? Here is my webpage with a video of the field visit. https://hunterwlong.com/mapping-radiation-with-a-raspberry-pi-gps-scintillation-detector/ https://hunterwlong.com/mapping-radiation-with-a-raspberry-p...
somat 2y ago
Now I am curious why 3M was using monazite specifically as a tape dispenser ballast. So it is sand encased in resin. My initial thought was it is heavier(denser) than plain silica sand, And while it probably is, It feels weird that 3m specifically searched it out to use for that reason alone, I bet they had quite a bit of the stuff on hand for other products, and so might as well use the waste as a tape dispenser ballast. A tangent on heavy rock ballast, I once saw a documentary on an offshore oil platform, and it was towed to the site, sunk and then filled with rocks to anchor it. the rocks used were specifically iron ore as that is significantly denser than most rocks.
- fasa99 2y ago
  Like spider man they hope a random office blob from sector 7G will get a papercut from the radioactive office supply, only for the radiation to transform him into... .. RED TAPE MAN! He swings from office building to office building shooting duct tape from his wrists, fighting tax cheats and completing tax returns along the way
jeffbee 2y ago
They're doing a radiological survey of the waterfront in Alameda county because twentieth century humans accidentally depleted it of non-radioactive material, enriched it, in other words. They already identified a small area that's dangerously active.
gnfargbl 2y ago
I wonder if the phenomenon you're describing is the subtle and often hidden complexity of science, and our inability as humans to recognise and handle that complexity appropriately. In this case, we have the US Army's procedure for disposing of low-level radioactive waste. That process probably says something like "if a thing has been identified as more radioactive than THRESHOLD, then dispose of as radioactive waste." Could the process be expanded to cover cases where the radioactivity is naturally occurring? Probably, but who would then take on the liability if there were any? I'm not sure. What about a case like this, where a naturally occurring radioactive source has been transformed into some piece of equipment that nobody would reasonably expect to be radioactive. Does that need special handling, or not? If so, who is responsible -- the US Army? The manufacturer? The US EPA, even? It all gets quite complicated, and as complexity increases the risk of a procedure not being applied consistently, or at all, rises quickly. To keep the collective human machine functional, we need to ignore the complexity, and have every radioactive thing be disposed of in the same way. There are many instances of humans handling scientific complexity badly and coming to poor decisions as a result. A well-known one is declining nuclear fission power stations in favour of coal power stations and subsequently releasing more radioactivity into the environment than the nuclear power stations would ever have done. I'm sure there are hundreds more.
- xattt 2y ago
  I visited a friend in Elliot Lake once and we stopped at a plaque on the side of the highway to read. A geologist friend came along, and he recognized the formation of the rocks under our feet as uranium-bearing. I had brought my Geiger counter along, and sure enough, these were hot too. As you mention: no warning signs, no caution tape. Being close enough to that in any “anthropoid” setting would require, at the very least, a dosimetry badge. I can live within that cognitive dissonance, but it’s just an interesting observation.
  - jjkaczor 2y ago
    In vast sections of Ontario, Ohio, Michigan, Quebec (and probably many other areas) anyone with a basement has to monitor for radon gas - it's just a normal part of the environment overall because of the geological makeup. If you can keep a window or two open - it's not so bad - we use an smart bluetooth-connected monitor that I check daily - CO2 seems to be more of a problem than the radon.
snakeyjake 2y ago
Monazite isn't common. Well, it's somewhat common but not on beaches. Beach sand is mostly quartz. Beach sand may or may not be radioactive, but California only requires Prop 65 warnings on things for sale. The beach isn't for sale. Sand that is sold in the state of California does come with the warning that it is a carcinogen because regular old silicon dioxide is a carcinogen: https://mcdn.martinmarietta.com/assets/safety-data-sheets/natural-sand-sds-june-2018.pdf https://mcdn.martinmarietta.com/assets/safety-data-sheets/na... With all things the dose makes the poison, so even if you are a beach bum you're ok but if you are an industrial worker exposed to concentrated amount of silica dust on a daily basis, you should really be informed that it is a carcinogen (among other things) and be equipped with PPE.
- perihelions 2y ago
  I'm not a geologist; did I misunderstand the Wikipedia entry I linked? It says - "Because of their high density, monazite minerals concentrate in alluvial sands when released by the weathering of pegmatites. These so-called placer deposits are often beach or fossil beach sands..." And I found two specific examples of notably radioactive monazite beaches—an 800 km stretch of Brazil's coast [0], and 55 km stretch of India's coast [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari#Radioactivity [1] https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/No-major-birth-defects-found-in-high-level-natural-radiation-areas-of-Kerala/article12543736.ece https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/No-major-birth-defects-fou...
  - welder 2y ago
    Depends on the beach. Brasil has more than others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHHUGwFoJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHHUGwFoJE
  - snakeyjake 2y ago
    Those locations, with their high concentrations ("high" being "greater than 0.01%-ish") of heavy metals, of which mazanite is but one of many, are the rare exception. The IAEA report on Guarapari specifically says "it's weirdly high, brah": >The exposure level due to monazite sand radiation in Areia Preta beach, Guarapari, is high. The activity concentration of 232Th in Areia Preta is higher than others beaches in world studied. The values of the absorbed dose rate in air and outdoor annual effective dose rate in Areia Preta beach are higher than the world averages due the content of 232Th. Areia Preta is also has higher background found in beaches in world. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/046/43046452.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
sandworm101 2y ago
>> here are no EPA surveys of beach radioactivity. No beach signs warning beachgoers "do not eat the sand", Perhaps there should be. The idea that the natural world is somehow safe has roots in mythology, that some creator has designed the world for us and so any "untouched" wilderness is unpolluted and free of invisible pollutions. Maybe there are beaches with dangerous levels of radiation. I am open to the concept that there exists natural places nevertheless radioactive enough to justify warnings. We certainly issue warnings for other unseen natural hazards.
- zh3 2y ago
  A while ago now, the Oklo nuclear reactor ran - according to wikipedia [0] - for a few hundred thousand years albeit only with power levels averaging less than 100 kilowatts. It was discovered because there was a discrepancy in the amount of uranium expected from a mine and the amount they actually got. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...
1970-01-01 2y ago
>No one knows anything about the physical or chemical properties of sand on the beach. No one asks; no one cares. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22026436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22026436

SpaceFarmer 2y ago

I know what you mean! I found a random field like 20 miles from my house where the radioactivity was like 100x normal due to Thorium in the dirt. How many spots like that have a house built over them and no one knows? Here is my webpage with a video of the field visit. https://hunterwlong.com/mapping-radiation-with-a-raspberry-pi-gps-scintillation-detector/ https://hunterwlong.com/mapping-radiation-with-a-raspberry-p...

somat 2y ago

Now I am curious why 3M was using monazite specifically as a tape dispenser ballast. So it is sand encased in resin. My initial thought was it is heavier(denser) than plain silica sand, And while it probably is, It feels weird that 3m specifically searched it out to use for that reason alone, I bet they had quite a bit of the stuff on hand for other products, and so might as well use the waste as a tape dispenser ballast. A tangent on heavy rock ballast, I once saw a documentary on an offshore oil platform, and it was towed to the site, sunk and then filled with rocks to anchor it. the rocks used were specifically iron ore as that is significantly denser than most rocks.

fasa99 2y ago
Like spider man they hope a random office blob from sector 7G will get a papercut from the radioactive office supply, only for the radiation to transform him into... .. RED TAPE MAN! He swings from office building to office building shooting duct tape from his wrists, fighting tax cheats and completing tax returns along the way

jeffbee 2y ago

They're doing a radiological survey of the waterfront in Alameda county because twentieth century humans accidentally depleted it of non-radioactive material, enriched it, in other words. They already identified a small area that's dangerously active.

gnfargbl 2y ago

I wonder if the phenomenon you're describing is the subtle and often hidden complexity of science, and our inability as humans to recognise and handle that complexity appropriately. In this case, we have the US Army's procedure for disposing of low-level radioactive waste. That process probably says something like "if a thing has been identified as more radioactive than THRESHOLD, then dispose of as radioactive waste." Could the process be expanded to cover cases where the radioactivity is naturally occurring? Probably, but who would then take on the liability if there were any? I'm not sure. What about a case like this, where a naturally occurring radioactive source has been transformed into some piece of equipment that nobody would reasonably expect to be radioactive. Does that need special handling, or not? If so, who is responsible -- the US Army? The manufacturer? The US EPA, even? It all gets quite complicated, and as complexity increases the risk of a procedure not being applied consistently, or at all, rises quickly. To keep the collective human machine functional, we need to ignore the complexity, and have every radioactive thing be disposed of in the same way. There are many instances of humans handling scientific complexity badly and coming to poor decisions as a result. A well-known one is declining nuclear fission power stations in favour of coal power stations and subsequently releasing more radioactivity into the environment than the nuclear power stations would ever have done. I'm sure there are hundreds more.

xattt 2y ago
I visited a friend in Elliot Lake once and we stopped at a plaque on the side of the highway to read. A geologist friend came along, and he recognized the formation of the rocks under our feet as uranium-bearing. I had brought my Geiger counter along, and sure enough, these were hot too. As you mention: no warning signs, no caution tape. Being close enough to that in any “anthropoid” setting would require, at the very least, a dosimetry badge. I can live within that cognitive dissonance, but it’s just an interesting observation.
- jjkaczor 2y ago
  In vast sections of Ontario, Ohio, Michigan, Quebec (and probably many other areas) anyone with a basement has to monitor for radon gas - it's just a normal part of the environment overall because of the geological makeup. If you can keep a window or two open - it's not so bad - we use an smart bluetooth-connected monitor that I check daily - CO2 seems to be more of a problem than the radon.

snakeyjake 2y ago

Monazite isn't common. Well, it's somewhat common but not on beaches. Beach sand is mostly quartz. Beach sand may or may not be radioactive, but California only requires Prop 65 warnings on things for sale. The beach isn't for sale. Sand that is sold in the state of California does come with the warning that it is a carcinogen because regular old silicon dioxide is a carcinogen: https://mcdn.martinmarietta.com/assets/safety-data-sheets/natural-sand-sds-june-2018.pdf https://mcdn.martinmarietta.com/assets/safety-data-sheets/na... With all things the dose makes the poison, so even if you are a beach bum you're ok but if you are an industrial worker exposed to concentrated amount of silica dust on a daily basis, you should really be informed that it is a carcinogen (among other things) and be equipped with PPE.

perihelions 2y ago
I'm not a geologist; did I misunderstand the Wikipedia entry I linked? It says - "Because of their high density, monazite minerals concentrate in alluvial sands when released by the weathering of pegmatites. These so-called placer deposits are often beach or fossil beach sands..." And I found two specific examples of notably radioactive monazite beaches—an 800 km stretch of Brazil's coast [0], and 55 km stretch of India's coast [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari#Radioactivity [1] https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/No-major-birth-defects-found-in-high-level-natural-radiation-areas-of-Kerala/article12543736.ece https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/No-major-birth-defects-fou...
- welder 2y ago
  Depends on the beach. Brasil has more than others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHHUGwFoJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHHUGwFoJE
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  Those locations, with their high concentrations ("high" being "greater than 0.01%-ish") of heavy metals, of which mazanite is but one of many, are the rare exception. The IAEA report on Guarapari specifically says "it's weirdly high, brah": >The exposure level due to monazite sand radiation in Areia Preta beach, Guarapari, is high. The activity concentration of 232Th in Areia Preta is higher than others beaches in world studied. The values of the absorbed dose rate in air and outdoor annual effective dose rate in Areia Preta beach are higher than the world averages due the content of 232Th. Areia Preta is also has higher background found in beaches in world. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/046/43046452.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

sandworm101 2y ago

>> here are no EPA surveys of beach radioactivity. No beach signs warning beachgoers "do not eat the sand", Perhaps there should be. The idea that the natural world is somehow safe has roots in mythology, that some creator has designed the world for us and so any "untouched" wilderness is unpolluted and free of invisible pollutions. Maybe there are beaches with dangerous levels of radiation. I am open to the concept that there exists natural places nevertheless radioactive enough to justify warnings. We certainly issue warnings for other unseen natural hazards.

zh3 2y ago
A while ago now, the Oklo nuclear reactor ran - according to wikipedia [0] - for a few hundred thousand years albeit only with power levels averaging less than 100 kilowatts. It was discovered because there was a discrepancy in the amount of uranium expected from a mine and the amount they actually got. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...

1970-01-01 2y ago

>No one knows anything about the physical or chemical properties of sand on the beach. No one asks; no one cares. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22026436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22026436