Maybe you've already visited this web site: http://www.lahdra.org/
If not, please take a moment to do so and review the audio/slide presentation accessible there titled: "What we have learned about early airborne plutonium releases from Los Alamos Facilities"
At the bottom of this 19 minute presentation is a timer. If you don't have time to listen to the entire presentation, listen to the five minutes starting at 10:20 into the presentation.
I'm not particularly shocked at the revelation in the presentation that Los Alamos National Laboratory under reported Pu releases over its history by a factor of 59, nor that reported releases did not included ALL the potential release sites known to exist at the Laboratory. That's just par for the course when it comes to the Laboratory’s habit of downplaying anything negative.
What is shocking to me however, is the revelation that Los Alamos National Laboratory has likely released more Pu into the environment than all the other DOE sites working with Pu combined;including Rocky Flats and Hanford. I, like most people affiliated with Los Alamos in one way or another, always believed that a research facility could never come close to producing contaminant levels anywhere near that of a production facility. I guess I was wrong.
PS Keep up the good work in bringing light to Pajarito Plateau.
--anonymous
[I couldn't hear the audio on a Mac, but it plays on a Windows XP computer.]
Even NTS?
ReplyDeleteLest anyone have a concern, rest assured that the examples shown in the video have been scrutinized and reviewed through a rigorous security process and have been authorized for release to the public even if those marks didn't appear on the screen or in the presentation.
ReplyDelete"If the Hyatt/Nyhan data are valid, the other sources and time periods could well drive total releases from LANL well above 43 Ci. The total might even be higher than the combined airborne plutonium release totals from Hanford, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River. These sites handled more plutonium, but they applied more efficient controls. LANL was slower to apply multi-stage HEPA filters. One of reasons we are interested in these release totals is that people were living so much closer to production areas at LANL than at these other sites. Apartments were located within 200 yards of the original Technical Area and within ½ mile of DP West."
ReplyDeleteChemRisk and ENSR have been milking their CDC subcontract at LANL since 1997 or earlier, for a "5-year" document search. This is crap, and Shonka, Flack, and Widner ought to be ashamed at their blatant sensationalism in the face of detailed, scholarly rebuttals from LANL experts, both historical and epidemiological. What self-serving garbage.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a url for us, or something you want posted?
ReplyDeleteIf this report is accurate, then plutonium inhalation must be far less hazardous than we thought.
ReplyDeleteYou almost sound like you didn't want to know.
ReplyDeleteDenial may be a river in Egypt, but it's a way of life in Los Alamos. Even with the CDC endorsing this project some still want to suggest the research done on this project is less than rigorous. No doubt these are the same idiots that still believe Iraq bombed the World Trade, Sadam still has WMDs buried in the streets of Bagdad, Darwin was a quack, global warming doesn't exist, GW is the best president we've ever had, and the earth is flat. Do the world a favor why don't you, an inhale all the Pu you can. Claim that it's a health supplement if you. Do us all a favor...please!
ReplyDeleteLots of information gets suppressed by all sides. Like a lot of things, a little Pu inhalation in moderation might be a good thing. A number of years ago a study of a group of old geezers was discontinued, if recollection is correct, which might have revealed that the exposed group members were no longer susceptible to the common cold.
ReplyDeleteAnybody recall that? Any grad student epidemiologists need a thesis topic?
What I hear is a financial interest. A paycheck and equity in a home, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't hear is the due diligence we've been misled to expect from "the best and the brightest".
So, Release 43 Ci of Pu slowly into the environment, and judging from the health and beauty of Nothern New Mexico, it has salubrious effects?
ReplyDelete"So, Release 43 Ci of Pu slowly into the environment, and judging from the health and beauty of Nothern New Mexico, it has salubrious effects?" Said
ReplyDelete11/16/07 2:09 PM
Are you refering to the tranquility of acid canyon? How about our invigorating ontmination charged aquifer? Or could you be talking about the high rates of thyroid cancers, and other exotic deseases like berrilium disease? Maybe your referring to the natural beauty of our scorched mountains and the anxiety surrounding communities have of the next big flood. Or perhaps its the fact we're now discouraged from eating to many Pu contaminated fish from Cochiti lake that has made your LANL experience so enjoyable. Maybe its the notion that when you die you're tissues will be in great demand for future research that thrills you? That's all fine and good for you, but since when do non Lab employees have to endure the risks associated with your chosen "lifestyle" and have to live with the consequences? Silly me. People like you could care less.
10:09 am: "People like you could care less."
ReplyDeleteActually, you are wrong; I couldn't possibly care less. I already care as little as I could possibly care (get a clue about American idiom).
What would you care about, 430 Ci? 4300 Ci?
ReplyDelete10:09 AM - show me the data about all the exotic diseases that people in Los Alamos, Espanola, Santa Fe and surrounding areas have compared to other parts of the country (aside from the "best and brightest" ailment).
ReplyDeleteWow, now plutonium causes berylliosis and forest fires?
ReplyDelete"Lots of information gets suppressed by all sides. Like a lot of things, a little Pu inhalation in moderation might be a good thing. A number of years ago a study of a group of old geezers was discontinued, if recollection is correct, which might have revealed that the exposed group members were no longer susceptible to the common cold.
ReplyDeleteAnybody recall that? "
The above is discussed at:
http://www.atomictraveler.com/
PlutoniumHistory.pdf