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

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.

Comments

Am *I* safe?

[timster]

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.

Public Paranoia

[Colin Winters]

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

Re:Public Paranoia

[kaphka]

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.

Re:Public Paranoia

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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.

Re:Public Paranoia

[chompz]

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?

Re:Public Paranoia

[Detritus]

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, 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.

Concern For the Labs is misplaced....

[oblisk]

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.

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

Natl. Labs

[Darchmare]

Having once worked at a National Lab (PNNL, operated by Battelle) 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)

Re:Natl. Labs

[letchhausen]

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

[Alien54]

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 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:How many of the reporters were Chinese?

[Pxtl]

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?

Sounds like Gilligan's Island...

[skelly]

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.

Could be just the beginning.

[Pinball Wizard]

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 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.

Such religious thoughts, I'm surprised.

[Convergence]

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.