Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Los Alamos Lab: We're OK, You're OK 191

Posted by timothy from the sir-please-step-*away*-from-the-plutonium-bin dept.
The fires which have been burning as a result of what was intended to be a controlled burn hit Los Alamos, site of the renowned National Laboratory, especially hard. Some have questioned the safety of the lab after this trauma; In addition to being the research site for the first atomic bomb, Los Alamos has remained an important lab for top-secret technology. It's also the site of the nation's 'only active plutonium facility.' According to an AP story, the lab thought that letting reporters tour the facility was the best way to defuse fears that the fires had brought a risk to public health. Hope they're right.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Las Alamos Lab: We're OK, You're OK More

Las Alamos Lab: We're OK, You're OK

Comments Filter:
  • 43 Square Mile lab? This is crazy. 2 hour tour for a 43 mile lab and they're not hiding anything.. right.
  • Here's a way to get rid of those pesky reporters.....

    Just kidding.

  • Am *I* safe? (Score:3)

    by timster ( 32400 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:04PM (#1074288)
    Wow, with a fire hitting a place with PLUTONIUM, I'm afraid that I'll get killed by some RADIATION! How will I know?!? Oh wait... I'll get out my own GEIGER COUNTER! It clicked! AAAH! RADIATION! I'M GONNA DIE!!!
    Seriously people, let's try to avoid the "it's radioactive and it's so bad" FUD today.

  • "This is an attempt to show you we are not hiding anything,'' said Gene Habiger, director of security and emergency response for the Department of Energy. ''If anyone thinks the government, the Department of Energy, can suppress the truth, they're wrong."

    'Scuse me for being paranoid, but this does not set my mind at ease.

  • These burns, controlled or otherwise, are stupid and incredibly stupid. If you got to clear stuff out, hack and slash or bulldozers are the ways to go.
    At least my way doesn't threaten nuclear facilities.


    When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.

  • Nitpick (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    At least get the name right timothy. It's called Los Alamos.
  • I heard Microsoft had secret headquarters in Los Alamos.

  • Public Paranoia (Score:5)

    by Colin Winters ( 24529 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:08PM (#1074293)
    Actually, I just took a class in Nuclear Engineering, we concentrated a lot on the public's fear of nuclear facilities. The public is completely ill-informed when it comes to anything nuclear. People fear that waste will get spread around-the waste is stored in steel containers that can survive a train hitting them plus being doused in jet fuel and lit on fire (I saw a film of it.) Everyone always talks about Three Mile Island happening again: The radiation released to the public from TMI was less than the radiation the public got from their houses on that day. I think the government needs to develop a program to educate people on exactly how safe nuclear power is-France is 80% powered by it, but we haven't built a plant in 10 years because the public is ignorant.

    Colin Winters
  • I don't know what everyone's so worried about. It is not like plutonium burns....

  • Well, the tour seems like a reasonable first step. The detractor though at the end of the article has a good point as well.

    It would be nice if the officials at the lab could reveal some technical information about the fire and the dangers that it posed so that third-party experts could review it and hopefully allay public fears.

    BTW, glad to see this on /..
  • if it did hit the lab.. the entire southwest could glow in the dark :-)
  • Here in Canada, we've just recently found out that Chinese organized crime syndicates (Triads) have been infiltrating our military and nuclear power plants for over a decade, and smuggling top secret information back to China.
    I would not be surprised if the same thing is happening in the USA.


    When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.

  • The scientists ain't stupid (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Y'know, the first thing I thought when I heard that there were fires near/at Los Alamos was that the public would think there was going to be a nuclear catastrophe. Why? People hear "radiation", "plutonium", or "nuclear physics" and freak. And why is that? Because the media tends to blow things completely out of proportion.

    Questions always asked by the media in this story included, "Will there be release of radiation?" Anybody with two brain cells to rub together would instantly realize that the people who designed the Los Alamos labs were smart. They designed the place in case of emergencies. They designed the place so that radiation wouldn't escape except under the absolute worse conditions. Does anybody actually think that a simple brush fire would get through all the protective matters? Does anybody actually -think- before asking questions like that?

  • Concern For the Labs is misplaced.... (Score:3)

    by oblisk ( 99139 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:15PM (#1074299)
    The Real concern for the government, should be for the Saftey and Mental stability of the many Scientists who work at LANL. Some of them no doubt lost their homes or had freinds who did.

    This loss or even the mere existance of the fire may scare away some of these reaserchers and thus cause a loss of results from the lab, and a lower moral. Something im sure the US government does not want.


    ------------------------------------

  • Who cares about the plutonium and other radionuclides, what I want to know is was Neale Smith's office hurt? :)

    For those who don't know who Neale Smith is, he wrote Xftp and Xdir...
  • That's because France have some of the largest and richest uranium deposits and also state of the art enrichment plants. They are also one of the largest exporters of electricity as a direct consequence. And also people are not as paranoid there. Oh yeah and the French government doesn't give a damn either, remember they sank that pathetic Greenpeace ship.

  • </I> !

  • As a former employee of Los Alamos, I would like to point out the lab is LOS ALAMOS (not Las - as stated repeatedly in the story intro). I don't mind typos, especially in user comments. However, the story intros should at least be minimally proofread.

    Or am I out of the loop and Las is the new hip way to talk about the lab?

    Eagerly awaiting (-1: offtopic).

  • Natl. Labs (Score:4)

    by Darchmare ( 5387 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:18PM (#1074304)
    Having once worked at a National Lab (PNNL, operated by [pnl.gov]Battelle [battelle.org]) I can say that if LANL is anything like where I worked, they're not lying. Nuclear material is handled very carefully and a forest fire is the least of their worries.

    There are other issues with the Natl labs (namely, national security) that aren't all that great - but I don't think fire is going to be a problem.

    (yes, I was certified as a level 1 rad worker, and no it wasn't my main focus - I was a computer tech who had to go into rad zones from time to time. if you think an old Quadra 605 is slow now, it feels ten times as slow when you're surrounded by geiger counters and have a quota as to how long you would be allowed to stay there)


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • ummmm....I hate to break it to you, but that cell phone that you put against your head everyday releases quite a bit of microwave radiation...probably more than you'll get from Los Alamos...
  • uh, I don't think you read my post...

  • ...the waste is stored in steel containers that can survive a train hitting them plus being doused in jet fuel and lit on fire (I saw a film of it.)

    umm... they performed this test with empty containers, I hope? :)

  • I agree.

    The publics fear is perhaps not unjustified. The destruction that has been caused by nuclear forces unleashed is quite awesome, as demonstrated by the atomic bombs used in WWII and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia. For many, that remains the most visible meaning of the word nuclear. However, the fact remains that nuclear power is very very safe when properly managed, and far healthier for the environment then fossil fuel based plants.

    I've recently heard several ads on the radio promoting nuclear technology. A nuclear council (forget the name) has been funding these ads. Perhaps it is also government sponsored. At any rate, it's quite clear that the nuclear industry needs to work on its image. Right now it is shrouded in mystery and danger in the public eye. I hope that these ads are effective in swaying popular opinion to a return to nucleics popular in the 50s. If fusion ever becomes a practical reality, much of these fears will hopefully be allayed. Still many people are fine with nuclear technology as long as its "not in my backyard". Personally I'd rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard then a dirty fossil fuel power plant.

    Spyky
  • Under the right circumstances, Plutonium can burn. See the DOE handbook [doe.gov] for details.
  • Microwave radiation is not quite the same as gamma radiation. Gamma has much shorter wavelength than even x-rays, which means it's much more harmful - it will definitely ionize atoms in your body. You don't die a few days after you buy a cell phone... but you do if you were near a powerfull gamma burst. Of course alpha and beta radiation is much worse, it breaks up your DNA and shit and you get instant cancer. But those are no problem if you live in a brick house since they are particles and get stopped.
  • My understanding is that some of the highest tech computer hardware anywhere resides at the Las Alamos site. I wonder how much of this precious hardware was outside of the hardended structures protecting the radioactive junk.


    ...................

    ... paka chubaka

  • It's only two columns away from uranium on the periodic table, and remember: they use depleted uranium in tank-killing rounds partially because it burns very nicely.

  • What are they trying to hide? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm probably thinking along these lines because I just got my Wag the Dog and X-Files DVDs today. Anyway, were they trying to hide something with this fire? Is there anything worth hiding? If so, from Whom?

    Can we say "Government Coverup?"
  • "This is an attempt to show you we are not hiding anything," said Gene Habiger, director of security and emergency response for the Department of Energy. "If anyone thinks the government, the Department of Energy, can suppress the truth, they're wrong."

    Press members were then given instructions on how to properly seal their BioHazard suits and what to do if the Radiation badge turned red.
  • containers filled with water would work, too

    --

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What?? Does this mean SC[2|3]K has been misleading me all along? Stupid game.
  • Controlled burns are relatively safe if done under the right conditions. In many arid environments, it is normal for natural fires to periodically burn off the accumulated brush and other fuel. This is much less damaging than tearing up everything with a bulldozer.
  • The problem is that nowadays environmentalists get paid by one company to chain themselves to the equipment of the competitor. It's all "commerzialized".
    Also some of their campaigns are completely unsubstantiated and based on false data. Like Greenpeace want to ban PVC plastics because they contain chlorine which is poison. This is such bullshit, I can eat PVC and nothing bad will happen to me. You know that there is a Cobalt atom in vitamin B-12. I think they should fight to ban that too, because Cobalt is highly toxic. What a bunch of weenies.
  • Actually...
    much of the research that goes on at LANL (and other national labs) is in low energy materials processing. That's one of the reasons that the dept. of energy is involved.

    Face it, the cold war is over. Cheap ceramic cutting tools are better for the country then secret nuclear powered tanks-bombs.

    --
  • A very good point. I was particularily upset at the ignorance of the public when people were up in arms about the US shipping Nuclear Weapons up here (Canada) for disarmament at the end of last year. I was quite pleased to see that they flew it in with a helicopter, hehe, stupid people on the ground with their roadblocks. :)
  • Score: 3 (Funny)

    ...Which is not to say LANL was probably in any danger, but your comment hit a particular nail right on the head.

  • Sorry, I meant to say weapons grade plutonium. They didn't ship the whole warhead with detonator and all. Just to clarify and prevent myself from getting flamed.

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:3)

    by kaphka ( 50736 ) <1nv7b001@sneakemail.com> on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:39PM (#1074323)
    Not only is France almost completely nuclear powered, but they generate far less nuclear waste than the U.S. does. That's because they "recycle" the waste in breeder reactors. (I think that's what they're called.) In the U.S., however, we're terrified by the prospect that terrorists/rogue dictators/religious fundamentalists/Slashdotters will get a hold of the weapons-grade nuclear material that is produced as a side effect of the "recycling" process... so we just bury our nuclear waste, and let our descendants figure it out.

    At least, that's how I heard it.
  • I was amazed to hear about the fire at Los Alamos, thinking it might help to uncover one of the great mysteries. Los Alamos was a key in the story of the infamous Area 51 back in 1989.

    A material, element 115, the only available physical proof for the existance of aliens, is stored in Los Alamos. More info [boblazar.com]

  • If that's what you were taught, I suggest you go out and hurt your educators for misinforming you. Also, our Atomic Energy Control Board is working on a nuclear generator running on plutonium...
    Canada is actually a pretty cool place. Shootings in high schools aren't very common (unlike in the USA), we have a stable economy, and our prime minister doesn't have sex with his intern. So there.


    When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.
  • Thirty-six foot tall news anchorman reports Los Alamos A-O-K after touring the facility late Thursday night. "The power was still out, but my skin had a healthy green glow which helped me see my way around."
  • and our prime minister doesn't have sex with his intern.

    No, your prime minister doesn't get caught.
  • The computer equipment will most likely be fine. The govt houses all thier big machines behind expensive shielding against stuff like TEMPEST, so i'm sure thier stuff isnt going to be hurt by a little fire.

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The public is completely ill-informed when it comes to anything nuclear. People fear that waste will get spread around-the waste is stored in steel containers that can survive a train hitting them plus being doused in jet fuel and lit on fire (I saw a film of it.)

    Does anyone remember a fake commercial for a funeral home on Saturday Night Live a while ago that showed the extraordinary measures that the funeral home took to prevent necrophilia on the premises? Of course, the more precautions they claimed to be taking, the more unsettling and suspicious it became.

    Likewise, telling the public that the waste containment facilities are designed to withstand catastrophic damage, such as being hit by a train and then set on fire, makes some of them wonder, "Are they protecting the waste from the handlers, or are they protecting us from the waste? Is all that protection required to shield us from radiation? Is it that dangerous?"

  • The public is completely ill-informed when it comes to anything nuclear.

    True, but...

    The radiation released to the public from TMI was less than the radiation the public got from their houses on that day.

    Maybe, but that is because the radioactive material was mostly contained in the Three Mile Island incident. It could have been much worse, like for example in the Chernobyl disaster. Millions of people in the Ukraine are still suffering severe consequences from it (radiation sickness, genetic damage). Radioactive iodine was expressed in the milk and tissue of cows and sheep as far away as Sweden and Great Britain (that's several thousands of miles away, for the geographically challenged).
    Now, (before someone starts flaming me about it), I'll admit that the Chernobyl accident would not have happened in a Western country, since inherently unsafe designs such as the Chernobyl reactor are simply not used for obvious reasons.

    However, if plutonium (Pu-239) from Los Alamos were to get in the atmosphere, I would not count on being safe anywhere in North America. The lethal dose for inhaling Pu-239 is 0.1 microgram. That means that (theoretically) 28 grams (or 1 ounce) would be enough to kill everyone in the USA. So, can you guarantee that burning down the Los Alamos labs will not release such an amount of plutonium?

    People fear that waste will get spread around-the waste is stored in steel containers that can survive a train hitting them plus being doused in jet fuel and lit on fire (I saw a film of it.)

    Admittedly, these precautions are rather impressive and I don't question their thoroughness, but you're talking about nuclear waste here. Are you sure that all the plutonium in Los Alamos is contained in this way?

    France is 80% powered by it, but we haven't built a plant in 10 years because the public is ignorant.

    Not quite 80%, but more than 50%, yes. That's only electrical power though, cars still run on good old fashioned gasoline :-).

    Anyway, I think the real reasons why the US haven't built any new nuclear plants are the following.

    1. There is no long term solution for the waste problem.

    2. Therefore, nuclear electricity is not economically competitive with electricity from fossil fuels. It is only cheaper if you don't account for the astronomical cost of safely disposing of the waste.

    3. Uranium is a non-renewable resource that will run out in about 100 years at the current consumption rate (7% of the world's electricity is generated by fission reactors). If you for example triple that percentage, it runs out in 33 years, etc. Fast breeder reactors are no solution either, since they are way too dangerous and expensive. A fast breeder reactor in Kalkar (Germany) was never finished despite a $4 billion investment.

    So, summarizing that, it is not the public's ignorance that has stopped the construction of fission reactors, but plain and simple economics.

  • Well, for a time there was justafiable reason for the anti-nuclear sentiment. Now we're just feeling the after effects. While the American nuclear power industry has a good record for safety and car, the weapons industry's sloppyness was just appalling.

    During the cold war, the military had lower standards for the storage of nuclear waste then the gasoline industry did for the storage of gasoline. The weapons industry, in its constant full tilt arms race, is what gave the nuclear technologies such a horrible image. Many people felt these effects, and so nuclear technology has become a blotch in American history.

    Here in Ontario, many nuclear power plants were deactivated and replaced by old coal and oil plants. Most of the people don't even care (don't get too huffy about environmentalists, spokesmen for greenpeace were against the change).

    The chief modern problem with nuclear power is not its risks or waste, its much simpler: its damned expensive.

  • Re:Natl. Labs (Score:3)

    by letchhausen ( 95030 ) <letchhausen@nOsPaM.yahoo.com> on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:58PM (#1074332) Homepage
    Being from New Mexico and having friends who work at LANL, I can tell you that you are right. Though the way they put it now, is that it could withstand the crash of a 747, I think that what that used to mean is an ICBM hit. I bet a forest fire directly overhead would not do any damage. In 1996 when fire did reach a couple of the buildings, they landscaped much of the growth away and set up fire walls. A friend of mine in Santa Fe said that there had been an explosion and that all these people that she knew were leaving Santa Fe thinking that it was nuclear waste going up. With half of Los Alamos burning I am sure that there were plenty of other things to blow up other than the labs, such as gas lines, scorched cars etc. But it does show what paranoia there is out there. The AP article itself sounded that way as well. What kind of technical information did they want? National secrets? Please.....

    Though perhaps this fire was really set to burn those bee fields that Mulder found in the X-files......

  • The Los Gatos HAZMAT sites (Score:3)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @07:58PM (#1074333) Journal
    Just when you thought it was safe to be paranoid in New Mexico . . .

    If you check out this DOE site http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/lanl.html [doe.gov] you will find an extensive listing of the many cleanups they have going under way at Los Gatos.

    Things that come to mind are:

    Plants tend to metabolize the hazardous materials in the soil. These plants are now being converted into smoke.
    The contaminated soil that is now being dried out by the fire, and dust being swept up into the air.

    Casually checking out the page link given I come up with these goodies [there is LOTS more]:

    In support of the Laboratory's mission, the Environmental Management program is also investigating approximately 2,100 sites to determine if cleanup is needed. These sites range in size from less than 1 square meter to tens of hectares (a few square feet to tens of acres).
    Potential residual contamination may exist at these sites as the result of 50 years of Laboratory operation. Contaminants may include radionuclides, organic solvents, metals, and high explosives. Residual contamination may exist in more than 7 million cubic meters (9.1 million cubic yards) of environmental media, primarily soils and sediments.

    - - - - -

    Field Unit 3 consists of 555 potential release sites associated with ten technical areas. It includes sites where high explosives were developed and processed, initiators for nuclear weapons were tested, and reactor components were developed. The primary constituents of concern are radionuclides, high explosives, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, pesticides, and herbicides.

    Much of the contamination in this field unit resulted from operations established during World War II to develop, fabricate, and test explosive components for nuclear weapons. Various other facilities included areas for photo-fission experiments, a mortar impact area, an air gun firing range, gun firing sites, a burning ground, laboratories, storage buildings, sumps, and material disposal areas. In many of the experiments, beryllium-containing weapons initiators were tested, and in some experiments uranium components were used. A high-pressure tritium facility was also in operation until 1990.

    One site in this field unit was used to develop nuclear reactors for propulsion of space rockets. Experiments included structural testing of fuel elements made of uranium-loaded graphite, which were tested until they failed. The site also was used to develop methods for uranium isotope separation and to test lasers for exciting uranium hexafluoride gas of various enrichments. Experimental solar buildings and solar ponds, which have since been converted to sanitary waste lagoons, were built later.

    Apparently alot of testing was also open air, especially in the early days, before they knew better, or cared much (take your pick).

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:3)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @08:00PM (#1074334)
    MRI was originally called NMRI. The N stood for Nuclear. It was dropped because people are afraid of all things nuclear...

    And, to avoid panic, no MRI is not "nuclear" powered.

  • Informative post. Just a small correction...

    Of course alpha and beta radiation is much worse, it breaks up your DNA and shit and you get instant cancer. But those are no problem if you live in a brick house since they are particles and get stopped.

    You don't even need the brick house. Your skin is enough to stop such particles.

    Alpha and beta radiation are harmful if emitters get inside your body. Then they can do serious damage. This is the main problem in post-accident/bomb areas. The fissile materials decay into elements like iodine that the body readily absorbs. Then they decay further, irradiating your cells from the inside out. Cancer is the usual result.

  • Fwew. (Score:2)

    by zCyl ( 14362 )
    Fortunately, all the top secret stuff was burnt to a crisp before the reporters got there.
  • and the site link give is correct for Los Alamos.

    long hours and not enuf sleep

    sorry

  • Umm, no, depleted uranium rounds are used in weaponry because it is dense. A uranium round is heavier then any other round its size, and therefore has more kinetic energy and does more damage. I don't know if it burns, but if it does then its incedental. If burning was a key point then phosphorous rounds would be used as more then just tracers.

    And learn some chemistry. Similar columns do not mean common chemical reactivities. There are many elements that behave completely differently from their next neighbor. If they were in the same column, then I'd agree with you.
  • According to this AP story, the lab thought that letting reporters tour the facility was the best way to defuse fears that the fires had brought a risk to public health.

    It's good to see the government working with such efficiency. If everything is nice and safe, as we all hope, then the press can relay the information very quickly.

    On the other hand, if something terrible did happen, then this tactic will kill off the press. Thus, no one will ever know that the terrible something happened.

    Nice and neat.


    ---
    Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Re:spelling (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Remember, this is a predominantly male forum. True, the correct spelling is "Los Alamos", but the Alamos boys are a homely lot, and don't do much for readership.

    Their sisters however, "Las Alamitas", are a fine looking bunch of Latino-Amercan babes. My guess is that's what was originally typed and the spell checker kicked "Alamitas" in favor of "Alamos", but left the "Las" untouched.

    Viva Las Alamitas del Labrotorios Nationale!

  • Cobalt atom in vitamin B-12

    There is legislation in the works to ban the substance Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org]. I think that you should look into it. Dihydrogen monoxide is highly dangerous, and you should look into it before it's too late.
  • sloshdot. News for drunks. stchuff that mattersh...
  • You're just pissed because I used words too large for your vocabulary :-) I'll remember to tone it down for the ACs out there next time

    Spyky
  • Yeah well Xenon is one column away from Cesium. If you put Xenon in water nothing will happen. Put Cesium in water and you will get a very exothermic reaction.

  • There probably is a hazard to human health at Los Alamos. This is where they did all the original testing for the Bomb, and actually well beyond it into modern times. They wisened up about the dangers of radiation and -slowly- started to handle nuclear materials 'responsibly'(as in with some caution instead of wreckless abandon).

    There are likely places all over the southwest where nuclear testing was done that are still hot. They did a lot of above ground stuff in New Mexico. I'm also betting there is a lot of stuff that they haven't/never will disclose.

    And remember that the US Military is one of the worst polluters around. Chesapeake Bay pollution has strong roots in things dumped/burned/buried at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Let's not even start talking about the contaminated places at Fort McClellan Alabama, home of the Army Chemical Corps.

  • I'll admit that the Chernobyl accident would not have happened in a Western country, since inherently unsafe designs such as the Chernobyl reactor are simply not used for obvious reasons.

    Isn't Hanford (Western Washington) essentially the same design as Chernobyl?

  • Re:How many of the reporters were Chinese? (Score:3)

    by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @08:21PM (#1074347) Homepage
    The CANDU reactor, the primary form of nuclear power, is widespread in Canada. It is quite efficient, and runs on unrefined Uranium (as the refining process is often quite expensive/dangerous, as was seen in Tokyo). It is quite safe, as it is physically incapable of operating without coolant, so it shuts down instead of overheating. It also produces weapons grade plutonium as its primary byproduct. There's the problem. See what technology they'd like?
  • Why is it that United States people mock Canadians? Why is it that Canadians mock people in the states? We're both actually very similar.. States people say Canadians are savages, or very simple, or too passive, or undevelopped.. and then Canadians say States folk are dumb, stunned, uncultured, violent, loud mouthed, hateful, messed-up, and have a crappy education system. I seriously don't think either side has any true knowledge about the true state of either country. According to statistics about the states, crime is higher there, but that's only natural because their popular is greater.. (and don't believe that the relationship between crime and population is linear.. there are many variable in such an equation, and the greater the population, the faster the crime RATE will increase). And as to why people in the states say all those dumb things about canadians, that's purely due to lack of information about our culture.. We Canadians get a dose of "American" cultures everyday through our TVs and other media (ps, the US isn't the only state in the Americas, Canada is also an "american" country).. The reason that people from the states sound so ignorant about Canada is that they don't EVER get a dose of OUR culture.. WE get nbc, abc, cbs, etc... and i seriously doubt they get our CBC ;P anyway, the point is.. all this "Canada is a great place, don't dis it" and "No Way! the US has freedom of speech!" crap is stupid. Get educated, THEN argue.


    "Producing satire is kind of hopeless because of the literacy rate of the American public."
  • Perhaps this is a dumb question. I've always wondered why we can extract urainum, etc. from the ground where they are found in safe dosages and then after being uesd as fule the stuff is danderous waste. Couldn't that waste just be diluted down to the radiation levels it had orignally or am I missing something?
  • It is quite true that it was a really, really big brush fire. And a catastrophic one. It was a terrible thing, and I feel for the people who lost their homes to the blaze.

    But in terms of the laboratory, it was still "just" a brush fire. That lab was probably built to itself withstand a nuclear assault. A brush fire, no matter how big it is, is not going to do very much to it.
  • ... pathetic Greenpeace ship.

    Yeah right. Someone DIED on that ship buddy.

    At lest one of clueless French S.O.B.'s who had got caught ('cos of their own blatant arrogant stupidity) for that NZ lark got sent (eventually) to a french tourist island to serve her prison term and then (big surprise) got sent home early. Do you call that punsihment??? You have no clue about what Greenpeace try to do and no respect for human life.

    I don't always agree with their media stunt methods (nor their junk mail) but they do more good than a dozen secret services of any nations you'd care to mention.
  • Perhaps your weren't aware, that these fires prevent fires, as odd as that may seem. They burn materials in order to prevent widespread forest fires. Unfortunately, this one didn't go to well. These controlled burns are routine though... just because you hear about it burning down an area.. doesn't mean it's "incredibily stupid".
  • Things don't glow in the dark after being exposed to radioactivity. That's akin to saying that my floor will glow for a while after i turn the lights out because it's been exposed to EM radiation.

    A material will not emit light because it was exposed to any sort of radiation, sorry.
    I wonder where that comes from...whenever someone wants to show that something is radioactive, it glows green...
    Anyone know who came up with that?
  • I would not be surprised if the same thing is happening in the USA.
    The Chinese are taking over the Canadians, but the Canadian Imperialists [ryanthiessen.com] are taking over the us!

  • Chernobyl is an example of pure human error and poor control systems that allowed the error to occur. Basically an operator removed too many control rods to conduct a test. The fallout was devestateing to much of Europe but it is debatable wether the effects are any worst then the equivalent exposure to waste from fossil fuel plants.

    While nuclear plants themselves are pretty clean compared to fossil fuel plants. Uranium mines are far worst then any oil well. For every ton of useable uranium extracted from the mine at Elliot Lake (Canada) there is eight to ten tons of radioactive slag. It makes for a very big mess.

  • gamma radiation does not hurt.
    it makes you big and strong
    and green

  • Reporters don't want to trek through 43 square miles, and plus most of the stuff is classified beyond requiring a press pass. If you were a reporter, would you want a 15 hour tour through a bunch of (to you) science geeks' offices just to see what could have been shown to you in 2 hours, or for that matter 30 minutes? Plus, if there was an accident, it would have been in a classified section (the nuclear research/test sites/reactors & stuff are all classified to prevent sabotage from visitors/terrorists), so the reporters wouldn't have seen it even if they had walked for three days straight.
  • I can eat PVC and nothing bad will happen to me.

    Besides a stomach ache, there is some risk [nih.gov] of cancer from vinyl chloride, though as the link says the migration of VC from PVC is essentially zero. It is bad to manufacture though.

  • (Western Washington)

    Washington State, not D.C., right? Isn't that right near, guess who, Microsoft Corporate Headquarters? Maybe this nuclear science stuff isn't that bad after all.
  • A new study has found that there were no increases in the occurence of cancer to residents of three mile island. Check out this link [aps.org] and scroll down a bit to item 3.

  • uranium 238 waste glows green? i think not. uranium oxide may FLUORESCE green after being exposed to UV or higher EM radiation but i dont think it is self luminescent(esp since its usu. not in powdered salt form). i'd guess that the whole 'green glow' misconception comes from the fact that watch hands used to be painted with a mixture of radium salts and Zinc Sulfide. and ZnS glows green when exposed to radiation. your blue glow that you were refering to comes from cherenkov radiation, which if you happen see in air, dont bother running youll be dead soon anyway.

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:3)

    by chompz ( 180011 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @09:34PM (#1074369)
    People also fear the posibility of nuclear fuel being converted into weapon's grade material, which as they should be told, isn't exactly a feasable plan. For some reason they also have a strange fear of the radiation by products. I wonder why that would be...

    Radiation itself is not a problem, how far can an alpha particle travel in air? 10 CM if it is very lucky. Gamma radiation is a lot more pentratable (its just a photon after all). It is the gamma rays which are used in cancer treatments. How far the photon can travel into a material is very dependent upon its energy, and typically isn't more than a few centimeters, but can be as large as a meter or two. That would be the reason for the thickness of nuclear material's casings. The radiation measured in the vicinity of one of these containers is hardly more than that of someone's home.

    So what's the dangerous part? The byproducts of the reaction. Mostly the sodium and strontium ones for that matter. They are quite active and easily replace elements in the human body. Strontium replaces calcium and is therefore quite dangerous for people. Strontium is mostly what is causing health problems for persons within the immediate area of chernobyl. Sodium is used by every cell of every living organisim. Radiation sources inside the human body are much more dangerous than those outside. Of course, it is dangerous to be close to a large mass of a highly active radiation source, because of the sheer amount of energy transmitted from the source to the cells of the body.

    If you don't know, the nuclear reaction which is used for power uses thermal neutrons to split atoms. The water is not only used to turn turbines, but to sustain the reaction. If the neutrons travel too fast, they merely bounce off of the nucleii of the U238 and cause no splitting of any nucleus. A slower neutron (thermal) will be momentarilly absorbed by the U238 nucleus and cause it to split due to unbalanced nuclear forces (kinda like filling a water baloon too full) and the nucleus will break apart into a bunch of smaller nucleii. Most of these are dangerous, but not for very long because of thier short half lives. The splitting causes more neutrons to be released and perpetuate the reaction. If the water is removed (leaks out) the reaction stops. Its that simple. The control rods (graphite) are used to add more control over the energy of the neutrons.

    Breeder reactors on the other hand, are more dangerous. They use a different fuel and do not operate under the safe guard of if the water leaks out the reaction stops. They are called breeder reactions because it starts with one source, I believe some random Uranium isotope called U235, and splits it. Uranium 235 doesn't split under thermal collisions, and requres high energy neutrons. This reaction actually produces weapon's grade plutonium in a small quantity and like I said isn't very safe because of the inability to completely stop the reaction at anytime. I believe there are no active breeder reactors in the world at this time.

    A couple years ago in Modern Physics we were required to figure out how long it would take a terroist group of reasonable size (20 or so members) to get enough weapons grade material to make a nuclear bomb without being noticed. Someone guessed a few weeks, while the true answer was a few lifetimes. Not truckloads, but TRAINLOADS of nuclear fuel would need to be refined in a very expensive process to make a weapon.

    Nuclear energy sources are safe as long as the byproducts are handled in a professional manner, no skimping on casing thickness, and no allowing reactor water out of a controlled environment.

    In Minnesota there is a nuclear power plant at Prarie Island, about five miles from Red Wing (south of Minneapolis St. Paul). About 6 years ago when they wanted to expand and add more storage facilities for spent fuel, the public got very involved, most of the people were very poorly educated about what they were protesting about. Most of the arguments ended up being about Three Mile Island and statements like "Radiation is Bad." The administration of the power plant did a poor job educating people about the benifits of nuclear power and the risks. Of course most of the people would not have listened, but they did not even try. Because of the lobbying of clueless people spent fuel from prarie island is taken by train far far away, a practice which is far more dangerous than onsite storage. This is a "Very Bad Thing (TM)". Trains crash far more often than stationary two meter thick steel canisters suddenly split open.

    People just need to learn about it and learn why its better than using fossil fuels. benzene tea and coal soot cakes anyone?

  • Sounds like Gilligan's Island... (Score:3)

    by skelly ( 38870 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @09:36PM (#1074370)
    43 acres and a 2 hour tour. Sounds like Gilligan's Island to me. (Sung to Gilligan's Island theme): Well just sit right back and you'll hear a tale. A tale of fateful fire. That was started by some Interior guys who weren't all to wise. The weather was mighty dry, the bushes sure burned hot. If not for the courage of the firefighters, the plutonium would be lost.
  • If something goes wrong at the labs, everyone dies, and then your concerns for their safety and mental stability don't count for very much.

    It's right that the top priority for now is the lab's integrity. Get the people out of immediate danger. Then worry about the rest.

    As it was, the lab's presence was only coincidental. The fire could have happened anywhere. The lab itself had nothing to do with the fires except that it happened to be sitting in their path. However, it does pose a potential threat to the safety of the city; now that the fires are out it is the biggest potential threat. Therefore, it's much better that this threat is taken care of. There will be time to care for the people when the lab's integrity is assured. Your concern is admirable, but it doesn't do any good if they all die because something went wrong in the lab.

  • Re:Public Paranoia (Score:4)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @09:44PM (#1074372) Homepage
    The lethal dose for inhaling Pu-239 is 0.1 microgram. That means that (theoretically) 28 grams (or 1 ounce) would be enough to kill everyone in the USA.

    Sure, if the Plutonium was carefully divided up into 0.1 microgram doses and surgically implanted in the lungs of everyone in the USA.

    According to The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity [powerup.com.au], inhaling 10 micrograms of Plutonium should result in an one-in-twenty risk of cancer (1/200 risk of cancer per microgram).

    Plutonium is nasty stuff but its dangers have been grossly exaggerated by some anti-nuclear activists.

  • Could be just the beginning. (Score:4)

    by Pinball Wizard ( 161942 ) on Saturday May 13, 2000 @09:46PM (#1074373) Homepage Journal
    The fire was started by a controlled burn that got out of control. However, the people involved were just doing their jobs, and they still have a huge task in front of them.

    As big as this fire was, it still did not clear out all the debris lying on the forest floor. New Mexico's forests have been protected for the last 150 years and its only recently that fires have been allowed to burn.

    Its only recently that forest managers realized that forest fires are a somewhat regular occurence neccesary to clean out the debris and allow trees to be properly spaced by killing off weaker trees. If you take a look at tree rings from a really old tree you can see a regular pattern of fire and then this big gap when our forest service actively fought forest fires.

    Unfortunately, we cant just get rid of the debris overnight, so regular, perhaps even aggressive, controlled burning is necessary. The debris left behind from 150 years of fire control may prove to be a big problem if we continue to have record hot summers(due to global warming, but that's another story).

    The Albuquerque Journal [abqjournal.com] is a great reference for donations, BTW, as the entire city of Los Alamos had to be evacuated, about 500 homes were destroyed(out of a population of 11,000) so there are many people are in need.

  • Yes, it is, and it was a major producer of the U.S. plutonium stockpile. Hanford is in Eastern Washington [hanford.gov], which isn't terribly close to Microsoft (5 - 6 hour drive). It IS close to the Columbia river, and they have leaked radioactive material [wa.gov] into there in the past.

    Nuclear power IS risky, and there is no long term solution to waste disposal (yet). Fast breeder reactors, and breeder/burners are one potential solution. But there is great paranoia about diversion of Pu-239 to terrorists. A fast breeder (in a nutshell) can produce Pu-239 (fissionable) from U-238 (waste).

    A burner is a little different. This is used to deliberately break large isotopes into smaller ones with shorter half lifes. The U.S. Congress has cancelled most funding for advanced reactor programs, although the DOE's Argonne National Lab still does some research.

    Considering some of the half-lifes of certain isotopes (Pu-239 has a half life of 24,000 years or so), just burying it seems to be a ridiculous proposition. I'd much rather see funding put into burner programs which can take care of this waste in a more responsible fashion.

    Just my $.02

    SEAL
  • This sounds almost religious. You claim that those who have studied it have been 'brainwashed' by the heathens. You claim that the [religious] public can never be wrong. Yes, it is right to burn heathens at the stake. It couldn't be that we're ill-informed; It must be THEIR fault.

    How many times has the public been wrong on some religious craze.. From power lines cause cancer (300 million spent, on a rumor), to breast implants (billions in lawsuits, and no evidence), to expelling students for wearing smelly aftershave. (Yes, this happened a couple of weeks ago.) These are such critical dangers that we must be protected from. The public can't be wrong in protecting us from smelly aftershave!

    Here's a clue: EVERYTHING is dangerous. It's just a matter of degree.. Burning coal for electicity puts more radioactivity into the air than nuclear power does. Oil tankers can run aground. Refineries can blow up. Flying cross-country once a week give you the equivalent radiation of 10 whole-body X-rays a year.

    You can't religiously claim that forbidding the use of fire is right, just because it could accidently burn down your neighborhood.

    Nuclear energy is just another kind of fire, the fire of the burning atom trying to turn itself into iron.
  • Nuclear power IS risky

    Sure, it's risky. What isn't? What you need to do to make that into a useful statement is to quantify the risk, and compare it to other power generation activities.

    Coal mining cuts short the lives of thousands of miners. There are thousands of natural gas explosions every year, yet we have it piped into our houses. Air pollution from fossil fuel burning plants are responsible for the death of over ten thousand people in the US per year. Hydroelectric dams are very dangerous to construct, and occasionally they burst. Furthermore, the risk of global warming due primarily to fossil fuel burning is a tremendously large one for the future.

    The primary reason that nuclear power isn't successful in America is its cost.

  • The fires aren't anywhere close to out yet, but the town is probably in the clear now, along with most lab property.

    The fires aren't at all a surprise; the lab expects them. There are wildfires burning in the area almost every summer. When i was there in the summer of 1998, there were fires on a nearby hill, with smoke reaching the town for several days. In 1996, there was a fire which reached edge of lab property.

    Because there is so much preparation for such an event, it's improbable that there will be severe problems. The only issue i know of is that some of the canyons which are burning were used as dumping sites long ago, but the levels of radioactivity are nothing to write home about.

  • It's Los Alamos. Not Las Alamos.
    Los is masculine, while Las is feminine. Alamos is a masculine noun. (You can tell because it ends in "o".)
  • ---
    Wow, a Macintosh in a nuclear facility? No wonder they use a bomb to indicate a computer failure.
    ---

    That was pretty bad. :>

    ---
    To think of alternative energy sources is to think of vigorous well-organized opponents.... The most visible are those that oppose nuclear power, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants a coal-fired, electrical-generating plant next to him
    ---

    Well, PNNL isn't really a nuclear power plant - and I doubt LANL does anything like that either. Most of the nuclear material here is/was used for research, or is left over from previous nuclear power activity (PNNL is actually heavily involved in nuclear cleanup, not production, and has been since most of the local nuclear reactors were taken offline).

    That said, nuclear power is extremely clean if done correctly. That's the problem, though, if something does go wrong, it goes _really_ wrong. We've already got our share of waste slowly making its way to the Columbia river (south-east WA state). This has kept the cleanup industry in business for some time.

    But in the hands of someone who gives a damn about safety, it generates almost no pollution whatsoever.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • I agree nuclear power is not perfect. However, neither is burning coal. Since you are so opposed to nuclear power, maybe you could enlighten us to what we should be doing instead to generate electricity?

    Maybe if the *perfect* solution doesn't come along, we should just use the *best* one.

  • The Federal Government should pay the damages [yahoo.com] to the citizens. Believe it or not, this is not yet something they've agreed to do. [yahoo.com]

    Then, because federal government money is yours and mine, everyone in the administration [fs.fed.us] should be fired, and the entire department should be dismantled and rebuilt with congressional oversight. It should be tightly supervised for the next decade or so.

    None of this will happen, and the people who've lost their houses [yahoo.com] will be told 'tough shit'. They will be lucky to get the cost of their homes back. Insurance companies will be left holding the bag. They will be forced to raise rates, and the people who should have paid for this disaster in the first place will end up paying for it anyway, while the Government gets off scot-free.

    Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

  • Bill Gates says:
    Actually, I just took a class in Outlook Engineering, we concentrated a lot on the public's fear of Outlook facilities. The public is completely ill-informed when it comes to anything Outlook. [...] Everyone always talks about the Loveletter happening again: The damage released to the public from loveletter was less than the virus the public got from other sources [...]. I think the government needs to develop a program to educate people on exactly how safe Outlook is-Microsoft is 80% powered by it, but we haven't built a Innovation in 10 years because the public is ignorant.

    Just a little snippage and 3 search&replace.
    The analogy I want to make is that the loveletter disaster showed how things can go wrong because of human stupidity if complex systems are involved. MS's arguments are similar to that of nuclear industry and in both cases we see that looking at the security of one standalone system doesn't cut it. Not to defend Microsoft, but to get infected by that loveletter thingy people had to ignore warning signs (blalbla "this attachment may contain ...").
    Sure, the people involved in the nuclear industry are much better educated to do their job, but they also are humans. And in contrast to the spreading of a simple vb-virus you don't need 10.000.000 idiots to create a disaster, you need just a handful at the right place - and such disaster may really deserve its name.
  • [...] the migration of VC from PVC is essentially zero. It is bad to manufacture though.

    So, let me get this straight. Greenpeace hates PVC because its bad to manufacture, so they tell everyone its poisonous to wear.

    Greenpeace hates leather because it comes from dead cattle.

    Greenpeace (presumably) hates rubber, because its a petroleum product.

    Damn! You've just about eliminated everything my dominatrix wears. Whats a guy with a kinky fetish or two to do in a brave new green world where we can't eat meat or wear PVC?
  • u don't die a few days after you buy a cell phone... but you do if you were near a powerfull gamma burst. Of course alpha and beta radiation is much worse, it breaks up your DNA and shit and you get instant cancer. But those are no problem if you live in a brick house since they are particles and get stopped.

    That's only partly right. The Earth gets hit by large gamma burst every couple of months or so. Sure the van allen belts provide shielding but some still gets through. You're getting hit by high energy muons from cosmic showers all the time.

    Gamma rays are somewhat nasty but they aren't that bad. I've worked with several gamma sources like Co57, Co60, Cs137, P37 (122KeV - ~1.3MeV) as well as a Pu238/Be neutron howitizer and personally I worry more about the neutrons than the gammas. Alphas and betas are usually stopped by thin layers of clothing or even your skin. As long as they stay outside your body you're fine. If they get inside then you have pronblems. Gammas will usually compton scatter and leave without many interactions so they aren't that bad. Neutrons will probably plow through your molecules and dump most/all their energy since there are so many hydrogens within your body.

    Btw, I done some experiments on cross sections of gamma rays of various energies and a 122 KeV gamma has something like a 50% chance of getting through 32cm(~16 inches) of aluminum and a 30% chance of getting through 32cm of iron. This is just low energy gammas, several radioactive decays will provide gammas with 10 or more times the energy. So unless your brick house has a thick lining of steel (~1-2m) or lead (~.5m), you aren't getting any protection fromt the walls.

  • I (very unfortunately) have lived in New Mexico all my life (about 70 miles from the labs). Most of those 43 square miles are very rough forest and mountains. It's not "science geek's offices", it's rocky mountains and underground bunkers.

    Besides, all the locals here that know anything about that labs are dying laughing. There was never any danger to any nuclear materials. The bunkers that they are in are far underground and in completely fireproof caverns with fire buffers around them. To top it off, the bunkers are built to withstand a direct hit from a 747. If you'd like some more info on the fires though, check out our local news coverage at www.abqjournal.com or www.kobtv.com.

    kwsNI

  • Interesting how the original Slashdot post, last night, repeatedly used the incorrect term "Las Alamos". Several readers posted comments stating that the correct term is "Los Alamos". This morning, the article has been fixed, however there is no disclaimer from the Slashdot authors saying that they fixed a mistake. Thus, all those helpful, grammatically correct readers who pointed out the mistake now look like idiots.

    Considering the popularity of Slashdot, you'd think the authors should know at least a little bit about proper journalism. Come on guys, have some respect for your readers, for crying out loud. When you make mistakes, 'fess up. Give credit where credit is due. Don't make your readers with better grammar than you look like idiots.

    --

  • The problem isn't the technology though, the problem is the implementation of it and the way we handle waste. The technology is understood, and when properly administered, safe. The waste, when properly hanedled and such, is a better problem to deal with than the chemicals spewed from oil, coal and shale processing and power generating.

    That said, exactly that -has- been a problem here in the US. A good hard look at the entire chain of power generation via nuclear fuels shows a long history of neglect and a head inthe sand mentality when it comes to clean up. Look at hanford and rocky flats. Look at kerr-mcgee and the rest and you'll understand why people are nervous about how we handle this technology.

    We've been lucky so far, we haven't have a major meltdown, but don't tell the people downstream from hanford or rocky flats, or downwind from the nevada test site that they were and are being served well by the nuclear industry in this country.

    So from this you'd think I was against nuclear power, in fact I think it may be our cleanest choice, but it still needs to be run by adults and not greedy children.

    Chris DiBona
    --
    Grant Chair, Linux Int.
    Pres, SVLUG

  • *bzzzzz* wrong, plutonium is in fact pyrophoric. When exposed to the air, pu can in fact light on fire. This was the cause of a conflagration at rocky flats in 1969 that cost beau coup bucks to clean up.

    Chris DiBona
    --
    Grant Chair, Linux Int.
    Pres, SVLUG

  • Ah, I see. No hard feelings, I'm sure. You're right, it was a relatively minor error, and probably one that most people wouldn't even notice. I suppose it irked me mainly because I tend to get really annoyed by grammatical errors. I often don't realize that, while the error may be a big deal to me, your average reader could probably care less.

    --

  • On a similar point when Chernobyl 'sprung a leak' I was at university at Aberdeen (in Scotland). Some high ups in one of the departments decided to take one of their geiger counters outside the department and check the radiation levels (being built of granite the background in Aberdeen is about 4x UK norm).

    When they got out they switched on the detector and the needle nailed itself to the top of the meter. It was not until they were back inside (a transition that occurred very quickly indeed) that they noticed they had not a Geiger-Muller tube (for detecting radioactive particles) in the detector but a scintillation detector which counts very weak light pulses. History does not record exactly how stupid they felt.
  • Cut the crap. I watch The Simpsons and I *know* Uranium glows green dammit!

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • Heh, I was a visitor there once, and I still have my badge and guidebook, with the little chart telling you what the various klaxons and warning sirens meant, and little illustrations of what to do in each case.

    Ringing Bell & Flashing red light = High Airborne Radioactivity - > Evacuate area.
    Siren, Steady Blast for 3-6 minutes = Evacuation -> go to staging area.
    Siren, wavering tone for 3-6 minutes = Take Cover -> Stay Inside
    Gong or horn = Fire -> Evacuate
    Howler = Criticality -> Run

    The illustration is humorous, as the others just show people calmly walking out a door, etc. but the last one is a person just frantically trying to get away. None of that "do not panic, proceed calmly and cautiously" bull.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close