Slashdot Mirror


Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

mdsolar writes with news about the cleanup of the site that exposed Harold McCluskey to the highest dose of radiation from americium ever recorded. Workers are finally preparing to enter one of the most dangerous rooms in the world — the site of a 1976 blast in the United States that exposed a technician to a massive dose of radiation and led to his nickname: the "Atomic Man." Harold McCluskey, then 64, was working in the room at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation when a chemical reaction caused a glass glove box to explode. He was exposed to the highest dose of radiation from the chemical element americium ever recorded — 500 times the occupational standard. Hanford, located in central Washington state, made plutonium for nuclear weapons for decades. The room was used to recover radioactive americium, a byproduct of plutonium. Covered with blood, McCluskey was dragged from the room and put into an ambulance headed for the decontamination center. Because he was too hot to handle, he was removed by remote control and transported to a steel-and-concrete isolation tank. During the next five months, doctors laboriously extracted tiny bits of glass and razor-sharp pieces of metal embedded in his skin. Nurses scrubbed him down three times a day and shaved every inch of his body every day. The radioactive bathwater and thousands of towels became nuclear waste.

6 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Faith in God by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Typically they pray to god for healing, then see a doctor and take medical treatment, then thank god when they get better. The order of the first two steps varies. A few will skip the doctor part and either heal spontaneously (praise the lord!) or die, but most are quite happy to live with the contradiction.

  2. Safety margins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The important thing to remember here is that he survived 500 times the maximum dose a worker can be legally exposed to.
    Try that with any chemical in any chemical plant.

    1. Re:Safety margins by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The important thing to remember here is that he survived 500 times the maximum dose a worker can be legally exposed to. Try that with any chemical in any chemical plant.

      I wouldn't try it for just any chemical; but occupational exposure limits tend to be set (often with the aid of generous quantities of guesswork) around chronic occupational exposure and with the objective of not killing, or crippling too seriously, too high a percentage of the workforce. Asking "What can they breath all shift every shift for years or more without too many of them dropping dead, getting some freaky obscure cancer, or having the liver function of an elderly alcoholic before age 50?" tends to lead to lower, sometimes dramatically lower, numbers than "What can you probably survive, with intensive treatment and ongoing health effects?"

  3. Re:Faith in God by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In some cases, even religious people will trust science

    In fairness, I know scientists who are religious and believe in evolution and all the rest of the science, and see God as being outside of all of that, and see the Bible as being allegorical on the points which conflict with science.

    Religion isn't always tied with being irrational like the crazies we sometimes see.

    Hell, when I went to university there was still a Jesuit teaching physics. He saw no conflict whatsoever between science and religion.

    I'm certainly not saying there aren't those who are a little overzealous in their interpretations, but there are many many people who aren't.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:Faith in God by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What, wasn't their faith in god strong enough? It works wonders for children without vaccinations...

    In some cases, even religious people will trust science ... (though not enough if other persons are affected)

    Seriously, have we gotten to the point that we're actually bigoted against all religions?

    73% of Americans believe in God: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/1...
    41% trust scientists, with another 46% trusting them "Somewhat" http://www.asanet.org/images/j...

      73% believe in God, 87% trust scientists at least "somewhat" so, at the very least, 60% of people believe on God AND trust science at the same time! That's assuming there is no overlap.

    If you disparage someone for their religious beliefs, you are a bigot. Seriously, you really are. It's not some different thing, you can't cite the crusades as evidence of how evil modern Christians are, you can't point to wars in the middle east. None of that has anything to do with the little old lady down the street that goes to church. You're making an offensive, and more importantly, incorrect generalization about an entire group of people based on the actions of a very small minority that has nothing to do with them at all.

    I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.

  5. Re:Faith in God by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only religious people I know of that have their beliefs disparaged are those who wish to impose those beliefs on others through the force of law.

    You don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Fully fund pre AND post natal care. Provide free contraception. Stop trying to force a reading from certain religious to start every government open meeting. Stop trying to keep people from buying alcohol on Sundays. The list goes on and on.

    Its ok to hold beliefs those things above are bad or immoral. Don't get the government to enforce your morals on others.