Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Grand Canyon Visitors May Have Been Exposed To Radiation For Years (azcentral.com) 191

Posted by BeauHD from the unsafe-levels-of-radiation dept.
joeflies writes: Park safety manager Elston Stephenson provides details about buckets of uranium that exposed visitors to radiation, and the subsequent cover up. The radiation was detected by a teenager that brought a Geiger counter to the building, and was subsequently "cleaned" up by employees equipped with dish washing gloves and a broken mop handle. "If you were in the Museum Collections Building (2C) between the year 2000 and June 18, 2018, you were 'exposed' to uranium by OSHA's definition," Stephenson wrote. "The radiation readings, at first blush, exceeds (sic) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safe limits. [...] Identifying who was exposed, and your exposure level, gets tricky and is our next important task." Stephenson said he had repeatedly asked National Park executives to inform the public, but never got a response.

"According to Stephenson, the uranium specimens had been in a basement at park headquarters for decades and were moved to the museum building when it opened, around 2000," reports AZCentral. "One of the buckets was so full that its lid would not close. Stephenson said the containers were stored next to a taxidermy exhibit, where children on tours sometimes stopped for presentations, sitting next to uranium for 30 minutes or more. By his calculation, those children could have received radiation dosages in excess of federal safety standards within three seconds, and adults could have suffered dangerous exposure in less than a half-minute."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grand Canyon Visitors May Have Been Exposed To Radiation For Years More

Grand Canyon Visitors May Have Been Exposed To Radiation For Years

Comments Filter:

  • Explains the reviews (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @08:16PM (#58149010) Journal

    "The canyon is fantastic! I had an absolutely glowing experience; our tour group lit up with joy."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 )
      Unfortunately, there is enough radiation risk ignorance that some people might actually stay away and miss the experience. The headline itself is a great example... here's more news.. WE"VE ALL BEEN EXPOSED TO RADIATION FOR YEARS!

      NRC 'limits' are so conservatively low you can get many times that exposure with no real world risk.

  • That's what Ann Coulter says and I believe her. I rilly do.

    • Some people are able to absorb energy from broadcast radiation... but too much causes cancer... but cancer can be solved by the right dose of more radiation.

    • more likely Ann Coulter would rail against government incompetence and the dishonesty of career government bureaucrats. Because you know, that's basically what happened here.

    • "Radiation is good for you" That's what Ann Coulter says and I believe her. I rilly do.

      Actually (presuming your genetics is typical of the population and you don't already live on a high mountain, in an otherwise high radiation area, or spend much of your time on airliners in flight), a low level of additional ionizing radiation IS good for you.

      (Not pulses, like chest X-rays or radiation therapy, though. And not high levels of bio-binding or concentrated particulate radioactive material, like radio-iodin

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by praxiq ( 5063307 )

        Actually (presuming your genetics is typical of the population and you don't already live on a high mountain, in an otherwise high radiation area, or spend much of your time on airliners in flight), a low level of additional ionizing radiation IS good for you.

        Do you have a source for this? A bit of googling turned up nothing to support it, and quite a bit from scientists who disagree, including this paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/1... [pnas.org] Excerpt (emphasis mine): "High doses of ionizing radiation clearly produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer induction. At very low radiation doses the situation is much less clear... First, what is the lowest dose of x- or y-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        ""Radiation is good for you" That's what Ann Coulter says and I believe her. I rilly do."

        If it weren't for radiation, where we live would be a very cold, lifeless chunk of rock.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Uecker ( 1842596 )

        This is not the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that ionizing radiation is harmful at any level and this has been demonstrated even for very low doses. For example, in this study which demonstrated the risk of leukemia and brain tumors from CT scans in childhood (published in the Lancet, no less): https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]

        Of course, as others have pointed out. the chemical risks from uranium are much higher than the radiological risks which are very low, but this does not change th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Uecker ( 1842596 )

          Also background radiation is - of course - believed to *increase* cancer risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

          Your 'thermostat theory' does not make sense to me and I have never read about this in the scientific literature. Obviously, if it would be healthier to produce "protective-molecules" evolution would cause production to increase even without additional radiation until the overall optimum (considering all trade-offs) is reached. Why additional radiation should then be helpful is beyond my understa

  • The whole area is uranium (Score:4, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @08:24PM (#58149054)

    You can pick up uranium ore of the ground, it gets stuck in your shoe and sets off sensors at the airport, it's a nuisance but it's not 'dangerous', people get more radiation working a few months on the ISS and I don't see Scott Kelly dying of radiation sickness or cancer.

    Moreover this was (according to the article) kept in a bucket. Any harmful radiation from these sources can be held back by a sheet of paper.

    • Alpha (Score:5, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @08:28PM (#58149084)

      Uranium gives off alpha radiation, which is effectively stopped by the layer of dead skin cells on your body. If you ground it up into a talcum-powder consistency and snorted it, then you'd be in trouble, but anything less than that and you're fine.

      • Some of the decay products of Uranium are far more dangerous. The decay doesn't stop after one alpha particle emission. But, that is also going on in nature all around that site.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        When I was in high school my science teacher passed around a sample of uranium in a sealed transparent container that resembled a hollow acrylic cylinder. Handling it, you could tell from how the weight distribution changed as you tipped the cylinder from one side to the other so that the small rock would move inside to one edge that the container itself was very light, but I'll never forget how that tiny rock, itself resembling a more or less ordinary grey pebble barely more than a couple of cm across at

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Uranium decays through alpha emission. You can block the radiation with tissue paper (or a layer of dead skin cells). The cylinder was probably acrylic, because it's cheap, transparent, and doesn't break easily.

      • Re:Alpha (Score:5, Informative)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @09:38PM (#58149414)
        The decay chain of U-238 [wikipedia.org] includes many isotopes which give off beta and gamma radiation. Most of that energy is given off via alpha particles. But it's not true that a sheet of paper or your dead skin cells will block all if it.

        That said, this was uranium ore, which is typically only about 0.1% uranium [nmt.edu]. Uranium and its decay products have a radioactivity of 12,356 Bq (decays per second) per gram, so you'd expect ore to be about 12.4 Bq per gram.

        In contrast, potassium chloride [cns-snc.ca] is commonly used as a salt substitute in low-sodium salt products. It's about 0.0118% naturally-occurring K-40, which is radioactive (beta radiation even). That gives potassium a radioactivity of about 0.032 Bq/mg = 32 Bq per gram

        So the exposure visitors got from these buckets of uranium ore was probably less than you get walking past the water softener bags in the supermarket. In fact, looking at the table on page 2 of the potassium chloride link, you'd expect baked potatoes, milk, orange juice, bananas, hamburgers, and roast chicken to be more radioactive (gram per gram) than these buckets of uranium ore.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          That's true, but a plastic bucket is a pretty effective beta absorber. The bucket with the loose lid would have let a bit more out.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )

          The decay chain of U-238 [wikipedia.org] includes many isotopes which give off beta and gamma radiation. Most of that energy is given off via alpha particles. But it's not true that a sheet of paper or your dead skin cells will block all if it.

          Not quite. Its mostly alpha and beta emitters but no gamma emitters. That's why its not really so dangerous. Before it hurts you, you would get a sunburn. and probably move away. For the gamma emitters you are probably thinking of U-232 which is Uranium's answer to Pu-238. It glows red hot in high purities. It also matters what else is in the ore. If its U-238 decay products, its likely a lot more radioactive than your estimate because those decay products have much shorter half-lives than U-238 and

  • There will be some lawsuits coming out of this, as the plaintiff qualifications should only include had cancer and visited the Grand Canyon in the last 18 years.

    This is unfortunate, idiotic, careless, and unlikely malevolent... mostly just dumb luck of the bad variety. To put it in perspective, there are likely millions of American homes with unhealthy levels of carcinogenic radon gas.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jaa101 ( 627731 )

      the plaintiff qualifications should only include had cancer and visited the Grand Canyon in the last 18 years.

      Anyone can sue, whatever their qualifications, but winning is going to require showing that it's more likely than not that Grand Canyon caused them harm. Staff or anyone else who had many days of exposure might have a chance but nobody else will, not unless there's somehow a mass outbreak of cancer that can be linked to visiting.

  • And I thought I only got exposed during my work in smelters and military missions.

    Oh well.

  • Exposure 600x federal guidelines? (Score:3)

    by MrScience ( 126570 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @08:41PM (#58149140) Homepage

    I'm not understanding the flippant comments here. It certainly seems significant that children were receiving at least 600 *times* the radiation guidelines.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      From TFA

      The report indicated radiation levels at "13.9 mR/hr" where the buckets were stored, and "800 mR/hr" on contact with the ore. Just 5 feet from the buckets, there was a zero reading.

      Unless the kids were sitting on the buckets they are fine.

    • I don't think the comments are flippant. Some people want to overestimate the potential damage here because:RADIATION. When the true hazard is heavy metal poisoning, but only if ingested, which is unlikely

      The radiation guidelines are more than 6000 less than a level which can cause actual damage. As a matter of fact the most significant reasons levels are so low is the potential damage to unborn fetuses, which are much more susceptible to damage from radiation than even children.

      Initially I wrote about how

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Some people view any suggestion that radiation or radioactive material may be dangerous as an attack on their favourite unfairly maligned tech - nuclear power.

      They are convinced that if people would just wake up and realize that radiation wasn't dangerous and actually it's fine to live next door to Chernobyl now we would see a nuclear renascence. Also most of the costs associated with the technology are due to radiation fearing NIMBYs, who would otherwise be happy to have a great big power station built nex

      • That argument goes both ways.
        Some people are so hardcore to defend nuclear power, they'll ignore any excessive amount.
        Others, are so against nuclear power that they'll scream at a normal daily reading.

        You often see this with the term "chemicals" as well.

  • kudos (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @08:46PM (#58149160)
    Kudos to the teen with the Geiger counter. Maybe this will spark a trend of citizen radiation hunters.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hoofie ( 201045 )

      "a trend of citizen radiation hunters:" - God no. The last thing we need is morons wandering around with geiger counters clicking away with zero idea of the concepts of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, dosage, background radiation etc.

      Anyway what kind of teen walks around with a Geiger counter ? When I was a teen the only thing I walked around with was a semi-permanent erection...

      • I'm not sure why they would be likely to be so ignorant. If they have enough interest to shell out the money for an instrument and have a basic interest in the subject then they can probably be expected to have above average knowledge. Anything that raises the average is probably good, even if they are only looking for radioactive spiders to try and gain super powers.

      • When I was a teen the only thing I walked around with was a semi-permanent erection...

        Was it ionizing?

  • buckets of uranium (Score:5, Funny)

    by schklerg ( 1130369 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @09:00PM (#58149240)
    Would be a great name for a rock band.
  • > you were 'exposed' to uranium by OSHA's definition Sounds like weasel words to me. Someone's trying to blow a story out of proportion. The staff may have reason to be concerned though.

  • So the nation will inevitably be swept with a wave of Generation Z kids with superpowers?

    Everything I ever needed to know about radiation I learned from comic books. /s

    • You, and Godzilla, unless you are Godzilla, which renders moot my settled belief set regarding his/your ability to pay for internet and type legibly with those little dinosaur hands.

    • Will their powers exceed that of the Millennial's ability to melt down over the littlest of imagined slights? ;)
      (the buckets have been there since 2000 so many millennials were exposed.)

  • A 10 kilogram bucket of "good" uranium ore should put out about 400 nanosieverts per hour.

    The report seems to suggest about 2,000 times that.

    So they either got some actual nuclear waste - or someone had the Geiger counter set wrong.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfsmith ( 960400 )
      I put a rough 5-gallon bucket shape into the dose calculator for 0.33% uranium ore and got 20uSv/hr at 1cm distance. Still a factor of 400 off (but not the 20,000 you got: article said 800mRem/hr contact). http://www.wise-uranium.org/rd... [wise-uranium.org]

  • That's why (Score:4, Funny)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday February 19, 2019 @10:05PM (#58149546) Journal

    That's probably why it always felt so gosh darn warm and cozy in there.

    But seriously, I question the accuracy of the article....you'd have to be using some sort of processed uranium to get the level of radioactivity claimed, you won't get that from common ore specimens.

  • Geiger counter! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The one cell phone plug in you will never see in popular use. People would die if they saw how much radiation they are exposed to everywhere.

    • I have a Pocket Geiger that plugs into a phone, originally developed as low-cost radiation monitor for people in the Fukushima region.

      I was rather disappointed to see how little radioactivity it could find around where I live.

      The device uses a semiconductor sensor that is not very sensitive; you have to let it count for a while at a few clicks per minute. Also, I learned that it is calibrated for ~1 MeV gamma rays from Cs-137 and Sr-60 (the ones that are most bothersome around nuclear incidents). It will re

      • Where do you get one? There are actually quite a few old uranium mines in my area, so I might have a more interesting time with one.
        Also, spmewhere on the usgs website is a map of pretty much every hole dug for comercial mineral purposes, might help you find interedting places to play with your geiger counter.

        Edit: found the map
        https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/ [usgs.gov]
  • I definitely visited the grand canyon inbrtween those dates, but don’t remember if I visited that particular museum. Oh well, something else to add to the list of things that are contributing to my eventual demise.

  • Stephenson said they detected a low-level site within the building and traced it to the three buckets, which Park Service technicians had inexplicably returned to the building after dumping their contents.

    After dumping the contents, the employees brought back the buckets. Certainly don't want to waste a good bucket.

    Seriously though, some of these questions could have been answered if the people involved hadn't rushed to cover everything up. Also I notice nobody's talking about the significant levels of rad

  • "So they either got some actual nuclear waste - or someone had the Geiger counter set wrong."

    It's almost assuredly the latter. Geiger-Mueller tubes cannot discriminate energy levels or the difference between alpha, beta or Gamma radiation except to use different shield materials to filter out alpha, then beta.

    G-M counters are also wildly inaccurate at providing dose rates unless shielded for gamma only energy compensation. Dose rates are calculated in terms of Gamma against a known standard such as Cesium 1

  • There are houses in Colorado - all through the West, actually - that are radioactive, because they were built with concrete from gravel that contains low-level radioactive ores. That's why radon is such a problem; the radioactive gravel (with slight traces of thorium, probably) which decays, with radon as one of the decay stages. And since it's a heavy gas, it settles in basements.

    LONG term exposure can cause cancers, but in much of the West, the ground itself is radioactive. And always has been.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close