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.

31 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. David Hahn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny, I would have thought 'the radioactive boy scout' would have had the most exposure to americium (stockpiled from smoke detectors). His house needed a similar clean up after.

    1. Re:David Hahn by Beck_Neard · · Score: 5, Informative

      The clean-up was less due to the severe amount of radioactivity and more due to the fact that he was careless and got it everywhere.

      The total amount of radioactive material was small and the actual dose of radiation he was exposed to was probably minimal. Although the exact dose isn't known because he never completely revealed his experiments and he never underwent testing.

      One thing I find interesting is that he was arrested again in 2007 on charges related to stealing smoke detectors for their Americium, 13 years after his boy scout experiments.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  2. Hmm by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because he was too hot to handle, he was removed by remote control and transported to a steel-and-concrete isolation tank.

    If they had the tech to do all that remotely, then why didn't they just handle the americium remotely?

    I know, I know. Just a thought that popped into my head.

    1. Re:Hmm by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      That doesn't seem to be accurate; the local newspaper describes a fellow technician who dragged him out of the room, and I don't believe they would've had some sort of building-wide system of manipulators that could've then moved him from there to an ambulance:

      http://www.tri-cityherald.com/...

      At any rate, it looks like the glove box was just to allow access to adjust the equipment, and not perform the procedure. So there's every possibility that the actual work was done with manipulators. (You can play around with some of them in the museum in Richland; they're surprisingly nimble.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  3. Re: Question by TwoUtes · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case you are serious, "hot" is a euphemism for someone or something having a high degree of radioactivity. Nothing to do with temperature.

  4. Re:Faith in God by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing ignorant people fear more than science in general is "radiation". The reasons for the quotation marks would make for a very long rant about ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation and their complete ignorance of what is actually going on.

  5. 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.

  6. 1984 People article by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    A lot of the background for this article* comes from a 1984 piece in People Magazine, in some cases word for word:

    http://www.people.com/people/a...

    *It's an AP wire service piece

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. 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?"

  8. Treatment sort of worked by mdsolar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    His treatment sort of worked. He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later. You read about old people living near Chernobyl and now Fukushima. Perhaps their age related decline leads to fewer ways for radiation to be lethal. The quick onset of leukemia seems to affect children more, for example. http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late...

  9. But.. but... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... what super powers did he get?

    Oh, I forgot. He was 64 years old at that time.

    First Law of Superpowerdynamics: Only well muscled young men with washboard abs and manboob pecs get super powers

    Second Law of Superpowerdynamics: Superpowers will make you wear your underwear over your pants.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:But.. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Europeans beware... the statement "underwear over your pants" is recursive - please do not try to execute this sentence on a production brain.

  10. Re:Faith in God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The prayer is often for the doctor being competent.

  11. I would rob banks by gelfling · · Score: 5, Funny

    The note would say "I am highly radioactive put the money in the bag."

  12. Re:Faith in God by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does every discussion of anything nuclear related almost immediately turn into a straw man argument against some imaginary, fearful hoards of idiots? Why are do so insecure about it?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Re:Faith in God by murdocj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your comment reminds me of the saying "God heals, and the doctor sends the bill".

    Yes, modern medicine is great, but after a while you realize that doctors are shooting in the dark half the time.

  14. Re:Faith in God by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be an impressive miracle indeed, aside from the bit about having an immune system and mitosis-capable cells. Life is actually pretty good at fixing itsself without supernatural aid. It seems suspicious that God is so eager to heal infections, yet never helps out any amputees.

  15. Re:Faith by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Undue fear of radiation is very prevalent. In this case, the man initially suffered more from the actual explosion than from the massive dose of radiation, and over time he overcame the radiation related issues even though his exposure was on the order of hundreds of times greater than safety limits. Heart disease is what killed him.

    Whether you think its Intentional or not, you can always count on mdsolar to submit anything he can find that says nuclear and there is something bad that happened.

  16. 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.
  17. Cecil Kelley by QuantumPion · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as I am aware the highest radiation dose anyone has received was Cecil Kelley, whom was exposed to a criticality accident at a plutonium processing plant. When the tank stirrer turned on, the geometry of the plutonium solution became critical, exposing him to ~12,000 rem. He died 36 hours later.

    See Page 16 for a description of the accident here: http://ncsp.llnl.gov/basic_ref/la-13638.pdf

    Or the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Kelley_criticality_accident

  18. Everybody skips the interesting bits by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only did Harold get a dose that was way beyond the LD50 for humans, he lived for 11 more years and died of unrelated causes. His pastor had to convince people he was safe to be around.

    Harold was far from the only Tri-Cities nuclear celebrity. There were also stories about guys who would drop their pants and squat over reactor vents until their balls got a little burned. Think of it like a nuclear vasectomy. I never documented any of those stories but there were a lot of them and worse.

    One thing I did personally document was that, adjusted for age, the cancer rate for people who worked at Hanford was not statistically higher than that of the general population.

    I achieved my own personal notoriety there by accidentally leaving my dosimeter in my shaving kit and leaving that on an orange Fiestaware platter that was so hot it would light up a pancake meter on three scales. A few weeks later I get a panic call from Rad Services asking if I'm okay. Hehe. God, I hated that place.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  19. 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.

  20. Re:Faith in God by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am a scientist and it does not threaten my faith.

    The two are separate and I don't pit one against the other.

    Both are tools to be used on a different scopes of work.

    I keep the two isolated except at the very end of each day.

    I wonder what the hell is going on and it's so elusive, I appeal to the gods for help.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  21. Re:Faith in God by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've been witness to numerous "negative miracles", where the divine hand of our Lord decides to inflict his wrath upon some unworthy subject. It often does result in a "God Damnit!", so your hypothesis seems reasonable.

    Shouldnt the "God Damnit" precede the harmful act?

    Also, once, I was chastized by a Christian for saying "God Damnit" when I don't believe in god. My excuse was that it was such a good "damn" curse. I don't believe in religion, but I do like their curse words.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  22. Re:Faith in God by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm saying the older you get the more scary shit about this you likely remember.

    At just over 40 you sure as hell don't remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but you knew it happened and that everybody was talking like they'd be setting them off.

    But anybody 40 or over lived through at least a period in which the likelihood of a nuclear war seemed like a very real possibility, and the older you get the more you remember.

    And NOBODY ever differentiated between types of radiation while they were telling everybody how terrible it was going to be to die from it if we didn't get burned up in the initial blast.

    So if you want to know why there's so much fear around radiation, it's because for several decades people lived in fear of dying from it, because people kept threatening to use the damned things.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. 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.

  24. Re:Faith in God by uiucgrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if you removed the word religious from that sentence above if it still holds true? "If you disparage someone for their beliefs, you are a bigot." What makes religious beliefs so much different than any other kind of belief that it deserves this kind of protection? It seems that whenever anyone complains about the attacks on religious beliefs what they are really saying is that "If you disparage MY religious beliefs, you are a bigot." But if you want to give Mormons, or Christian Scientists, or Rastafarians a hard time, by all means.

  25. Re:But WHY are they demolishing the room? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

    That whole site is part of a gigantic, long-term cleanup - partially motivated by the desire not to let radioactive waste reach the Columbia River.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  26. Re:Faith in God by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    Am I allowed to point how very wrong this particular belief of yours appears to be in reality, or is that off limits?

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  27. Re:Faith in God by madro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wisdom, if you can handle it. Cognitive dissonance, if you can't.