Slashdot Mirror


LANL Warning About Radioactive Trees

coryboehne writes "KOB-TV in Albuquerque is reporting that Los Alamos National Labs is warning personnel who are cutting trees in a canyon east of Los Alamos that some trees in the area might be radioactive. The canyon, known as Bayo Canyon, was formerly known as Technical Area 10, and was used for weapons testing from the 1940s until 1961. A full summary of Environmental Direct Penetrating Radation in the Los Alamos area is available from the LANL Meteorology & Air Quality Group"

263 comments

  1. Get yours now by Siriaan · · Score: 5, Funny

    /me puts on tinfoil pants

    1. Re:Get yours now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. If I could, I'd mod you +5, Funny.

    2. Re:Get yours now by jdkane · · Score: 2

      That's a bummer. You definitely got modded wrong as Offtopic. You should appeal, if you care.
      C'mon, somebody mod this guy up.

    3. Re:Get yours now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't laugh... there was something like that on memepool a while back...

    4. Re:Get yours now by cscx · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The last tree held nine drums!"

      [obscure Simpsons quote]

    5. Re:Get yours now by divide+overflow · · Score: 2


      Christmas trees that glow in the dark...hmmm.

      Absolutely brilliant.

  2. What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Radioactive tests were only done for the good of humanity. No harm can come from them. Hagve they not learned to duck and cover?

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    1. Re:What are they talking about... by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, you seem to be ignoring the fact that we now have nuclear power (whether this is a good thing or not is debatable) and also the fact that millions of lives were saved from a conflict in Asia (whether this benefit outweighs the result is also debatable).

      Bottom line: it can have terrible consequences, but it can also be construed as being something that has done much more.

    2. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      Of course we cannot ignore the nuclear forces. We also cant ignore how we are going to poison ourselves. We cant ignore how we denied that nuclear power could hurt us before many people alive today were born.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    3. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      millions of lives were saved from a conflict in Asia (whether this benefit outweighs the result is also debatable)

      The US and allies studied the likely cost in human lives of bringing WWII to an end by invading the Japanese homelands - since the Japanese were obviously not going to surrender. They had some good sources of information, being able to look at actual casualties in taking Okinawa and other places by force. Their conclusions were that many more lives would be lost in a conventional invasion than would be lost due to the bomb. And further, those lives would be those of the enemy, not of US soldiers, which is not irrelevant when you are at war.

      So I think if the question is whether dropping the bomb was justified, then it was at that time, horrible though it sounds.

    4. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropping bombs is never justified. And considering the reaction americans had when the two towers fallen down, your country shouldn't be allowed to own bombs at all.

    5. Re:What are they talking about... by Milkyman · · Score: 1
      also the fact that millions of lives were saved from a conflict in Asia (whether this benefit outweighs the result is also debatable).


      Not that I'm really disagreeing with you here but then couldn't you say a nuclear holocaust would be good because it would save millions of people in our future from world conflict?
    6. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      If it is a debatable fact why should it prove my arguement wrong? If its not a real fact i cant let it get in the way of my decision making.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    7. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But terrorists don't care. That would give them more reason to do their stuff - we wouldn't fight back! You are stupid.

    8. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And further, those lives would be those of the enemy, not of US soldiers

      Unfortunatly i dont agree that we bombed the enemy. Although we didn't bomb US soldiers the civilians who were killed were not enemies of ours. When the war ended the Japanese didn't harbor the same hatred and agression that we did after 9-11 that we do towards Middle Eastern people.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    9. Re:What are they talking about... by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      and also the fact that millions of lives were saved from a conflict in Asia

      Actually, much research has been done on this topic. Conclusions from everyone have been that fewer than 100,000 people would have been killed (on both sides) during a ground invasion of Japan.

      Do a little Googling, and please help dispel this belief that dropping atomic bombs on Japan saved any lives.

    10. Re:What are they talking about... by jag164 · · Score: 2

      You seem somewhat versed in history.

      Please read more about the history of WWII from multiple angles (Asian, Eupoean, and American points of view) then come back and try again.

      <hint>
      In the early 40's, the world was at war. September 11th, the world was pretty much as peace except the jewish and muslim exteremist who will always hate each other.
      </hint>

    11. Re:What are they talking about... by drmofe · · Score: 1

      Operation Plumbbob ran from May to October 1957. It released 58,300 kilocuries of radioactive iodine into the atmosphere. It is projected that this will lead to 38,000 cases of thyroid cancer, estimated 1900 civilian deaths.

      Which civilians will contract thyroid cancer? Who knows? The US? Anyone within the fallout shadow of the atmospheric testing...?

      See also (Adobe Acrobat)

      STF

    12. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "millions of lives were saved from a conflict in Asia"

      Asia is at peace? Since when?

    13. Re:What are they talking about... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, 100,000 total casualties on both sides, right.

      Have a look at the events of March 10, 1945, in which Tokyo was firebombed, killing roughly 100,000 people. That's as many as your "both sides" estimate, in only the Japanese civilian population, with conventional weapons. Now granted, this was an rather singular event, but conventional, large-scale bombing of civilian populations (accidental or not) happened pretty regularly both in Japan and Europe.

      So, if a few hundred bombers managed to kill 100,000 people over the course of a few hours, what would have happened during a full-scale invasion, complete with urban fighting and an enemy that really, really didn't want to give up? As another example, take the battle for Berlin; roughly 600,000 total dead, equally split between the Germans and the Russians. It's hard to imagine a hypothetical Battle of Tokyo with only a sixth of that number, much less an entire Battle of Japan.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    14. Re:What are they talking about... by kmellis · · Score: 2, Insightful
      " The atomic bomb was not especially violent or heinous, except that it killed either instantly - or over a long time period. - danheskett"
      Bullshit. The results of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific. Outside of two kilometers, a significant number of people survived the blast itself and died of injuries within minutes, hours, and days. These were horrible deaths. There are numerous accounts of survivors from nearer the blast wandering around trailing their skin behind them, as they had blistered over their entire bodies and their skins sloughed off.

      I will not argue that the firestorms in Dresden and other cities were less horrific than the atomic bombings.

      I will argue that the targeting and wholesale slaughter of large civilian populations is inexcusable. It is an atrocity. It is a war crime.

      I am a casual student of the Manhattan Project and its result. There was a time when I accepted the official justification for the use of those two bombs. I no longer do. One of them, the implosion bomb which was not certain to work, could have been detonated over the sea as a demonstration. Yes, as it happened the Japanese warlords refused to surrender even after the destruction of Hiroshima. That has no relevance whatsoever. Even if doing the right thing wouldn't have worked, we still had the responsibility to do it. We had no way of knowing it wouldn't work. And we knew that the gun-type bomb would work, so we could still have used it on a city. (Not that I think that that is a morally justifiable action, either.)

      There is quite a lot of evidence to indicate that, ultimately, the decision to use the bombs was more political than military in nature.

      I think that, aside from the firebombing and nuking of civilian populations, the Allies acted nobly during WWII and they rid the world of two rapacious regimes that were arguably deeply evil. I believe in the essential goodness, or at least decency, of my government and of my fellow citizens and I have no desire to be in any sense a self-hating American. In fact, I despise those who have made this the core of their beliefs.

      But I also despise the equally unthinking, and jingoistic and narcissistic hypocrisy that takes a self-righteous accusatory stance against the actions of other nations but which is incapable of critically evaluating our own. The US has committed atrocities.

      Every day one can go to various web forums and read the outraged views of Americans who say, "How can anyone be so evil, so inhuman, so unfeeling as to kill those thousands of innocent civilians in the World Trade Center?". They believe that there must be something fundamentally wrong with "those people". And then they do things like spit on a vaguely Arabic looking person on the street. The evildoer rarely believes that he is an evildoer and, quite often, he believes that he is an agent of righteousness. In WWII we were, in fact, the "Good Guys". That doesn't mean that we didn't do Very Bad Things. Our refusal to recognize or atone for our nuclear destruction and torture of housewives, shopkeepers, tourists, and schoolchildren is a deep stain on our national moral character.

      I am not apologizing for the Japanese. They are, perhaps, no less hypocritical. While they would like us to apologize for the hundreds of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they have, until recently, refused to even acknowledge the millions of people they killed in China, particularly Nanking.

    15. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never justified? Bullshit fag. Maybe it seems that way from your view in front of your computer screen.

      Reaction from Americans after the "two towers fallen down" a bit much for you? Shouldn't be allowed to own bombs? Hah don't make me laugh. If you go up and hit someone who is much bigger and stronger than you, he isn't going to meter out the _exact_ back to you, he'll beat the daylights out of you. And beat up your weakling two bit friends who try to sand in front of him too. I'm not joking here this is how the real world works, and Arabs know that better than anyone.

    16. Re:What are they talking about... by dubious9 · · Score: 2

      the civilians who were killed were not enemies of ours

      Of course they were. I suggest you look into the Japanese mindset of the time. For anybody there not to defend their homeland would have been considered dishonorable. Not only to themselves, but to their family and ancestors. Quite a large motiving factor.

      When the US dropped the bombs, Japan was arming it citizenry and preparing for invasion. Old men, children, women. Who could you consider a non-combatant? The US did try to warn the civilian populace with flyers saying to leave city, but how could proud Japanese flee from supporting their war machine?

      The Japanese people were in complete and utter shock when their surrender was sounded, even after knowing their losses after two bombs, a lot of people still wanted to keep fighting.

      Yes, dropping the bomb was a horrible thing. It was a crime against humanity to indescriminately kill so many people. (which was, by the way, not the main goal, the bombs hit major production cities) Their is however, overwelming evidence that more people would have died in an invasion. It is quite a moral quandry.

      The difference between the US here, and Radical Fundamentalists of the modern era is that the US struck out in the goal of peace. We just wanted there to be no more fighting. The only thing about them we wanted to change was their ability to attack US. The US spent billions of dollars rebuilding Japan, and it today stands a world leader.

      Terrorists however, want to change us. What would we have to do to avoid their continued attacks? Not only would the US have to pull out of Arabia, Israel relocate to Ohio, and everybody everywhere convert to Islam. But there would still be terrorists. Even if women are muslim, how dare they show their face in public! Wipe out unclean industry (music,tv,alcolhol,broadway,schools where women can attend) also, thereby destroying the world economy and pluging into depression. Even if we did all of that, somebody somewhere would still find it in them to hate us.

      There can be no peace from those that will not accept poeple different than them. The only way to beat terrorism is education and economic support. Only once Arabs teach their children not to hate those different from them (which a good portion already does) will we have peace in the middle east.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    17. Re:What are they talking about... by netsharc · · Score: 2

      They weren't going to surrender? My (Australian)history teacher told me that the days before the US bombed Japan, Japan tried to send a message - through Russia - to the US that they were surrendering. The message didn't make it in time (or maybe it did?), and we know what happened next.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    18. Re:What are they talking about... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Funny how you chose the schoolyard bully analogy to prove your point.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    19. Re:What are they talking about... by Psion · · Score: 2

      Actually, the specific analogy used wasn't a schoolyard bully, but an idiot who picks fights with larger adversaries.

    20. Re:What are they talking about... by tgibbs · · Score: 2
      So, if a few hundred bombers managed to kill 100,000 people over the course of a few hours, what would have happened during a full-scale invasion, complete with urban fighting and an enemy that really, really didn't want to give up? As another example, take the battle for Berlin; roughly 600,000 total dead, equally split between the Germans and the Russians. It's hard to imagine a hypothetical Battle of Tokyo with only a sixth of that number, much less an entire Battle of Japan.
      However, if it is purely a matter of numbers, then we should have no great complaint over 9-11. After all, two or three thousand deaths is not that uncommon in war. One could arge that, if the perpetrators believed that they were preventing a greater number of casualties on their own side, then they were justified. But we make a big distinction between the deaths of soldiers and the deliberate or negligent targetting of civilian populations.
    21. Re:What are they talking about... by earthpig · · Score: 1

      i'm not sure where you get your facts,
      but the fire bombing of dresden was carried out on the 13th and 14th of frebruary 1945, not
      "non-stop firebombing of the entire city for weeks straight."

      just to set the record straight.

    22. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you couldn't.

    23. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      I suggest you look into the Japanese mindset of the time.

      A assume your saying you have. I dont believe you did, i have looked into it. I have studied Japan quite a bit, learned the languadge and studied the culture. You as wrong about them as anyone who claimed the communists were spying on us and we should make lists of em.

      The Japanese people were in complete and utter shock when their surrender was sounded

      Come on you cant really believe that. The war had not been going their way for over a year and althought they may have been surprised that they actually lost they were not in "utter shock".

      Terrorists however, want to change us.

      They use that an an excuse but they aren't going to really try to come in and turn America into a Muslim state. Some of what they ask for in ym opinion is reasonable but because of their actions we are not going to give in to them.

      the bombs hit major production cities

      Once again not true. Nagasaki was the best example of how this is not true. Nagasaki wa bombed as a test. A test on humans to see what the damage to a real live city would be in a hilly environment. As it turns out being behind a hill from the bomb will prevent the bomb from doing a lot of damage. We payed for that knowledge in the lives of civilians.

      As horrible as the bomb is it probably did save lives but there are other ways we could have won the war without using it. What if the bomb was not dropped on a population center? Wouldn't they get the idea? Who knows how the past could have been changed but i know that right now we must be very careful about how we treat our nuclear skill.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    24. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You remind me of those people who only speak English, who, when they encoutner someone who speaks another language, shout ever-louder to try and make themselves understood.

      You obviously know absolutely jack-shit about history. You say "there are other ways we could have won the war without using it". Ignoring the fact that the "we" who won the war did not include you (you might have been cowering somewhere bleating about your rights), what were those ways ? The Allies and the world had been at war for years and much of European civilization destroyed. Everyone wanted the war ended. As cheaply (in loss of life) as possible. So, since you are so fucking absolutely infinitely wise even though you've obviously never opened a history book in your (presumably about 16 years long) life - what would you have done ?

    25. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      BTW when i ask japanese people about what happened in WWII i dont need to shout... ill ask em in Japanese.

      Im not saying i know better than what they did but i know they have other options. Did they have to bomb a population center? Do you know anyone wiht family who died in one of the two bombings? Do you know people who have gone there?

      "we" who won the war did not include you (you might have been cowering somewhere bleating about your rights)

      First of all i wasn't alive so im not going to second guess what happened. Also the rights that were taken away during WWII were quickly given back after the war unlike the current war on terrorism. Was it ok to round up the Japanese citizens who lived and worked here in America? Im going to answer no for you which is clearly the position of our own govt. I live on an Island in Washington state where the very first Japanese citizens were rounded up. My house is only a few hundred feet away from where they were put together and loaded onto boats to be taken away. Do you know anyone who was taken away? Were you alive when the "war effort" took YOUR rights away? Your damn right i will tell people if i think that outr tights are being taken away.

      So what your saying is that European civilization should be saved at the cost of any amount of Asian lives?

      The past is the past and i dont want to change what happened. All i want to do is make sure something as horrible as WWII never happens again. Today around the country it sounds almost like we want to start another WW. It sounds like we want to prove again WE can show the world the light of good and bomb the hell out of anyone who is "evil". Everyone seems to ignore the huge pain and loss of WWII. The other day i was tlaking to someone from Hungary who said that in Europe they are much more afraid of war than America. They remember very well what happened.

      So quit attacking my opinion by simply attacking my experiance. Why dont you argue with my points instead of simply saying im wrong without an explanation.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    26. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First of all, no-one's talking about taking your tights away. Maybe its cold where you are, or maybe you just like wearing hosiery, so you keep 'em on.

      But your post does pretty much point out that you have a very infantile mindset for this kind of (important) thing. Just to fix you up on one paragraph (because the rest of it is all much the same):

      Im not saying i know better than what they did but i know they have other options.

      Like I said, what were they ?

      Did they have to bomb a population center?

      Yes, the whole point was that that was what they concluded would end the war with least loss of life. You still haven't refuted that point (thats a big word that means you've proved it was not so).

      Do you know anyone wiht family who died in one of the two bombings? Do you know people who have gone there?

      No, and no again. But what does that have to do with what we're discussing ? I don't have to know their family to feel sorry for them - which I certainly do. But you're making an emotional point that has little to do with the logic that explains why the Allies used the bomb.

      I think you need to grow up and think a little bit before you post. And a little history study would help too.

    27. Re:What are they talking about... by dubious9 · · Score: 2

      I think you need to grow up and think a little bit before you post. And a little history study would help too.

      So, since you are so fucking absolutely infinitely wise even though you've obviously never opened a history book in your (presumably about 16 years long) life - what would you have done ?

      What did somebody say something? I can't hear you. I have this problem about hearing AC's. Grow some balls and speak up coward. Besides you offer no good argument. packeteer makes some good points, most of which I do not agree with. Does insulting people anonymously make you feel good? Get out of here.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    28. Re:What are they talking about... by dubious9 · · Score: 2

      A [sic] assume your saying you have. I dont believe you did

      I've studied WWII alot in both theaters and one of the best books I've ever read was John Hersey's Hiroshima. Yes, the human toll was heart breaking. I can understand that it was, but what other alternatives were there? After the fierce Japanese resistance in the island hopping campaign , how can you not assume hundreds of thousands of casualities required to take the island?

      They could have dropped it over the ocean, but this would have been little more than a light show. How can you convince somebody of its destruction ability yet not destroy anything? Besides look at the alternatives: months of fire bombing every major city the "soften" up the invation, months of city fighting against a determined foe, the cost of such an operation. There was no right choice, it just happened that the bomb was the easiest, cheapest (after the intial R&D of course), and most garunteed way to ensure surrender. What would you have done?

      Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stragtegic targets. To deny so is nieve. To quote Harry Tuman This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

      He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...


      Also, was I wrong about the Japanese being honor driven? Please explain. IIRC, the Japanese weren't open for peace negotiations until the second bomb went off.

      Come on you cant really believe that. The war had not been going their way for over a year and althought they may have been surprised that they actually lost they were not in "utter shock".

      You underestimate the value of their propaganda machine. Germany was the same way. Most Germans and Japanese had no idea how bad their situation really was until the Allies came rolling through. How would they have known? There was no free press. Yes, the Americans had been bombing relentlessly, but when all you hear is propaganda, what do you believe?

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    29. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      Becuase you are not into this AC's blatent dodging of the arguement's facts could you explain his point if you agree. I understand people will disagree with me and i would really like someone to make a valid point as to why im wrong. I know there is more to his opinion that "your 16 so stfu". If you can honestly counter my points and make your own argument as to why im wrong i would be willing to hear it and change my opinion.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    30. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      Yes, the whole point was that that was what they concluded would end the war with least loss of life

      How is a population center going to lower the loss fo life? Could they have not bombed an unpopulated area just to show the power of the bomb. Of course we told them we were going to bomb them but how could they really believe we would wipe out an entire city. We could have droped hundreds of bombs and it would not have made an invasion against an angry populace any easier.

      If we dropped a hundred bombs on a hundred cities it still would not have crushed them if they refused to surrender. All that needed to happen was to have them know as we know that we had the power and willingness to wipe out a city. The key question that nobody, and i'll admit, including myself knows the answer to is would Japan have surrendered if we didn't bomb the cities. There is always a way but i cannot answer what it would have been becuase as i have said many times before it is the past and i cannot second-guess the actions of those before me.

      But what does that have to do with what we're discussing. I don't have to know their family to feel sorry for them

      You probably dont know many of them becuase entire families were taken out. Can you imagine the loss of an entire family name? All the history of the people in the cities now gone?

      I have asked people who knew some who died in the bombings. I havent heard one of them talk about how they wished it never happened. I dont know if i would want to take it back if i could. The one thing i know that those who knew the dead also agree with is that we can't let somehting like that happen again.

      Its not about placing blame on teh past bombing, its about preventing ANY civilian casuaties.

      Also, as one last note; why aren't you maknig arguements against my points instead of attacking the fact that im making them. Instead of saying my points are not related or entirely fabricated you should explain WHY.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    31. Re:What are they talking about... by packeteer · · Score: 2

      The target will be a purely military one

      Of course they would say its a military target and it IS partially correct. Obviously they would not bomb an area with no military targets but wiping out their army was not possible with nuclear bombs. We could have dropped nuke after nuke after nuke and not decimated their military. The real power in the bomb is the fear of it killing more civilians. So although it did destroy military targets it did far less than any other type of bombing could have to purely military targets.

      Also, was I wrong about the Japanese being honor driven

      You are right about that but it is not honorable to get yourself killed and have your family starve. The war machine convinced them of things that would most likely have proekn down on the event of a real invasion although who can really say as its the past and cannot be changed.

      You underestimate the value of their propaganda machine

      Although i was not there im not so sure i am. Many of the Japanese thought they were winning the war untill their surrender. Do you think they would have really fought so hard when real American troops came to their town.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    32. Re:What are they talking about... by hasse · · Score: 1

      This is a US based messageboard. You are preaching to the brainwashed.

      There are few people in the US who even wants to consider any scenarios other than that they were taught in school. "The Japanese were fanatic, wouldn't surrender, not even after the first bomb, our only alternative was to bomb and kill a lot of civillians."

      I bet they aren't taught that Truman claimed that Hiroshima was a military installation, or that he initially thought they were going to save thousands of lives, not millions. That's something his bad conscience made up in the fifties.

    33. Re:What are they talking about... by aslagle · · Score: 2
      One of them, the implosion bomb which was not certain to work, could have been detonated over the sea as a demonstration.

      Hmm...casual student...okay, that explains it.

      You are a country in a declared war, one that you've maintained all along that will only accept an unconditional surrender. You have an extremely limited amount of fissile material, enough to make two weapons. Do you waste one of them on a 'demonstration' over an unpopulated area?

      Actually, this was considered, and rejected. Using one of the weapons in that way was deemed wasteful. Remember the time - we didn't have the stockpile of weapons we do now. We had developed them to use them, and in a war you don't waste material you can use to fight the enemy.

      As for doing the right thing, which you seem to imply would have been to continue with the invasion of Japan - do a little more research on a little island called Okinawa. All inhabitants of the island took part in its defense, and ended up committing suicide to avoid capture. To believe that the residents of Japan would not conduct themselves in a similar manner is folly.

      And it's true, Japan did tender an offer of surrender before the second bomb was dropped. It was, however, with conditions. It amounted to the current regime retaining power.

      IMHO, the people who say the decision to drop the bomb was unjustified either are looking at the time with modern sensibilities, or are revisionists. With the information that the US government had at the time, the decision was justified.

    34. Re:What are they talking about... by kmellis · · Score: 2
      I used the word "casual" to indicate the distinction between being a lay and a professional student of history. My familiarity with the development of the bomb is not at a professional level, but is quite intimate.

      Contrary to what you say, it isn't the case that the bombs were developed to be used. Would you say that all the subsequent bombs were built to be used? All the bombs, including the first two, were built to be used, if necessary. And there was a range of opinion as to what constituted necessity.

      The senior military, and Groves, wanted to use the bomb because it would give them a victory that would otherwise be very expensive in terms of casualties. The president and some people on his staff wanted to use the bomb to send a powerful message to Stalin. But the majority of the senior Los Alamos scientists didn't want the bomb dropped on a city unless it was absolutely necessary; and they felt that since they were going to have two bombs available, one of which they were virtually certain would work, then a demonstration/warning detonation would be the most moral action to take. The wanted their opinions heard directly, but, failing that, they pleaded with Oppenheimer to take that recommendation to the White House. Oppie himself was ambivalent, and he did promise to voice these concerns. Groves got wind of this and made it clear to Oppenheimer in no uncertain terms that he was not to air those opinions and was to support the use of the bombs on civilian targets. Oppenheimer did as he was told.

      All your arguments are the arguments that have long been used to justify the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They superficially make sense. But they don't survive scrutiny. They could have had three bombs if they hadn't "wasted" one at Trinity.

      I am not arguing that "doing the right thing" would have been to forego the bombs entirely and invade mainland Japan. I am arguing that the right thing would have been to do quite a bit more to avoid having to use those weapons on a civilian population. We now know that one of the reasons the Japanese military refused an unconditional surrender after Hiroshima was because they had very little information about what happened there. After Nagasaki, it became obvious how terrible these bombs really were and the Emperor over-rode their desire to fight to the bloody end. That decision perhaps could have come without such a great cost in civilian lives. It seems to me that the arguments you make are exceedingly weak when counted against all those innocent lives.

    35. Re:What are they talking about... by aslagle · · Score: 2
      That decision perhaps could have come without such a great cost in civilian lives. It seems to me that the arguments you make are exceedingly weak when counted against all those innocent lives.

      And I'd argue that all of your arguments are based on hindsight. Yes, the weapons killed a large number of civilians. That's bad - I'm not saying it's a preferred thing to do.

      But let's look at the way wars were conducted in the WWII timeframe. Precision bombing, even in daylight conditions, was not even remotely what it is today. Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained vital military industrial complexes.

      A lot of your opinions seem to come from the type of historical analysis that pulls from a lot of different documents ('We now know..'). What we must do when we evaluate the decisions of historical figures is what information did they have at the time, and how did it affect their decision?

      All of the information Truman had at the time made the decision clear. Notice I didn't say easy. But the goal in war is to preserve your citizenry at the expense of the enemies'.

    36. Re:What are they talking about... by dubious9 · · Score: 2

      The real power in the bomb is the fear of it killing more civilians. So although it did destroy military targets it did far less than any other type of bombing could have to purely military targets.

      I suggest you look up the accuracy of high altitude bombing of the day. If you wanted to target strategic targets in a city you there was no way you weren't going to be hitting civilians. Look at Dresden, and the firebombing of Tokyo. The reason the Japanese surrendered was not only out of concern for their citizens, but they also realized that the americans could take out any point on their island with one bomb instead of thousands and thousands of bombs coming from dozens of bombers flying dozens of missions. That's why nobody paid much attention to the Enola Gay and her escorts. A single bomber probably wouldn't have even set off the air raid sirens.

      You are right about that but it is not honorable to get yourself killed and have your family starve.

      How many prisoners did the Allies take from their island hopping campagn? Don't you remember stories of people flinging themselves off of cliffs rather than surrender? Not only soldiers did that, as there were a number of Japanese civilians on a the islands they took who also committed suicide. Granted this also stemed from the fear of being captured, but it shows their determination. How many Japanese died in futile Bonzai rushes only to be mowed down by machine gun fire? This is what the americans experienced in the pacific, why would they have any less reason to believe that taking Japan would be any easier? Wouldn't you think it would be more costly? And wouldn't you fight if your holy emperor told you to? He was a divine after all.

      Do you think they would have really fought so hard when real American troops came to their town.

      Yes. Suicidally hard, at least for a while. You fail to give no evidence that the Japanese population would have done otherwise.

      The war machine convinced them of things that would most likely have proekn down on the event of a real invasion

      Give one example, besides Frace in WWII, in history that a decidedly determined foe surrendered at the face of invasion. America in the 1770's? Boy, those brits were sure strong. Vietnam? Korea? Russia in every war? Even in Germany elderly people were armed as the Allies crossed the Rhine.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    37. Re:What are they talking about... by dubious9 · · Score: 2

      Its not about placing blame on teh past bombing, its about preventing ANY civilian casuaties.

      Impossible in WWII. Possible today, with our military might, but not a reasonable goal in WWII. If you have civilians working and living around war factories there was no way not to target them. The Japanese could have corralled all of their civilians away from all potential target, but their war machine would have fallen way ward.

      These people put themselves in danger for the honor of defending their country. Yes they did lament the dead, but they were also proud that they died for such a good cause.

      The one thing i know that those who knew the dead also agree with is that we can't let somehting like that happen again.

      We can't let a war like WWII happen again. Many more civilians died from conventional means. An order of magnatude more. Look at Russian and German casualties. This was the cost of invasion. The bomb was a necessary evil. The point is not to prevent the use of nuclear weapons but avoid the situation of war that makes you want to think about it.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    38. Re:What are they talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there are plenty of non-US people on this board. And some of us have studied our history. The audience here might well be one of the least brainwashed anywhere. Why don't you make your points using facts, not by assuming everyone here is brainwashed.

  3. Radioactive Squirrels? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do said trees have radioactive squirrels?

    1. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by mestoph · · Score: 1

      Seems to remind me of the simpsons episode, with the woods and the xfiles and glowing Mr Burns.

      --
      --+> Life, is there any?
    2. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by ejdmoo · · Score: 1

      "I bring you love"

      "It brings us love! Break its legs!"

    3. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by ejaw5 · · Score: 2

      Smithers: Mr. Burns, this tree can't take anymore barrels of radioactive waste

      Mr. Burns: Pish-posh...that tree over there held 6 barrels.
      ..let's hope the boys scouts don't find out

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
    4. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by narkotix · · Score: 0

      there is also the other episode where mr burns and smithers get busted shoving radioactive drums into the tree and the squirrel has laser eyes and burns the nut off the tree!

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    5. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by IHateEverybody · · Score: 5, Funny


      Do said trees have radioactive squirrels?

      In another time, a teenager bitten by a radioactive squirrel would have been a great idea for a superhero.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    6. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by kaxman · · Score: 0

      Only if it was a radioactive flying squirrel.

      --
      Everyone on slashdot has a journal.
    7. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by helix400 · · Score: 2
      Do said trees have radioactive squirrels?

      Yes.

      Those squirrels are radioactive. In fact, any squirrel in any tree is radioactive. Other radioactive things include chipmunks, bananas, houses, and Al Gore. Any substance made up of certain elements that have naturally occuring radioactive isotopes are radioactive.

      That's the problem. It's so easy to make fun of radioactivity that you can attach the word "radioactive" to virtually anything. Then it becomes the butt of jokes, protested by environmentalists, and regulated by the government.

      These Las Alamos trees, for example, are barely more radioactive than they should be. In fact, the report mentioned that it was hard to even discern these more-radioactive-than-normal trees because of small fluctations in background radiation.

      These trees are harmless, and so are the squirrels.

      --
      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! - Kodos

    8. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squirrels???? Superhero??? Are you nuts or something???

    9. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is much need for a hero who sits in a burrow playing with his nuts all day... No way you would get that comic approved by the Comics Code Authority.

    10. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by trotski · · Score: 2

      Yes,

      but only if they ate nuts off of the radioactive trees.

      Yet another reason to never eat squirrels.

      --

      "Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
    11. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there a Tick cartoon where one of the potential superheros had the cathphrase: "I _LIKE_ squirrels!"

      The same one with "SarCastro" in it. Ah, trivia.

      Might be handy for once, in this case.

    12. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by little1973 · · Score: 1

      In another time, a teenager bitten by a radioactive squirrel would have been a great idea for a superhero.

      Go, Squirell-Man, go!!!

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    13. Re:Radioactive Squirrels? by hplasm · · Score: 1
      there is also the other episode where mr burns and smithers get busted shoving radioactive drums into the tree and the squirrel has laser eyes and burns the nut off the tree!

      Ah, but in this case it is the trees which burn the nuts off the squirrel!

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  4. Weapons? by Flamesplash · · Score: 5, Funny

    So are these considered to be weapons? I mean chop the thing down then drop them out of a plane, or strap an engine on it and you have a wooden missle.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    1. Re:Weapons? by Hays · · Score: 2

      <office space>
      That is the worst idea I have ever heard *shakes head*
      </office space>

    2. Re:Weapons? by dandelion_wine · · Score: 2, Funny

      I put a log in my fireplace and haven't actually needed to burn it to heat my home. I also have a healthy glow

    3. Re:Weapons? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      Reminds me of the russian town that found the barrel of radioactive waste, used it to keep warm and then all promptly started suffering. Kinda makes you wonder what they were thinking.

      "Sheesh, the Jonesnskis all died. Their hair and teeth fell out and they then bled to death through cracks in their skin."

      "Cool, my husbund... didn't they have that barrel that the Smithskis had just before they died in the same mysterious manner?"

      "Why yes they did, my little babooshka"

      "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

      "Yeah! The mysterious always warm barrel is available! I'll go start the mule to drag it home!"

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  5. I can see it now... by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Charmin Ultrasoft Disinfectant Radioactive Toilet Paper for the ultimate in clean"

    1. Re:I can see it now... by ender81b · · Score: 2

      God I'm a geek. I actually thought about if that would really work for a few moments...

    2. Re:I can see it now... by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      Child: Daddy, there's a monster under my bed!
      Father: Nonsence, thats just a 14" flee, your bed is made from radioactive trees too.

      brings new meaning to "don't let the bedbugs bite"

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    3. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think that means you're an idiot.. a geek would be smart enough to know. you dumb fuck

    4. Re:I can see it now... by ender81b · · Score: 1

      woohoo! I've been trolled! Thanks, it makes my day.

    5. Re:I can see it now... by herrd0kt0r · · Score: 2

      brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "dirty bomb."

    6. Re:I can see it now... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      I always knew all this nuclear testing would come around to bite us in the ass some day.

    7. Re:I can see it now... by hplasm · · Score: 1

      That'll keep those damn bears from shttn in the woods....

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  6. The first indication... by tgrotvedt · · Score: 5, Funny

    The first signs that alerted KOB-TV to this phenomenon was when reporters were strolling through then canyon, the trees were giving them strange looks...

    --
    What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
    1. Re:The first indication... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      ...followed by "Are you hinting my apples aren't what they ought to be?"

  7. I can see it now... by dirkdidit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Child: But Dad, I'm afraid of the dark.
    Father: Oh, you don't have anything to worry about.
    Child: How come, Daddy?
    Father: Well you see son, our house was built with radioactive trees, so the entire house is like a big night light.
    Child: Is that why my hamster got cancer?
    Father: No more questions, time for sleep.

  8. TTT by goss · · Score: 1

    How appropriate that the two towers is about to be released...

    [tree chopping guy] hmmmm, I swear there were some big ugly looking trees just over there a second ago...

    [treebeard's great*765 grandson] *smack*

  9. xmas by sweede · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, think of it as a self-illuminating christmass tree !!

    think of the money on electricity you'd save !

    --
    I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
  10. LANL Warning About Radioactive Tees by Anonymous+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Oh shit, my t-shirts are radioactive... not that... jeeze, before it was billboards damning sacromento, now this, I really do need sleep...

    --
    Hey, this is my sig, if you don't like it, STOP READING MY POSTS!
  11. Wooden missles? by Jack_Frost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aren't those more commonly known as "arrows?"

    1. Re:Wooden missles? by Cerebris · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think we'd have too many broken arrows... /me ducks

    2. Re:Wooden missles? by Woodrose · · Score: 0

      Just a larger version, is all. Remember Agincourt!

      --

      Thou hast damnable iteration, and art indeed able to corrupt a saint - Henry IV, Act I scene II

  12. Obligatory Simpson's reference by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 5, Funny
    Radioactive trees? Sounds like the work of Montgomery Burns!

    If you didn't get it, read this script.

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpson's reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. A fun radioactive quiz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You should re-take this test if you have been exposed to too much radiation:
    Find yer sex
    You may be surprised.
  14. hah, i guess Reagan was right about one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trees really do cause pollution (if you burn radioactive ones). [Note for the unaware: "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." ~ Ronald Reagan, 1981]

    1. Re:hah, i guess Reagan was right about one thing by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

      They do!?! Shit, let's cut the f*ckers down! Goddam commie trees!

  15. Good way to prevent christmas tree theft by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gee...they used to just spray the trees with a noxious spray....I guess that didn't keep the tree theves away.

    -ted

  16. It's easy to tell by DrugCheese · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not too hard to tell the difference between normal and radioactive trees. The radioactive ones talk and throw their apples at you. The others don't.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  17. Forest Fire? by hrieke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Before someone marks this as funny, would a forest fire be an extream hazord because of the radioactivity?

    Let's not forget that recently the Los Alamos area was on fire from forest fires.

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    1. Re:Forest Fire? by Meowing · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the radioactive material used had a very short half life, but there are traces of the nasty stuff. A more complete version of the story is here.

    2. Re:Forest Fire? by Splezunk · · Score: 1
      Just one thing I find Strange....

      "The reason that is a concern is because it acts similar to calcium," Rickman said. "If you would ingest it, it would tend to appear in your bones and teeth."

      Who eats trees?

    3. Re:Forest Fire? by Meowing · · Score: 3, Informative
      Who eats trees?

      Check your food and medicine labels for cellulose. Most of it comes from wood pulp.

    4. Re:Forest Fire? by hplasm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Surely not. The Atomic Tree (TM) is a safe and cost effective replacement for smelly and dangerous Wood Fires (TM). Forest fires would be phased out gradually as more and more Nuclear Forests are commissioned.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:Forest Fire? by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      As an aside, your concern about forest fires in northern New Mexico is a real one.

      Drought the past few years has considerably weakened many of the trees as their moisture content has dropped.

      A friend that drove through Los Alamos recently said that many (half, even!) of the pine trees in some areas were brown, because the drought had weakened them to the point where they were susceptiable to the pine bark beetle.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  18. A fun radioactive test: by dagg · · Score: 0, Redundant
    You should re-take this test if you have been exposed to too much radiation:
    Find yer sex
    You may be surprised.
    --
    Sex - Find It
  19. Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas are by Ben+Escoto · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the article:
    Lab spokesman James Rickman says small sections at the bottom of the canyon, formerly known as Technical Area 10, were used from the 1940s until 1961 as test sites by scientists studying explosions.

    Rickman says it's not really that there's a risk, but the lab wanted to point that out.
    So apparently that area is not particularly dangerous. However, the LANL reports found some areas with a quarterly doses of about 300mrem. At that rate it wouldn't take long to accumulate a total dose of multiple rems, which starts getting dangerous (5 rem is some legal cutoff I believe). Hopefully those areas aren't inhabited..
  20. Heh by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last couple weeks I have been knee deep in research about nuclear testing working on my web site (Buy a nuclear testing shirt! My kid's gotta eat!)

    The only test I can think of offhand that was in New Mexico was the original Trinity bomb that was set off pre-Hiroshima.

    There were, however, several criticality accidents at Los Alamos, and several "downwind incidents" in Nevada around the same time.

    See the "history" page on my site for a description of the Army SL-1 that went critical in Idaho in the 60s. That's one I didn't learn about until recently, and apparently it was a pretty hot one too. The more I research into this, the more amazed I am about the amount of contamination there is scattered around the US, and on the islands we ran tests on.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:Heh by lommer · · Score: 2

      GigsVT, I checked your site out of curiosity. I hope you realize what you are doing, you should at least have a disclaimer or something up because otherwise you could be seriously liable.

      I believe the issue is best illustrated by a story of my dad's: When he was at university a guy stole one of those "Radiation Hazard" signs from the physics department and attached it to his scooter. This was all fine until he got in a traffic accident ~1 month later. He was pretty severly injured, but when an ambulance arrived on the scene they refused to go near him until a hazmat team came in to confirm that there was no radiation. The guy lived to tell the tale, but had his injuries been more serious the hour that it took the hazmat team to arrive could have cost him his life.

      I know most of your stuff is spoofs, but you should make sure it says that somewhere...

    2. Re:Heh by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm.... You really think someone is going to take a t-shirt that says "Dangerous when wet" seriously? Besides, those shirts aren't the focus of the site, the nuclear test shirts are.

      I could understand if I was selling placard signs or something for people to put in their dorm rooms... But I think any reasonable person would know such a shirt was a spoof.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Heh by rosewood · · Score: 2

      Wow. Thats pretty damn crazy. I would think that an EMT would just grab the body and go and wouldnt be too horribly exposed to whatever could be on a scooter but damn, this is a good lesson for anyone, like myself, that would think of taking such a thing.

  21. A hilarious SNL skit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Featuring Gwenyth Paltrow)

    Mindy: Ok, this next song is about a very important issue. You know we lose 50 million acres of rainforest each year. I mean that's just uh.. god you have sexy cheekbones. But we gotta do something about the rainforest.

    Sky: Oh yeah, I hate the rainforest.

    Mindy: Without the rainforest the planet is not going to survive, man. So we gotta make things right.

    Sky: There's just too many rainforests and they're like taking over the land! The time has come to stand and fight.

    Mindy: Um. I'm not sure what you mean there, Sky.

    Sky: Yeah, I mean if we all don't ban together, and BURN all the rainforests, there's going to be monkeys running our cities. It's just going to be like planet of the apes. People you've seen the movie! You know it's coming!

    Mindy: Hey, baby hey baby you're kind of freaking all of us out.

    Sky: Well sing your song Mindy. You've gotta warn them.

    Mindy: Yeah, save the trees here.

    Mindy: They're cutting down majestic trees, Mother nature falls to her knees, Stop bagging up and stop it please. But greedy wants what greedy sees. RAINFORESTS ARE THE DEVIL! WEVE GOT TO KILL THE DEVIL!WE GOTTA PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS! AND HIRE WAY MORE COPS! DAMN TREES DAMN TREES !

  22. No different at ORNL by T5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late '80s, we had a stand of trees (poplars, I believe) between the main road through the heart of the facility and a research reactor building. I used to walk right by these trees every day to get to the cafeteria. One day, the sidewalk on that side of the road was blocked off, and several men, wearing bunny suits and wielding chainsaws, were hard at work felling the trees. By the next day, even the stumps were gone.

    We've had our share of radioactive frogs too, some with some, shall we say, unique anatomy. Once, on that same main road, one of these unfortunate amphibians wandered underneath the tread of one of the facility's vehicles. Again, we see the bunny suits, this time with sprayers full of this black, sticky foam. Down the road every so often, you'd see a bunnyman either spraying or scraping an already-encapsulated piece of frog from the road where the contaminated tire had deposited it.

    1. Re:No different at ORNL by MrEd · · Score: 1

      Watch out, the black helicopters are going to be landing in front of your house any minute now...

      --

      Wah!

    2. Re:No different at ORNL by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Funny

      several men, wearing bunny suits and wielding chainsaws were hard at work felling the trees

      That describes most of my dreams since I was ten. Weird.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:No different at ORNL by perlwannabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Inspiration for the song "Hot Frogs on the Loose" by Fred Small.

      By the light of the Tennessee moon
      From the bilious bubbles of a black lagoon
      They make a hound dog howl a SWAT team swoon
      Hot frogs on the loose

      They've multiplied since '53
      Slurping nuclear debris
      Amphibious fabulous fancy free
      Hot frogs on the loose

      CHORUS:
      Hippity hoppity here they come
      Radioactive lookin' for fun
      If you kiss 'em look out for the tongue
      Hot frogs on the loose

      They got little skinny legs and big bug eyes
      Fraternizing's not advised
      They like you like they like flies
      Hot frogs on the loose

      They got a chicken nugget body and a whopper leap
      In your bedroom while you sleep
      They'll make your Geiger counter beep
      Hot frogs on the loose

      CHORUS

      You can put the pedal to the metal till the rubber squeals
      Squish 'em with your tires you got hot wheels
      How you know how it feels to be a
      Hot frog on the loose

      Please do not keep them as pets
      Sauteing them may bring regrets
      Make a citizen's arrest of a
      Hot frog on the loose

      Frogs for peace frogs for defense
      Don't be nervous don't be tense
      We've got a sure-fire three-foot fence
      To keep the hot frogs from gettin loose

      CHORUS

    4. Re:No different at ORNL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wearing .... bunny suits????

  23. Radioactive furniture by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe they can make glow in the dark furniture out of those trees?! :)

    1. Re:Radioactive furniture by RobKow · · Score: 2, Informative

      It happened!

      Nearly 13 years ago, a cancer-therapy machine was removed from the Medical Center for Specialities in Ciudad Ju rez and taken to a Ju rez junkyard that later sold the machine along with other scrap metal to two steel foundries for recycling. The machine contained 6,000 tiny pellets of radioactive Cobalt-60, which contaminated thousands of steel rebars (used to reinforce concrete) and furniture parts.

    2. Re:Radioactive furniture by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 2

      It happened!

      Nearly 13 years ago, a cancer-therapy machine was removed from the Medical Center for Specialities in Ciudad Ju rez and taken to a Ju rez junkyard that later sold the machine along with other scrap metal to two steel foundries for recycling. The machine contained 6,000 tiny pellets of radioactive Cobalt-60, which contaminated thousands of steel rebars (used to reinforce concrete) and furniture parts.


      Very interesting story! The amazing part was the way they found out:

      "The contaminated steel rebars soon found their way to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, where they triggered a radiation detector."

  24. Not really... the dose levels are still really low by Jack_Frost · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're still talking about a few hundred millirem per year... only about twice what you'd receive from the sun at the same elevation. You need about 50 REM in the space of a few hours to alter blood cells. Inhaling the smoke would lead to slightly higher dose rates, but in that case the smoke will kill you long before the exposure does anything to the living tissue.

  25. If these are pines... by The+Bungi · · Score: 0

    then at least they won't need christmas lights...

  26. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radioactive trees cut YOU down!

    1. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Cut down radioactive trees
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

    2. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by coryboehne · · Score: 2

      1. Cut down radioactive trees
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      I think I actually have an answer for #2...

      2. Make glow in the dark paper...

  27. Damn... by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was looking for radioactive spiders, and all I got was this bunch of trees...

    --
    C|N>K
  28. Yes, quite interesting but the reality is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  29. Mant by selectspec · · Score: 5, Funny
    Man and ant. Together living in natures harmony, each barely aware of the other.


    But...


    When combined with the power of ATOMIC energy, man and ant become...

    ...MANT!

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

    1. Re:Mant by pentarou · · Score: 1

      The praying mant is truly a creature to be feared. Makes radioactive trees pale in comparison, doesn't it?

    2. Re:Mant by hamisht · · Score: 1

      ...or Ant alone becomes Atom Ant

    3. Re:Mant by ALG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you think that's funny now... wait until MANT is eating your head!

      ALG

  30. Radioactivity least of their problems by nihilogos · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just wait until the Entmoot gets finished and they ...

    oh. the book isn't real is it?

    --
    :wq
  31. hot frogs by fermion · · Score: 1, Redundant
    This immidiately reminded of the frog incident at Oak Ridge. It seem that nature will find a way to thrive no matter how inconvenient it is to humans.

    Oh, and the song is pretty funny.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  32. futurama quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    from Fry (an ironic name, given the quote):
    " Ouch, my sperm! "
  33. Aha! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why treehuggers are typically bald!

  34. Get yours now! by Tseran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Today, on sale now! Get your very own Christmas tree that doesn't need lights! Watch your tree glow a festive green at night and feel the warmth of it as you sing the carolling favourite, "Walking in a Nuclear Wasteland"

    --
    .sig: It's what's for dinner.
    1. Re:Get yours now! by bbc22405 · · Score: 2

      sing the carolling favourite, "Walking in a Nuclear Wasteland"


      Or maybe you prefer "Chestnuts glowing by an open fire..."?

  35. Not again. by milkmandan9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've lived in Los Alamos for most of my life.

    There are a lot of alarmists in the area that like to point at things like this and jump up and down and make a whole lot of noise. Granted, there is likely some valid scientific proof to this warning (because they probably wouldn't have issued it if there weren't), but that's all that this is. It's just a reminder to the crews that are working in the area to be careful--they're still allowed down there to clean up if they like.

    This is a pretty regular thing for the area. The press gets wind of some sort of memo and the whole thing gets blown out of proportion. Things that should really only be semi-major events (like the Wen-Ho Lee case, for example) get turned into media circuses.

    I understand the need for caution and scrutiny but seriously, people, let's keep it appropriate.

    This memo is just a warning. It may come from a big, bad, government entity with some secret sleazy conspiracy agenda out to poison our kids or drug the masses or keep the real truth from getting out, but it also comes from an organization staffed with many of my good friends--people that I trust to oversee this type of work and set off alarms if something really bad is going on.

    I'd recommend traveling to D.C. if you want to read between the lines.

    1. Re:Not again. by rodgerd · · Score: 2
      This is a pretty regular thing for the area. The press gets wind of some sort of memo and the whole thing gets blown out of proportion. Things that should really only be semi-major events (like the Wen-Ho Lee case, for example) get turned into media circuses.


      Wen-Ho Lee sould have been a major case, but the press got hold of the wrong bit: why were US federal agents able to abuse their powers to try and "get" someone long after it became obvious the agents had cocked up? Why are they being offerred more powers?
    2. Re:Not again. by Herkum01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just remember, for every one "Memo" that gets blown out of proportion, there are at least ten that are being covered up.

    3. Re:Not again. by kmellis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      " There are a lot of alarmists in the area that like to point at things like this and jump up and down and make a whole lot of noise." - milkmandan9
      Well, let's not forget the spate of brain tumors that came to light back around 1994. I don't know how that whole issue resolved, but I do know that it hovered just around being statistically significant, especially as there was a correlation to age and growing up adjacent to a particular canyon. My ex-wife knew one of these people, a young man who died from his tumor.

      I'm a native New Mexican expatriated in hostile, relentlessly right-wing Texas (but in the oasis of Austin). I'm not sympathetic even the tiniest bit to the nuclear alarmists in northern New Mexico. CCNA's bullshit just infuriates me more than most things, actually. (When I was there last fall, I heard on their little news show on KUNM a story about low-level contaminated stuff recycled into materials incorporated into consumer items and they provided no scientific context whatsoever. I actually shouted at the radio.) I've known many people that worked at LANL (and Sandia), and I know some that still work there.

      Having made it clear that I'm skeptical and hostile to nuclear fear-mongers, I think that there's reason for Los Alamosans to be mildly concerned about their risk. As a casual student of the history of the Manhattan Project, I know that a) the health danger of cumulative, long-term radioactive dosages was grossly underestimated at that time (and the acute danger was somewhat underestimated, too); and b) in the interests of expediance justified by national security concerns, they were notoriously careless about safety during and after the Project. Just take a look at Hanford and Rocky Flats for examples of just how careless the DOE has been. Or take note of what the supposedly ex-Oak Ridge employee writes above.

      Also, my sister was a tumor registrar. She was not a registrar of that district, but she was a registrar of another district in a different state that included a DOE nuclear-related facility. It was her observation that there was clearly an unusual rate of cancers clustered around the facility, although it didn't reach the rigorous threshold of confident statistical significance. But it was not discussed, and the community remained unaware of any possible risk.

      I also know that in the case of the cluster of brain tumors of ten years ago that the LANL and the DOE were shown to have been at the very least uncooperative and at the most actively dissembling.

      I really think that people need to consider the implications of the fact that Los Alamos has a unique history. It was in its entirety a government installation on an urgent mission where civilian safety considerations didn't apply. It was only in the early sixties that it stopped being a "closed" city. LANL and the DOE is in the awkward position of worrying about a civilian apple-pie American population living in a city that was once wholly part of a government nuclear installation. Whether or not they were reasonably or unreasonably cavalier about safety in the past is irrelevant to the fact that, today, many people live alongside areas that were contaminated to a greater or lesser extent.

      These trees are probably not of any real concern. But that doesn't mean that there's not some amount of significantly heightened risk in the area, nor that LANL and the DOE aren't always entirely forthcoming.

      (Note: upon reviewing what I've written, I'm uncomfortable that I may give the impression that I'm sympathetic to the people that go berserk and totally irrational at the mention of the word "nuclear". I want to make the point that people are, in general, very very bad at risk analysis. Even though I write above that I believe there's some risk in Los Alamos, I want to make it clear that it is very likely that many people do things, thoughtlessly, on a daily basis that put them at considerably higher risk.)

    4. Re:Not again. by goldid · · Score: 1

      My good friend Dan speaks well.

      KMellis: I grew up in Los Alamos on the "brain tumor" street. Someone tried to convince us that our street had a far higher rate of brain tumors than anywhere else in the world. Plain wasn't true. It was just bad luck for a few people in the same place at the same time. There was absolutely no evidence for it.

      I love nuclear power and I love LANL.

    5. Re:Not again. by kmellis · · Score: 2
      " There was absolutely no evidence for it." - goldid
      What I recall is that there were about four to six people, within a limited age range, clustered around a small area of Los Alamos that developed brain tumors. And I recall that this statistic was close, but not sufficient, to being statistically persuasive. The sample was just too small.

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As it is often described, given a random distribution of dots on a piece of paper you can find and circle little clusters that have no significance whatsoever. But that explanation exists to explain that everything that looks like a pattern is not. Where it is weak is that its artficiality ignores the possibiity of the existence of known factors that will affect the distribution. In this case, the cluster does not appear in isolation, it appears in conjuntion with a known cause. Yes, correlation is not causation. Everyone should repeat that phrase three times every day. But people should also repeat three times a day the sentence that starts this paragraph.

      When you say "there was absolutely no evidence for it" your tone misrepresents the nature of rational enquiry and standards of evidence. Certainty is rare. What is more precise is that there was no conclusive evidence. The sample was too small to say with any confidence that it wasn't the case, as you put it, that a few people were unlucky. But given the context, it is foolish to dismiss the whole thing and assert that there's no risk. It is the sort of thing you reserve judgment upon and continue to gather more data.

      Because of the hysterics of people like the CCNA, the Labs and the people of Los Alamos often feel under siege and, as a result, are defensive. This results in an irrational "dutiful" reflexive defense of LANL's and the DOE's stated positions. But the simple truth is that both organizations have a documented history of not always being truthful about these sorts of things. A wise person remains skeptical about anyone's pronouncements about the health risks (or lack thereof) associated with areas in and around Los Alamos.

      And I'd like to again make the point that among health professionals, including, importantly, epidemiologists, there is a difference between what they say publicly and what they say privately. This is because people are irrational. They jump to conclusions. Health professionals are rightly very conservative about what they'll tell the public about this sort of thing because, as I said, people are poor at understanding probability and evaluating risk. But their own standard for watching and being concerned about something like this is not so conservative.

    6. Re:Not again. by goldid · · Score: 1

      Well, since I don't want to allow myself to be termed as irrationaly without defending myself ...

      Semantics are difficult, and you are correct in stating that the comment should have been "there is absolutely no conclusive evidence" that this is true.

      My point, perhaps more clearly, is that I personally do not believe that my street is dangerous. My neighbors have lived here for the entire life of the town and it is only that one group of people who had problems. No one before and no one since (that I am aware) has had problems. This is the evidence *I* see.

      People are irrational; isn't that what the Nobel prize in Economics for this year went for? I like to believe I am not. However, I will admit that I do share the defensive reaction to people saying bad things about Los Alamos in the mass media. However, some of us have to do it, or we'd get walked all over.

    7. Re:Not again. by kmellis · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. I should mention that I would not be that worried about living in Los Alamos; even on your street. (I wouldn't let my kids play in that canyon if it hasn't been cleaned up, though.) Just driving my car around every day is a larger risk.

    8. Re:Not again. by jimhill · · Score: 2

      You are correct that Dr. Lee was mistreated while in custody and that agents handling his case made mistakes of omission and commission. There is one thing we shouldn't forget, though: by his own admission on national television, the man was guilty of multiple, repeated violations of the Atomic Energy Act and should be spending the rest of his life in jail. He wasn't singled out for his ethnicity and I take great offense at his false claim that "everybody does it".

      Was he a spy? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. He damn sure is a criminal, though, and no amount of distaste for the way the government treated him changes that fact.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
  36. Chernobyl, polyploidy by tcyun · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recall hearing many years ago about changes in the trees (maples and birches, I believe) near Chernobyl after the accident there. If memory serves, the trees underwent some abberant type of polyploidy resulting in their leaves increasing in size up to 300%. The result were trees with enormous leaves.

    A quick google search of chernobyl polyploidy tree brings up a handful of good bibliographic links. I am not a biologist (nor do I have access to all of the references). I do suspect that there is a great deal of additional related information on the effects of the continued radiation on the environment.

    1. Re:Chernobyl, polyploidy by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably the most interesting outcome of the Chernobyl "experiment" is the almost indetectable effect the radiation had on the environment. All sorts of sensitive monitoring has been done, and there has been no evidence (other than one retracted paper) of damage to animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In fact, the area has become something of a nature park, since people have been kept out.

      The effects of long term exposure to low to moderate levels of radiation seem to be far less than receiving that same dosage all at once. In spite of that, the standards for radiation exposure tend to treat it as lifetime cumulative.

      None of this, of course, will keep people from totally freaking every time they hear the word radiation. After all, the medical profession had to change the name for their imaging machines from "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" to "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" because folks were scared of the word "nuclear!"

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    2. Re:Chernobyl, polyploidy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the rest of western europe had radioactive sheep.

    3. Re:Chernobyl, polyploidy by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

      You're right about NMR --> MRI; I used to be a technologist. :)

      Probably the most interesting outcome of the Chernobyl "experiment" is the almost indetectable effect the radiation had on the environment. All sorts of sensitive monitoring has been done, and there has been no evidence (other than one retracted paper) of damage to animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In fact, the area has become something of a nature park, since people have been kept out.


      As for Chernobyl, what you say puzzles me. The various stories and reports I have seen on Chernobyl detail continuing human impact such as thyroid cancer as far away as Scandinavia, significant radioactive contamination, and a bleak future. The exclusion zone in particular sounds like no nature park, despite its superficial appearance. Total human deaths alone are estimated in the tens of thousands, and animals show high concentrations of radioactivity in their flesh. It may be that insufficient studies have been done on animals.

      Animals must be susceptible to many of the same hazards as humans. On the web I see a lot of people talking about Chernobyl such as here -- it's hard to find a consensus. I would be interested in cites to contrarian info.

    4. Re:Chernobyl, polyploidy by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there have been approximately 2 thyroid cancer deaths and about 1000 excess thyroid cancers as a result of Chernobyl. These were in children who were exposed to high doses of radioactive iodine and were not given iodine supplements to crowd out the radioactive iodine. The thryoid, especially in children, is very sensitive to radioactive iodine. The good news is that thyroid cancer has a very high cure rates, as the above statistics indicate. Other than that, there have been NO adverse effects found in those exposed to the chronic excess radiation from Chernobyl.

      There have certainly been assertions of tens of thousands of deaths, but this was right after the event. It has failed to pan out. There were of course a number of deaths within the first month in the people who were exposed to high accute doses - limited to those who had worked on the fire.

      As far as longer term effects over a larger area, take a look at your own reference on health effects - it says that only thyroid cancer has been found. Look at http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html for details.

      EXTENSIVE studies have been done.

      Animals do NOT show high concentrations of radioactivity in their flesh, although some show *trace* accumulations. Extensive studies of animals in the exclusion zone were done because they had the highest chronic radiation exposures. These tests included sensitive genetic tests looking for enhanced mutation rates. NO POSTIIVE RESULT WAS FOUND (other than the retracted paper). This comes from a recent survey article in Science magazine.

      I think what Chernobyl will ultimately show is what many have long suspected: chronic low doses of radiation do *not* produce negative health effects in linear scaling with the known negative health effects of acute high doses. This is totally consistent with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki experience, although in those cases there was almost no chronic exposure there because there was no localized fallout from those two air burst explosions.

      There are no studies that I am aware of that show negative effects on humans from low doses of radiation. There is at least one study that implies positive effects - the rate of lung cancer in the US is *inversely* proportional to the level of household radon (based on per-county death and radon statistics).

      For both political and psychological reasons, the hazards of radiation exposure have been vastly overstressed, to the detriment of the public and the environment (due to its impact on nuclear power production). While it is entirely possible that low doses of radiation exposure produce very low increases in cancer incidence, the effect must be so tiny for it to have gone unmeasured.

      The excess death estimates used by various agencies are based on linear extrapolations from people who received high acute doses. There is a fundamental rule on radiation exposure which is that the dose is linearly cumulative. There is, however, no evidence to support that rule at low levels.

      BTW,,, as the longer term studies come in, there will *undoubtedly* be some statistically significant correlations (.95 probability level), if they test for enough possible consequences. This will happen if there is no effect at all, as the odds of a 1 in 20 significant result are pretty good if you look for more than 10 effects!

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  37. Mommy, mommy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mommy, mommy, my skin is hurting and falling off!

    Shut up and get back on that radioactive tree.

  38. I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ''Charmin Ultrasoft Disinfectant Radioactive Toilet Paper for the ultimate in clean''

  39. Nah! by mtec · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They're balled 'cause they're bending over hugging a tree! (gives you a woody don't it..) :>

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  40. OMG BOB! by Loco3KGT · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bill : "Hey Jack, does that tree look funny to you?"
    Jack : "What do you mean Bill?"
    Bill : "That tree has 72 branches."
    Jack : "So?"
    Bill : "That one only has 71."
    Jack : "Wow. Think the radiation did it?"

    Ah who cares. Maybe it'll turn out to mean more paper for the rest of us! ;-)

    --
    Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    1. Re:OMG BOB! by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1

      Sweet. Radioactive paper would mean I won't have to get a backlit PDA to read books in the dark.

  41. Sweet! by Theaetetus · · Score: 0, Troll
    And here I was jealous of people with PDAs, 'cause they can light them up to take notes in the dark!
    Now, with my trusty legal pad, I can join 'em!

    -T

    1. Re:Sweet! by togtog · · Score: 1

      Damn spam smoking mods! Phht to them all!

  42. you thief by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I invented those things, and I know you didn't pay your license fee because I haven't sold a single one of them!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  43. Cut Um Down ... NOW!!!! by SuperDuG · · Score: 5, Funny
    Look at what happens when you don't nip nuclear freaks of nature in the ass first chance you get...

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
    Gozilla
    Mothra
    Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
    Jerry Farwell

    Learn from the past ... these trees can only hurt us!!

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Cut Um Down ... NOW!!!! by Cyph · · Score: 2

      And don't forget Michael Jackson!

    2. Re:Cut Um Down ... NOW!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thats "Falwell".
      And "Godzilla".
      Also, Mothra wasn't radioactive, she was an ancient god-type-thing.

    3. Re:Cut Um Down ... NOW!!!! by marko123 · · Score: 1

      ObSPRef: No she wasn't. She was Robert Smith.

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    4. Re:Cut Um Down ... NOW!!!! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      SuperDuG wrote:

      > Look at what happens when you don't nip nuclear
      > freaks of nature in the ass first chance you
      > get...
      > [snip]
      > Gozilla

      Godzilla, yes, his sacred majesty was mutated by the test of the first hydrogen bomb, giving him huge size and the power of a god. Considering his mood in his last movie (last December) I would not call him a "freak" to his face, if I were you. That's assuming he let you live long enough to call him anything. Godzilla 2000 is a very cool dude that would probably let you live if you showed him your Mac. The GMK Godzilla is a ressurection of the 1954 original by the ghosts of the WWII dead, and is pretty much a walking nuclear bomb.

      > Mothra

      Mothra was never, ever, the product of nuclear radiation. Mothra's species evolved about 130 million years ago (as shown in "Mothra 3"), possibly earlier. The largest, by far, of the family Saturniidae (giant silk moths), her species is known for its gigantic size (one individual reached a wingspan of over 800 feet), huge head, superhuman intelligence, and for collectively achieving divinity. The closest known relatives to Mothra are the Japanese Silk Moth (change the caterpillars to brown and they look just like her, and the eyes of the adult are blue), and the Indonesian Atlas Moth (same orange stripped body). The original wing pattern was based on solar symbolism (Mothra is the kaiju incarnation of Japan's Sun Goddess, and as such, is the Goddess of civilization, life, peace, and happiness) and the katakana for "Mosura" ("mo" on her rear winglets, and "sura" on her fore winglets).

      In 1961, when nuclear testing was done near Infant Island, the divine infant Mothra, still in her egg, shielded her island from the blast. Her tiny priestesses gave her people the juice of giant fungus growing on the island. The red juice proved to be an antidote to radiation poisoning, and it was shared with the crew of a Japanese ship that was shipwrecked near the island.

      > Learn from the past ... these trees can only
      > hurt us!!

      Probably no more dangerous than your friendly "increasingly clean" coal power plant. After all, the coal they burn is tainted with uranium.

      "Mothra, you are Life Eternal! Hear the prayers of your servants.
      Come back to us from out of the legend. Come and save us with your power of Life!"
      "Mothra", May 10, 1962

  44. or by mtec · · Score: 1
    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  45. What does the "9" in your name represent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number of arms you have? Just curious.

  46. Another Obligatory Simpson's reference by Wampus+Aurelius · · Score: 1

    Just a little glowing...still good! Still good!

  47. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by NChaimov · · Score: 2, Informative

    5 rem is the maximum allowable occupational total effective dose equivalent (10CFR20.1201). Assuming that you don't work in a nuclear plant or other facility licensed to use radioactive materials, then 10CFR20.1301 applies instead:

    "... The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with 20.2003. ... The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour. ..."

    These limits don't apply to radioactive trees, of course -- at least not these radioactive trees, since they don't arise from licensed activities.

    Do note that dose as low as you postulate is unlikely to have harmful effects, particularly because the dose would be spread out over time. These are the effects from acute doses of radiation of varying intensities:

    5-25 rad: No observable effects.
    25-75 rad: Chromosomal aberrations and temporary depression of white blood cell levels in some individuals. No externally observable effects.
    75-200 rad: Vomiting in 5 to 50% of exposed individuals within a few hours. Fatigue and loss of appetite. Moderate blood changes. Recovery within a few weeks.
    200-600 rad: For doses over 300 rem, all exposed individuals will exhibit vomiting within 2 hours and loss of hair after 2 weeks. Severe blood changes with hemorrhage and increased susceptibility to infection, particularly at higher doses. Recovery from 1 to 12 months for individuals at the lower end of the dose range; only 20 percent survive at the upper end of the range.
    600-1000 rad: Vomiting within 1 hour, sever blood changes, hemorrhage, infection, and loss of hair. From 80 to 100% of exposed individuals will succumb within 2 months; those who survive will be convalescent over a long period.
    from Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, Lamarshe

    As you can see, a non-acute dose as low as would be expected from these trees really shouldn't harm anyone.

  48. Mommy, mommy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mommy, mommy, my skin is hurting and falling off!

    Shut up and get back on that radioactive tree.

  49. If you want to describe by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

    a honking great radioactive sharpened *tree* hurtling toward you as an *arrow* you go right ahead.

    I will duck.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:If you want to describe by DEBEDb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Eric, it's a gazebo!

      --

      Considered harmful.
    2. Re:If you want to describe by Fluid+Truth · · Score: 1

      Oh. My. God. :-D If only I had some mod points. That made me laugh my ass off!

      (And furthermore, no, your joke wasn't lost on everyone...)

      --
      Apparently, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
  50. Not to mention... by StandardCell · · Score: 1

    Brings new meaning to the term "burns my ass"...

  51. I just Biked through Bayo Canyon today by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is so NOT news to the people who live here in los alamos. YAWN. move on, nothing to see here.

    any place where there was at some time in its history a possible outflow of radioactive material, the plants will be contaminated. At least its not like hanford where the Tumbleweeds are sometimes radioactive.

    But these are all well known. The reason they issued the warning was because the western bark beetle killed something on the order of 80% of the trees in that canyon's mouth in a single season. (No that's not an exageration) . Given the horrific forest fires that burned about 4% of the homes in town, there is a great deal of preventative tree cutting going on. far more than in any other rear with lots of new loggers. An they are cutting trees in areas they traditionally would not have access too. Hence the public warning.

    now give it a rest. Hey want to know the good bit about radioactive contamination? you know exactly where it is and how to find it. Unlike for example, chemical contamination. The main thing that is different about los alamos and say your neighbor hood is that we actually know where the contamination is. PLus when we do have a spill it gets cleaned up. I recall a photo in the news of two guys in moon suits cleaning up a chemical spill of ethylene glycol in a parking lot (bottle dropped from fork lift). Front page news. Mean while that same day probably 500 people in chicago city flushed their car radiotors and dump a few thousand gallons of ethylene glycol into the river.

    new stories like this suck

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  52. LANL is actually really good about this stuff... by signe · · Score: 5, Informative


    I used to work at LANL for a short period of time, back in TA 35 (at the time, working on the SSC detectors). They're somewhat strict about their rules on radiation, and who can go in what areas. The building I was working in was T-shaped, and one of the top pieces of the T (the opposite one from my office) fell within the specified distance from an old tritium dump site. It was well posted that NOONE was to be in that wing without the proper training and badging. When my work required that I go down into that wing for a bit, I had to go to a different radiation safety class and get new radiation badges so that they could measure exposure. And that part of the building was only barely hot.

    Having family that lived in Los Alamos for many years, and an uncle who worked at the labs as well, LANL was always very good about keeping people apprised of any possible issues. Los Alamos started off as a company town, and it still very much operates that way. If you don't work at the labs, you work for a business that supports the people who work for the labs. Everyone knows plenty of people who work there, and the town and the labs are very much dependant on each other.

    -Todd

    --
    "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
  53. 'Going Critical' is not bad by NChaimov · · Score: 5, Informative
    See the "history" page on my site for a description of the Army SL-1 that went critical in Idaho in the 60s. That's one I didn't learn about until recently, and apparently it was a pretty hot one too.

    There is a common belief that 'going critical' is synonymous with a meltdown, or out-of-control chain reaction or manifold other bad things. This is, however, false.

    A nuclear reactor is a device which creates chain reactions to amplify the effects of neutrons. The neutron multiplication factor describes whether the number of neutrons present in the core is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same. Based upon this, the following are defined:

    Subcritical: there are fewer neutrons in the current neutron generation than in the previous neutron generation, e.g. the neutron multiplication factor is less than one.
    Critical: there are exactly the same number of neutrons in the current neutron generation than in the previous neutron generation, e.g. the neutron multiplication factor is equal to one.
    Supercritical: there are more neutrons in the current neutron generation than in the previous neutron generation as a result of delayed neutrons only, e.g. the neutron multiplication factor is greater than one.
    Prompt Critical: there are more neutrons in the current neutron generation than in the previous neutron generation as a result of prompt neutrons alone, e.g. the neutron multiplication factor is equal to one plus the reciprocal of 1-beta, where beta is the fraction of neutrons which are delayed.

    Therefore: 1) A reactor must be critical to maintain its power. 2) A reactor must be supercritical to increase in power. Criticality and supercriticality are normal states for a reactor. It's prompt criticality which is bad.

    1. Re:'Going Critical' is not bad by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification.

      I'll probably stick to "criticality incident" in the future.

      I actually was dimly aware that I really meant "runaway supercriticality", but when translating to lay terms it's easy to slip up and overgeneralize to the point of inaccuracy.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  54. Re:Mr. Beowulf ? by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm not a troll :) man, who modded me as Troll.. do you know what sarcasm is ?
    ok,ok, i'm a troll but very cute and harmless...

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
  55. Worry About Old Buildings Instead by Peahippo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welcome to the future; America's past nuclear development can and will haunt us further. Look at the old USSR for an example of the failures of a large nuclear regime. Submarine reactor cores were ejected into rivers! Full liquid waste canisters were dumped in fields! If the Soviet regime hadn't fallen, the public would've likely remained ignorant of the contamination level that existed.

    Who cares about trees? The buildings worry me. In the USA, we do know that there are many buildings that are probably contaminated and are sitting in company and government inventories, and are also in an abandoned state. Like all those factories rusting away in the Midwest, the true costs of owning them won't become apparent until the cleanup must occur. And this doesn't encompass the full scope of the problem on military sites. Try finding out about their hazardous waste problems. What we the public do know is a result of conscience, luck, closings and re-use. Sometimes a military man gets a conscience; a reporter gets lucky; or a site is torn up and exposed during closure or transfer of ownership. Then we can get a glimpse at what it Really Going On there.

    And people worry about Yucca Mountain. We've tiny Yuccas -- Yuccatesimals? Microyuccas? -- in too many locations to allow Yucca to become a preponderance of worry for us.

    --
    [also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
    1. Re:Worry About Old Buildings Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget other buildings, the I'm scared of the basement.

  56. Funny stuff by Aexia · · Score: 4, Flamebait

    A couple years back I had the pleasure of going on a lengthy tour of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and their cleanup efforts.

    I think people would freak out if they realized how careless the gov't has been with nuclear waste.

    For instance, the underground tanks they stored certain types of waste in were set up in a series. When tank one fills up, it spills over into tank two. When tank two fills up, it spills over into tank three. When tank four fills up, it spills over into the ground.

    Oh, and the tanks were only meant to be used for 20 or so years and they've been used for more than twice that.

    Then there's the waste that's being stored in what amounts to coffee cans.

    This is all right next to the Columbia River incidently. Want a glass of water?

    1. Re:Funny stuff by geomon · · Score: 2

      I'd take that glass of water.

      Contamination from Hanford does enter the Columbia River, that is true. Consider, however, that the radioactivity you would be consuming is so dilute and innocuous that your risk from the man-made isotopes would be no greater than the stuff that has eroded off the North American craton.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  57. Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity. You'd be better off down wind of yucca mountain or a nuke plant than a coal plant.

    Do you like acid rain, deforestation, and resperatory ailments. Then close down the nuke plants. Then you'll either have to switch to coal, hope for a miracle, or change your standard of living (sorry now 1000 watt Itaniums for you instead you can freeze in the dark.)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by helix400 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Do you like acid rain, deforestation, and resperatory ailments. Then close down the nuke plants.

      That made sense. Nuke plants are virtually pollution free (aside from carefully controlled solid radioactive waste). Closing down nuke plants won't affect acid rain, deforestation, or resperatory illness in any of those ways.

      To have your post make sense, switch it around so it says "Do you like those problems? No? Then close down coal plants. Then you'll either have to switch to nuclear, hope for a miracle, or change your standard of living"

      --
      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! - Kodos

    2. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by helix400 · · Score: 2
      Perhaps I should proofread my own posts too =)

      My first sentence should have read..."That made NO sense"

    3. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - see if the person liked those problems, then they need to close the nuke plants

      Nuke plants DONT cause those problems, thus if you close them all you have left is coal power (well, mainly) and thus you get all those problems

      I understood his post fine

      I read your post and then I was just all confused. Your own reply saw that you even fucked that up

      oh well, carry on

      -- Rosewood

    4. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Not to nitpick, but nuclear power plants are a huge source of pollution - heat. Not that it's a big deal, but they do emit literally terawatts of heat into the environment. Evaporative plants also emit huge amounts of water vapor, which can (slightly) alter rain patterns locally.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by goombah99 · · Score: 2
      ALL electrical generation plants emit heat. That'ts the law of thermodynamics. You cant decrease entropy (i.e. electricity) and not produce excess heat.

      And in case you were worried about terrawatts of heat, I urge you to do the following calaculation : compute the total solar flux on planet earth (about 1KW/sq meter). Then imagine what would happen if the CO2, soot, and acid rain (deforestation) causes a few percent change in the earth's reflectivity. You will now be less worried about nuke heat waste.

      As for water as a pollutant. well that has to be the funniest one i've ever heard. I'll remember that, and thank you for starting my day with a joke. (by the way in case you seriously were worried about that, consider that trees use evaporation to pump nutrient. there are huge upward water fluxes above any rain forest or field of crops. Also consider that the amount of water used to irrigate crops is several million fold greater than the amount of water consumed by cooling nuke plants. Since a large fraction of the water used in irrigation is evaporated the net effect of nuke plants is near zero.)

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    6. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      From my original post: "Not that it's a big deal, but they do emit literally terawatts of heat into the environment."

      As for the water vapor comment, your assertion was that nuclear power plants are "...virtually pollution free (aside from carefully controlled solid radioactive waste). " Heat and water vapor emitted do count as pollutants, because they are both undesired emissions that change the environment. In the case of water vapor, that water must come from somewhere, altering that environment as well.

      I live about 30 miles from the North Anna Nuclear power station in Virginia. It uses a huge man-made lake as a heat sink. There are definite environmental impacts, but they are quite a bit less harmful (imho) than an equivalent coal- or oil-fired plant. I have toured the plant, and don't give it a second thought.

      As I said, I was picking a nit, not making a FUD-style statement. I'm about as pro-nuclear power as they come, but I believe saying that nuclear power plants are non-emissive is not quite correct.

      Here is a pic of the containment domes

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:Coal plants emit airborne radioactivity by StonedZero · · Score: 1
      Environmentally Coal Power is damaging and managing the waste product is difficult.

      Environmentally Nuclear Power is less damaging. In a politically stable and stable tectonic area, the risks can be mitigated.

      If the options are limited Coal and Nuke Power I would suggest there are cases when Nuclear Power would be more environmentally friendly.

      But lucky for us we are not stuck in the 60's and we have many more options, which have little or significantly less impact on the environment.

      No more Coal or Nuclear power plants should be built

      and the current Coal and Nuclear Power Plants should be phased.

  58. Could be worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least they're not releasing carcinogenic formaldehyde.

  59. Environmentalists... by Kirby-meister · · Score: 3, Funny
    Well, I guess we can just say "some undisclosed forests in the US are radioactive" and save quite a few of them from deforestation.

    Doubt that would work in the places that really matter, though - Asian deforesters probably don't care.

  60. boyscout field trip. by gukin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was a teenager, my father (a nuclear physicst) took a group of boyscouts on a merrit badge "expedition", we were "prospecting for uranium".

    Back in the bad old days, there were tests done using mock-up weapons equipped with DEPLETED uranium (U-238). The experiments consisted of a fairly authentic weapon with a real primary (the high explosive part which "squishes" the fissionable materals together.)

    The weapons did NOT have real uranium, rather U-238 (the stuff they use on armor piercing shells.) When they detonated the mock-up, the weapons usually blew all apart throwing chunks of U-238 all around the country-side.

    My dear old dad, being a wise-ass, took us out with several geiger-counters looking for the U-238.

    As I recall, we found a rock which seemed "hot", we began digging under the rock, getting closer and closer to the source of what seemed to be setting off the counters when my dad told us to stop. Not because of the radiation, rather the damn rock was likely to roll over and crush the lot of us.

    He ended our field trip by letting us push the rock over into the hole we had excavated; great fun.

    1. Re:boyscout field trip. by saskboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did your Dad ever go on these trips before you were born? Cause if he did, it may explain a thing or two about your life ;-)

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  61. Tough crowd... by mtec · · Score: 1

    Mod's r mean today!

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  62. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    No they are not inhabited.

    also people who work in those areas wear Dosimeters. SO they KNOW for sure that people are not being exposed. Even the town dump is ringed with dosimeters. What about your town. Got any dosimeters? Lots of industries produce rad waste. to name a few: phosphate fertilizer plants, (old) ceramics, coleman laterns, glow in the dark exit signs, hospital isotope waste and manufacture.... For example, the dosimeters in our town have gone off lots of times. One time was a vet disposing of radioactive kitty litter (radioactive iodide is used as a medical treatment). Another time my neighbor set of the alarm because he was wearing pile (patagonia) jackets which if you did not know collect Radon gas that accumualtes in poorly vented closets in many parts of the country. Another time a load of radioactive steel manufactured in mexico drove through town on its way elsewhere. (the mexicans plant hat recycled and melted down a hospital cesium canister. Many steelworkers and truckers in the US and Mexico received high doses, something like a dozen people at the steel plant eventually died of exposre related illnesesses.

    So the good news about living in los alamos is that we know we're no being irradiated cause we monitor it. You dont know and there are lots of ways you could be exposed. for example do you know where the steel rebar in you concrete walls came from? Are you breathing radon?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  63. So what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what the hell is Fresco anyway?
    Isn't that like a drink?

  64. Glowing healthy food... by Bad+Fugs · · Score: 1

    That be kewl if they had radio active green apples, or if the plants near trees were also radioactive so you could smoke radioactive mirjuana and the cigarettes would glow green.... *grabs seed monies and prepars to head to east Lost Alamos*

  65. Re:LANL is actually really good about this stuff.. by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

    "Analyze the hazards!"

  66. Same thing at ORNL... by p_trinli · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When I worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late '80s, we had a stand of trees (poplars, I believe) between the main road through the heart of the facility and a research reactor building. I used to walk right by these trees every day to get to the cafeteria. One day, the sidewalk on that side of the road was blocked off, and several men, wearing bunny suits and wielding chainsaws, were hard at work felling the trees. By the next day, even the stumps were gone.

    We've had our share of radioactive frogs too, some with some, shall we say, unique anatomy. Once, on that same main road, one of these unfortunate amphibians wandered underneath the tread of one of the facility's vehicles. Again, we see the bunny suits, this time with sprayers full of this black, sticky foam. Down the road every so often, you'd see a bunnyman either spraying or scraping an already-encapsulated piece of frog from the road where the contaminated tire had deposited it.

    1. Re:Same thing at ORNL... by bananahammock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, copy and paste someone's (5, Interesting) post a little further down the thread, and hey presto, receive (3, Interesting). Just how do you guys moderate (or even bother to read) posts?

    2. Re:Same thing at ORNL... by p_trinli · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Heh heh... I wondered how long it would take for someone to catch on.

    3. Re:Same thing at ORNL... by rosewood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      People who do this shit piss me off, but do expose a hole in the moderation system.

      Admins: Fix it.

  67. Secret Radioactive Squirrels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you know; that's how they got Secret Squirrel (and Morocco Mole).

  68. Re:LANL is actually really good about this stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having grown up in "Lost Almost" (both parents worked for LANL - one in WX, one at Meson), I clearly recall times when the lab discovered things in areas that were not documented as having been research or experimental sites.

    I have no doubt that the Lab's current radiation-monitoring and containment procedures are adequate, but there's always been some concern about what might have been forgotten from the "early days."

  69. I wonder if by funkmastermike · · Score: 1

    those radioactive trees are similar to the one in Evil Dead

  70. OMG Treants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Run for your lives!

  71. Wait! I saw this episode! by fruity1983 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is where the trees grow legs and start a bloody crusade to rid the soil of human meddling, right?

    If I remember correctly, some scientists will develop an airborne spray to stop them.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  72. booyah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First post mother fuckers!

  73. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  74. Ballista anyone? by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 2

    "Yes?"

    "Right Away!"

    "As you wish"

    "Stop Touching Me!"

    "Don't you have a kingdom to run?"

    Sorry, I played a little too much Warcraft II when I was in high school...

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    1. Re:Ballista anyone? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      cripes!
      Of course, a ballista with one of these trees in it would call the wrath of the UN down on ones heads.

      I could just imagine the weapons inspectors too
      those trees, and every splinter is going to need to be accounted for, you know.

      The sawdust could be used by terrorists!!!
      Call out the national guard!
      Think of the children!!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  75. From a Los Alamosan by goldid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have lived in Los Alamos my whole life. I have mountain biked in Bayo Canyon many, many times. It's an absolutely beautiful spot. I wish I could show you a photo or two. The trees don't look funny, the ground isn't hot and I have suffered no poor effects.

    The lab (LANL) has fenced off a few areas, but I do trust that the canyon is generally safe. I bet spokesman Jim Rickman is basically telling the facts straight, too. He's a good man.

    Moral of the story: this isn't really news. Look at how small the story on the local TV station is. This is less news than the time the garbage dump radiation detectors got set off (by the poop of a cat undergoing anti-cancer radiation treatments, not by the lab).

    Oh, and the high tritium levels in the water must make it taste so clean and fresh.

  76. Inhalation would be worse? by phorm · · Score: 2

    I've had a lot of problems with inhaling allergens during burning season. Sucking in sagebrush particles whilst the farmers were burning gave me 3 months of nasty symptoms. I'd imaging that sucking radiative tree smoke right into your lungs etc might be a little worse than solar radiation, isn't out external dermal layer intended to protect the more sensitive internals?

  77. Smokey the Bear... by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Smokey the Bear says, "Only you can..."

    Oh geez, he's puking, and his hair is falling out ... someone call an ambulance? Now?

  78. Excuse me? by MacAndrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    [raises hand]

    What the heck is an "extream hazord"?

    If you meant extreme hazard, the answer is no: I live upwind of Los Alamos.

  79. Gives me an opertunity to ask... by rosewood · · Score: 2

    I was wondering this a week or two ago and well Im too lazy to research so Ill just ask.

    How long does an area stay "hot" after a nuke goes off?

    Examples:

    How long after Aug 6 1945 was Hiroshima safe from a radiation standpoint?

    How long until areas that had LOTS of bombs dropped on them be safe?

    What about more modern bombs. If one were to take a top of the line bomb from the US and detonate it, how long until the area would be safe for humans again?

    Also, what does one do if a nuke goes off anywhere near them, other then kiss their ass goodbye? What can you do to avoid radiation poison? I always thought the key was to stay away from metal since that becomes contaminated quickly, but hell if I know.

    Blame the movie Sum of all Fears for this curiosity. To ruin it for you, when the nuke goes off and it shows this big shockwave, I figured anything that gets hit by that is going to be contaminated. In my head this means you are going to get cancer sometime soon.

    Also, slightly related, can someone explain the EMP to me? I thought Sum of all Fears really fucked that one up but some people have said the EMP is really weak and doesnt travel very far. In another movie, Broken Arrow, the EMP goes out for Miles and Miles. In True Lies, they land the planes and shit before the nuke goes off for which I assume was to avoid an EMP related crash.

    Oh, assume all detonations are ground detonations, but if you know the answer for atmosphere that would be cool too but how high up?

    1. Re:Gives me an opertunity to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Gives me an opertunity to ask... by rosewood · · Score: 2

      That would be great for a research paper and is really complex

      If you could not tell from my post where I jive about movies and pointless shit, im not *that* into it so if it were dumbed down Id be happy

      I may just read this and be even more happy tho

    3. Re:Gives me an opertunity to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      (Some infotainment cribbed from the HEW Archive.)

      How long after Aug 6 1945 was Hiroshima safe from a radiation standpoint?

      Probably within the short term (a few years, maybe a decade at most.)

      How long until areas that had LOTS of bombs dropped on them be safe?

      Depends on the size of the bombs and a lot of other factors. It'd be the time until the largest dose of fallout decayed to background.

      Also, what does one do if a nuke goes off anywhere near them, other then kiss their ass goodbye? What can you do to avoid radiation poison? I always thought the key was to stay away from metal since that becomes contaminated quickly, but hell if I know.

      Assume that the bomb in question is 20 Mt. The HEW archive states that a good rule of thumb is to take anyone within the 5 psi overpressure contour (the overpressure contour being, roughly, the extent of the shock wave) as a fatality. This contour is roughly (20000^0.33 * 0.71) = 18.64 km in radius. Out to ~40km, one can expect to receive 3rd-degree burns from the explosion. Within ~4km, you'll receive a 1000-rem dose of radiation (almost always fatal.)

      Radiation is the least of your worries with high-yield bombs.

      To ruin it for you, when the nuke goes off and it shows this big shockwave, I figured anything that gets hit by that is going to be contaminated. In my head this means you are going to get cancer sometime soon.

      See above.

      Also, slightly related, can someone explain the EMP to me?

      Nuke goes boom, emits a bunch of gamma rays. Gamma rays knock electrons out of the air; those electrons keep knocking other electrons out, until you get ~30K of them for every gamma photon. The gamma rays emitted downward, however, don't knock away as many electrons, so you get a large electric current flowing upward, which bleeds off horizontally in broadband electromagnetic energy (think lightning.) Big masses of electrons moving around willy-nilly cause a large magnetic field to form in the earth and emit more EM radiation. The 100-gigawatt pulse travels out a long way (5 miles for a 1 Mt nuke), inducing a high current in sensitive circuitry, and causing lots of stuff (ICs, for one) to fry.

    4. Re:Gives me an opertunity to ask... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      I cant answer your first questions but as for your latter questions:

      Blame the movie Sum of all Fears for this curiosity. To ruin it for you, when the nuke goes off and it shows this big shockwave, I figured anything that gets hit by that is going to be contaminated. In my head this means you are going to get cancer sometime soon.

      No, the shockwave is jsut a normal shockwave, nothing special about it. The radioactive fallout is more caused by dust and other particles being sucked into the core of the explosion after this shockwave has passed.

      Also, slightly related, can someone explain the EMP to me? I thought Sum of all Fears really fucked that one up but some people have said the EMP is really weak and doesnt travel very far. In another movie, Broken Arrow, the EMP goes out for Miles and Miles. In True Lies, they land the planes and shit before the nuke goes off for which I assume was to avoid an EMP related crash.

      Sum of All Fears actually got it more right than any other film. EMPs do not occur for ground detonations at all, they are an effect of detonating a nuclear device high in the atmosphere (ionosphere springs to mind, but im not certain). Broken Arrow got it totally wrong, there would have been no EMP from a underground explosion. Again, in True Lies, either they got it wrong, or they were landing the planes because of the shockwave.

      Hope that helps.

    5. Re:Gives me an opertunity to ask... by bakachu · · Score: 1

      Erm - you're saying that a bomb gives off an EMP blast depending on where it's detonated. That's not true, the EMP blast is an integral part of the explosion. Where the bomb is detonated at is entirely irrelevant as to the production of the EMP blast. However, the location of the detonation does affect the affect that the EMP blast will have.

  80. A clear sign of past stupidity by dethl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We were REALLY stupid back in the early atomic days...its not a surprise that there are still radioactive tress...hell...LANL still has SH*TLOADS of transuranic waste waiting for shipment to permanent storage facilities (WIPP?).

    --
    "Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
  81. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by rosewood · · Score: 2

    Fuck. One thing that has always scared me is a fear of death from radiation poisoning. AFter watching K19 and then reading this, I think Im going to be vomiting. Sad that movie got pan'd in the theatres cause those radiation scenes were just oogy.

  82. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by rosewood · · Score: 2

    OMFG I AM GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
    Seriously, as you can see from my other posts, radiation death scares the living shit out of me. How would I go about getting a portible one of these things?

  83. Finally... by eWarz · · Score: 1

    Finally mother nature fights back! DIE LUMBERJACKS! Seriously, would getting near one of these trees actually make you sick?

  84. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by WatertonMan · · Score: 2
    They also cleaned up Los Alamos a lot back when they were inspecting all the DOE sites back in the early 90's. I thought a lot of the inspections were a joke. (A friend got in trouble because of the kind of bolts being used were "cheap" even though they didn't really do anything but hold a cheap thin piece of aluminum)



    One thing they did look at was radioactive materials. The bathroom where I worked got shut down because of radiation in the walls from the 1950's. Nothing that was really dangerous, but they were so hyper that they checked everyting.

  85. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget tritium watch dials and americium in smoke detectors. Radioactivity is everywhere in our lives; it's just that the amounts aren't large enough to make a difference.

  86. Just Out of Curiousity: by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

    Back after Chernobyl went boom, I noticed (since it was only a couple of months after), that many weeds that normally reached as high as my hip, were instead towering over my head (I was 5'8 or so at the time, when I was 16, and living in New York, the Bronx). Just wondering, have anyone else living in the northern latitudes noticed similarly unusual plant growth?

    As I recall, the radioactive cloud apparently covered the entire northwestern European continent, but was almost ridiculously downplayed in the US (sorry, if contamination is enough to quarantine planes and kill reindeer herds, I doubt it drops to 0 with just over a day's travel in the jetstream).

    Just wondering since we're on the subject of radiation, the US itself is largely contaminated with fallout from the bomb tests, as was recently uncovered over the last few years.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Just Out of Curiousity: by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I meant to say "to justify killing off" reindeer herds.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  87. Ummm... Maybe they're not trees after all. by The_Guv'na · · Score: 1

    They could be camouflaged cellphone masts!

    Ali

  88. 2 assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other people in this thread have covered the death toll of land invasion, but the more important part is that the Japanese were willing to surrender and end the war. However, it wouldn't have been unconditional. They wanted to keep the Emperor as the head of state. The US had been monitoring communications because they had broken the code earlier.

    1. Re:2 assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the first person in this thread to mention this crucial bit of information. The US dropped 2 bombs and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians because Japan had requested to keep their Emperor. This should dispell any ridiculous notions that the US was concerned about the number of casualties when deciding to commit mass murder. If they were interested in saving the most lives they would at least have responded to this offer of surrender. But it seems quite clear that their true intention was a warning to the USSR and others in the area that the US has the bomb and was crazy enough to use it. Killing civilians for political gain; not the first time but it should at least be observed for what it was.

  89. "The Flying Squirrel" explained! by Yarn · · Score: 2

    http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/beetle/bio-squirr el.shtml

    --
    -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
  90. Hint: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't build you house in a place that was previously called "Technical Area 10".

  91. Good idea for enviromentalist? by bogado · · Score: 2

    Its just me, or this sound like a good idea? Just spread some rumors about dadly trees, that poison people when you cut them down and people will be afraid of cutng them. :-D

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  92. Also... by frozenray · · Score: 1

    Ants the size of a Mack truck. ICFTD can be downloaded for free from Cinemaware, btw (Amiga, PC, Genesis).

    --
    "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
  93. Being aware is not enough by Caid+Raspa · · Score: 2
    Getting aware of the radiation sources is important, but it is not enough. We are living with the radiation, so it would also be nice to undestand radiation. Most people get hysteric when they hear the word 'radioactive'. Joe Average does not understand the physics behind.

    For the time being, I live in Finland and it seems that the goverment is dealing with similar issues. Some radioactive stuff is moving around, and often it originates from the former USSR.

    There are radiation monitors at the border. Several times a year a load of steel or something similar is sent back, as it contains something radioactive. The Russians living on illegal metal trade steal junk from the old Soviet dumps, and sell it. They are not worried about the radiation.

    There are also plenty of environmental 'nuclear bombs' ticking in the old Soviet. I'm expecially worried about the ones in Estonia (see e.g. nti.org which contains plenty of info on these and similar issues). The Sillamae pool contains wastes of uranium ore processing and in Paldiski there is a pool of nuclear waste from two naval training reactors. Should the pools break, that would practically destroy the Gulf of Finland (which I see from the window of my office). The Sillamae pool contains so much uranium nitrate that even the nitrate part is problematic. And it's leaking...

    Estonians can't afford the cleanup alone, so Finland and other rich states around the Baltic Sea are paying a large part of the bill. The Estonians will be dealing with the Soviet cleanup for decades. The non-nuclear mess is a longer story. (as an example: in some areas the water in wells is flammable, as a result of careless fuel handling in airbases).

    We also have a bedrock containing plenty of uranium, so radon is a big problem is some areas (most of the houses are not properly vented to save energy). In the worst places, the drinking water contains also plenty of other natural radionuclides.

    1. Re:Being aware is not enough by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Heh. Those evil Russians.

      My old-man (father) used to work in the paper industry. He had a story about touring a "clean" paper company in Finland that had some great scrubbers on their stacks, only clean steam came out of the mill, no air polution at all.

      But on a tour, my old-man notices a big pipe dumping black crud into a little stream. He asks the guide about it. The reply was something along the lines of "Don't worry, 6 km from here that stream goes into Russia."

      There is give and take in the world you know.

  94. Work on the tree thinning project by rendell · · Score: 1

    I've been working on the tree thinning project for about a year now. Considering the area in question has been done for a while now its hardly worth talking about. Snakes are more of a worry quite honestly.

  95. Bzzzt... thanks for playing the FUD game by Jack_Frost · · Score: 1

    A 1000 megawatt (that'd be a gigawatt) power station generates approximately 3400 megawatts of thermal power (that'd be 3.4 gigawatts). A terrawatt is 1000 gigawatts, or 1,000,000 megawatts.

    1. Re:Bzzzt... thanks for playing the FUD game by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      There is probably more than 300GW of nuclear power being generated on earth. As a whole, the excess heat generated adds up to terawatts.

      As I said in my original post, it's not a big thing. I was picking the nit that nuclear plants are nearly zero-emission - they're not. Heat and water vapor, remember?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  96. Correct... by Jack_Frost · · Score: 1

    Exposing living tissue to radiation without the attenuation caused by the epidermis would result in higher doses, but the smoke itself is a much more immediate threat to your health, as your sagebrush experience demonstrates.

  97. Screw the Japanese by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    They murdered over 20 million civilians died in China alone during their occupation of foreign countries. They mistreated prisoners of war; over 100,000 died during forced labor. And to this day they won't acknowledge the horrors they committed during the war. If I had been a soldier looking at an invasion of the Japanese homeland and I knew their was a way to save my ass, I would say blow them to kingdom come. Even after the first weapon was dropped they refused to surrender. Talk to some of folks in China, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Phillipines or Viet-Nam who lived through the occupation. Or survivors of the Bataan Death March.

  98. As a native New Mexican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    all i can say is "Who cares?". the local news here is always desperate for a story. if it rains it's a story. if it snows it's a story. if a traffic light is down it's the lead story. you might say it's not the most exciting state in the union.

    a longtime friend (14 years) who recently completed his masters in nuclear engineering has taken many opportunities over the years to enlighten me about the joys of nuclear power. he has worked on projects at los alamos and sandia labs and although not technically a rocket scientist he did help design a nuclear powered rocket engine. i've found the easiest way to push his buttons is to scream "no nukes!!!" because he is perhaps a little too sensitive to the the negative stigma most people attach to nuclear energy. my neighbor worked on the manhattan project and when he and my friend get together it's obvious that the nuclear programs in place today are vastly improved over guidelines in place back then. in fact my neighbor has mentioned that if his team had the same guidelines in place back then that there wouldn't have been any atomic bombs at all. my personal opinion is that there are many many threats will all face each day that are probably more dangerous than some trees in a canyon in los alamos will ever be.

    the fact that the trees even made the news is just further proof that we have a lot of time on our hands here. when my friend was attending unm a story broke out about "contaminated radioactive waste" that was "piled up" near a storage shed in los alamos. in reality it was a pool (by design) of slightly radioactive water, probably used for cooling... basically you could drink a glass and go on with your life. apparently a lot of concerned people in santa fe were worried their children would soon be coming home from school with three toes and extra appendages soon unless the toxic dump was "fixed". so now it's all over the local news. my friend's professor took the class on a field trip armed with geiger counters to take some readings. they measured near the "toxic waste dump of child killing doom!", they measured various other points in and around los alamos, then they took a few readings around the plaza in santa fe where they had stopped for lunch. it turns out the hottest thing they found all day was a nice big sculpture smack in the middle of the plaza. (plaza being the town center and located such that most residents would be around it regularly and tourists virtually guaranteed to eat next to it =)

  99. This could be a Good Thing! by KC7GR · · Score: 2

    Think about it; Glowing trees can provide street or pathway lighting in remote areas without the need for any sort of electrical feed.

    What an energy-saver! ;-)

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

  100. Command & Conquer by SerialHistorian · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this part of the Command & Conquer plot? When will the tiberium fields start growing around these trees?

    --

    --
    Vote for your hopes, not for your fears - Vote Third Party

  101. LAHS/LAMS by rocket97 · · Score: 0, Funny

    Back in Jr. High and Highschool I always used to have track meets with the LAMS (Los Alamos Middle School) and every single year they would win. This trend continued in Highschool as well. I faintly remember them always giving the trees big hugs before hand. I just thought that it was some sort of tradition or maybe they were just lonely. But I guess it all makes sence now.

    --
    "The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
  102. 'Going Critical' can be very bad. by twitter · · Score: 2
    Going critical is as bad as it gets when you don't intend to do that. It's called a criticality accident and that is always very bad. It shows that your processes are flawed to the point that you don't know how much of what you have where. The results can be fatal. Los Alamos put out an excellent Review of Criticality Accidents.

    This has nothing to do with radioactive trees which may or may not require special protective measures for people who will be exposed if they work on them. Cutting, sanding and burning may create hazards that don't exist when you are simply standing next to these trees.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:'Going Critical' can be very bad. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You are both correct in a way. The japanese accident was an example of what you speak of, unintentional criticality, the reactor I spoke of "going critical" actually went supercritical in a spectacular way.

      I'm checking out that LANL PDF now, thanks for the link... BTW- Whats the deal with people putting up 10 meg PDFs these days? Do they just assume everyone is on broadband or what?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  103. a greater outrage still by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The greatest outrage of all is how poorly the political process is working to clean up what messes there are. While it's all fine and good to talk about cleaning up a paint factory site so that a child could eat a diet of dirt that would kill it by ruining their intestines, you have to realize that the money spent there is money that won't be spent cleaning up your coffee cans. How about the 17 billion dollars you have paid for Yucca mountian? Did we really need to know the numbers of every speciecs of bug on top of that rock?

    Spening public money is not easy to do. The greatest threats must be fixed first, but there's a huge difference between public perception of threats and reality. Studies on waste sites have been made and there are priority lists. Then some loud mouth comes along and asks you if you want a glass of water. Uggg, the long chain of reasoning and risk assesment goes out the window.

    Do me a favor and help the folks monitoring water quality. When you see an adverse trend then you can smugly say, "I told you so," and propose ways to fix the problem. Alamism hurts everyone.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  104. I agree that waste heat is produced by powerplants by Jack_Frost · · Score: 1

    That's true for any steam plant. Thermal efficiency for fossil and nuclear plants is about the same ~ 34% (with fossil plants being slightly more thermally efficient due to superheating). That's due to thermodynamics and can't really be changed.

    Zero emissions in the context of power plants refers to greenhouse gases, arsenic releases, air pollution releases, etc. Fossil plants produce millions of tons of these emissions each year.

    Look at it another way: the thermal and water vapor effects caused by power plants cannot be used to distinguish between nuclear and fossil fueled steam plants. If you were shown statistics on waste heat from various power stations you would not be able to distinguish nuclear from fossil stations. If you were to look at CO2 emissions you'd see a night and day difference. Sort of a Turing test for power stations if you will.

    There are currently 442 operating nuclear power stations in the world. Assuming they produce an average of 1000 megawatts electrical output each gives a total capacity of 442,000 megawatts. The total thermal output would be approximately three times this number, (132600 megawatts) roughly 1.33 terawatts.

    That's the total thermal output... the waste energy must be some fraction of that total number. We assumed that 1/3 of the thermal output was converted to electricity leaving a little less than .9 terawatts of waste heat being released by nuclear stations alone. Nearly *one* terawatt, not terawatts.

    I'm just nitting back but your point is a valid one.

  105. Re:I agree that waste heat is produced by powerpla by goombah99 · · Score: 2
    with a moniker like Jack_frost I can see why you are worried about waste heat:-)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  106. living upwind... by StringBlade · · Score: 1

    ...and the third arm really comes in handy when carrying all that fresh-cut wood back home to the fireplace.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  107. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by DarthGonzo · · Score: 1

    Look, I lived there until a couple of months ago and I would NEVER say something like this. I was working as a postdoc at the lab. The entire town site is probably contaminated, not just the lab areas. They monitor anything that is directly related to the lab. The dump accepts some material from the lab, so they monitor it, too. I don't think that the rest of the town is monitored. Do you remember the Acid Canyon cleanup? They found PLUTONIUM there in measurable quantities. They may or may not be totally done with the cleanup, but it took quite a bit of time. Acid canyon is in the middle of the town site, being just north of Canyon Road. It was a nice place to hike that was pretty convenient if you lived in the Los Cerros apartments. Anywhoo, I was out hiking not long after I moved to town in 1999 when I noticed these funny little flags spaced every couple yards along the canyon bottom, where what little rain water that falls there would flow. Below each flag was a series of notches taken out of the earth at different heights above the lowest point. It didn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that those were systematic soil samples looking for runoff contamination of some kind or another. The only way for stuff to get into the soil in that part of the canyon is for it to wash down from the surrounding neighborhoods. Don't kid yourself about Los Alamos.

  108. Re:Trees probably aren't risky, but other areas ar by WatertonMan · · Score: 2
    They monitor both Los Alamos and White Rock a great deal. At a very minimum there are lots of anti-Lab folks down in Sante Fe who do anything and everything to undercut the lab. Since most of them are "New Age mystic environmentalists" the environmental card is their favorite.

    Remember a few years back when there were those claims about an increase in Leukima and brain cancer around the golf course there? They did pretty extensive studies and evaluations.

    Further, half the people in the area wear dosimeter badges. You technically aren't supposed to wear them home, but everyone does. So I can guarantee that the area is monitored very closely.

    Don't get me wrong. There obviously is a lot of waste in the area. Back when I worked there they were cleaning up a field because in the 40's they'd simply driven some trucks in a dug out hole and buried them with their waste. But the lab was cleaning up pretty heavily in preparation for the Tiger Team evaluations back in the early 90's. They've continued since then. If you compare Los Alamos to most other DOE sites it comes out near the top in dealing with environmental issues.

    Further, despite the cries of people in Sante Fe, I think that most people at the lab are very ecologically aware. People do have concerns about the area and tend to be disproportionately involved in my opinion. Sometimes you end up with odd situations as well. For instance my supervisor who was doing some classified work on nuclear explosions was also a member of Earth First. (We had some rather interesting discussions on this to me paradox)

  109. radioactive trees beget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    radioactive tree men !

    with awesome tree powers!

    he can even make like a tree and leave!

  110. hmm by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

    wonder what happens if the trees develop intelligence and start walking around like Ents.

    might give 'being rooted' a whole new meaning

    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  111. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  112. Thanks by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

    Thanks for bringing this my attention, I did some more reading about it and am intrigued. I know i read an account of a journalist visiting the exclusion zone in the last few years, and it painted a much starker picture; I'd like to figure out what that was about. And I suppose the point should be made that whether the exclusion zone is fit for human habitation is an open question, and even if it is the necessary expenses in reaction to the explosion of #4, such as containment, cleanup, evacuation, lost productivity, mental anguish to those who had a reactor catch fire in their backyards, and the loss of that 1 gigawatt of energy production are cumulatively quite high, and should be included in the calculation of how much nuclear energy costs. Granted we might well decide it is stil worth it, balanced against alternative methods of energy production, and that we'd never build reactors as hazardous as the Soviet design (still in operation elsewhere?), but there are still significant excess costs. I recetly discovered one third of my home state Virginia's electricity is nuclear; and 70% of France's!

    Thanks again. Although I may be less worried about the long-term exposure to low-level radiation, such that things like radon mitigation are not worth so much investment, I don't think I'll go for the idea that people who breathe radon are healthier, until a mechanism for it is suggested that implies the effect is more than statistical noise.

    1. Re:Thanks by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      The critical point is that we don't build the positive coefficient graphite moderated reactors. Unfortunately, Cuba (!!) is building one very close to Florida.

      As far as positive effects of low levels of radiation, I must admit to some skepticism also. I have seen some mechanisms proposed, but I don't think it is a generally accepted fact.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  113. Graphite by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

    Yes, I was impressed that it was the hundreds of tons of graphite that burned so ferociously. According to a Frontline report, about 50 tons of reactor fuel simply vaporized. That was one massive reactor, and not an escpecially fault-tolerant one.

    Cuba? Hmm. I thought you said that radiation was healthy? All they need is some good fire extinguishers.

    Well, I'm off to drink my strontium-90 shake. ;-)

  114. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a
    fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a
    high grade for such a design :-)
    -- Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...