PDA

View Full Version : The Nation's Newest National Park ...


finnbow
12-21-2015, 02:38 PM
... includes the "nation’s most polluted nuclear weapons production site," the Hanford Reservation...The Manhattan Project National Historic Park, signed into existence in November, also includes sites at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Manhattan Project is the name for the U.S. effort to build an atomic bomb during World War II.

Having been to all three of these places more times than I can count, I can say that I won't go once more even though they're national parks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/polluted-nuclear-weapons-site-to-become-tourist-destination/2015/12/20/5f45e50c-a730-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html

Boreas
12-21-2015, 02:47 PM
So, what do they have against Rocky Flats? ;)

Los Alamos might be interesting because of the history and the individuals, including Soviet spies, who worked there. Plus, because of the nature and amount of the work that actually occurred there, it's probably not as "hot" as Hanford and Oak Ridge. Plus, the area around Los Alamos is beautiful.

finnbow
12-21-2015, 03:00 PM
So, what do they have against Rocky Flats? ;)

Los Alamos might be interesting because of the history and the individuals, including Soviet spies, who worked there. Plus, because of the nature and amount of the work that actually occurred there, it's probably not as "hot" as Hanford and Oak Ridge. Plus, the area around Los Alamos is beautiful.

Rocky Flats has been a wildlife refuge for ~15 years. The area around Los Alamos is indeed very beautiful (my brother is a researcher at the Lab and he and his family have lived there for over 20 years). It's sometimes called "the ugliest town in the prettiest place in the country."

All of the sites have some badly contaminated facilities at various stages of cleanup (as do Savannah River, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and others). The scale and complexity of some of the cleanup projects (Hanford's Tank Farms, Oak Ridge K-25) is almost impossible to conceive.

merrylander
12-21-2015, 03:03 PM
They allegedly cleaned up Mound where Florence worked but she said the same thing - that she would not go near the place. I have read the (no longer restricted) report on the clean-up. Monsanto was known as the operator of the nation's dirtiest nuclear lab.

finnbow
12-21-2015, 04:16 PM
They allegedly cleaned uo Mound wher Florence worked but she said the same thing - that she would not go near the place. I have read the (no longer restricted) report on the clean-up. Monsanto was known as the operator of the nation's dirtiest nuclear lab.

They were all dirty, but Rocky Flats takes the cake for having been raided by the FBI and EPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant#Investigation_by_FBI_and_EPA).:e ek:

merrylander
12-22-2015, 05:37 AM
They were all dirty, but Rocky Flats takes the cake for having been raided by the FBI and EPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant#Investigation_by_FBI_and_EPA).:e ek:

So why has EEOIC refused so many claims?:confused:

finnbow
12-22-2015, 07:21 AM
So why has EEOIC refused so many claims?:confused:

Because causation of cancers that manifest themselves today is difficult to attribute exclusively to work within the Defense Nuclear Complex decades ago (i.e., lots of people get cancer who never set foot in a Defense Nuclear facility.) Moreover, many have worked in and around Defense Nuclear Facilities who have never once been exposed to radiation or other carcinogens. It's not as easy as it might seem.

catswiththum
12-23-2015, 10:13 AM
I had a lot of friends at the Savannah River site - had - more than half of them dead early.

But, you are right - it is hard to prove causation.

merrylander
12-23-2015, 12:57 PM
NIOSH is currently reviewing Florence's case, will probably hear sometime in Jan or Feb.

finnbow
12-23-2015, 01:00 PM
I had a lot of friends at the Savannah River site - had - more than half of them dead early.

But, you are right - it is hard to prove causation.

At the risk of sounding a bit morbid, if half die early and half die late, they may collectively die at an average age. The whole causation thing with ionizing radiation is tough, unless we're talking massive acute doses. In fact, there's a theory, radiation hormesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis), that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation

catswiththum
12-23-2015, 01:07 PM
At the risk of sounding a bit morbid, if half die early and half die late, they may collectively die at an average age. The whole causation thing with ionizing radiation is tough, unless we're talking massive acute doses. In fact, there's a theory, radiation hormesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis), that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation

Absolutely true - although many had various cancers, there is no way to make a definitive conclusion.

I have my suspicions, but they are just that - fueled by my knowledge of the sloppy site management and, to some degree I am sure, by media hyperbole.

We have some friends who did some work at Chernobyl - the initial disaster was horrendous, but the area is recovering faster than expected.

Boreas
12-23-2015, 01:22 PM
It isn't really a matter of when they died as why. If, among the workers/former workers at Savannah River, you have a higher than average concentration of deaths from the sorts of cancers known to be caused by ionizing radiation, you can pretty definitively point to conditions at the plant as the cause.

finnbow
12-23-2015, 01:48 PM
It isn't really a matter of when they died as why. If, among the workers/former workers at Savannah River, you have a higher than average concentration of deaths from the sorts of cancers known to be caused by ionizing radiation, you can pretty definitively point to conditions at the plant as the cause.

True enough, but you still can't definitively attribute causality in each individual case. Therein lies the rub when it comes to ascertaining causality for the sake of compensation for individuals. Compounding the problem is piss-poor recordkeeping at a number of the facilities over the decades (where did certain employees work, the comings-and-goings of (sub)contractors...).

merrylander
12-23-2015, 01:49 PM
Some families living near the Mound site had nearly everyone in the family die of cancer. Yet there was no, nada, history of cancer in those families.

Florence said the lab opposite hers got so hot they sealed it saying it would take 100 years to cool down.

They believed that the rays emanating from the tritium in the detonators she was testing could not penetrate human skin - sure.

In the beginning workers were handling stuff unprotected until they eventually installed glove boxes,

British scientists have recently discovered that cancer cells can lie dormant in the body for years and then be triggered by some trauma. When she had that very large ovarian cyst the pathologist could not draw any conclusions of malignancy or not while she was on the table so her doctor did a radical hysterectomy. Samples of the cyst had been sent to Johns Hopkins Medical and the Armed Forces Institute for Pathology. Neither one found malignant cells but both strongly recommended further testing given the size of the cyst - like a volley ball. No further tests were done so they could well have missed some malignant cells.

merrylander
12-23-2015, 02:11 PM
The truly interesting thing is that Doctors at the Dept. of Labor who handle the EEOIC fund looked at all the records that I had HCGH send and her death certificate both say unequivocally cause of death Ovarian Cancer.

Her ovaries were removed thirty-five years ago!!!

From what the Oncologist told us nowadays they can determine the source of cancer cells given some kind of fingerprinting.

VanishingPoi
12-24-2015, 03:11 PM
So, what do they have against Rocky Flats? ;)

Los Alamos might be interesting because of the history and the individuals, including Soviet spies, who worked there. Plus, because of the nature and amount of the work that actually occurred there, it's probably not as "hot" as Hanford and Oak Ridge. Plus, the area around Los Alamos is beautiful.

Los Alamos is beautiful. I used to live not too far from there. It has Bandelier.

Not far from The Pecos Wilderness, Chaco Canyon, Bland Canyon.