ABOVE IMAGE: Nuclear
reactors line the riverbank at the Hanford Site along the Columbia
River in January 1960.
The N Reactor is in the foreground, with the twin
KE and KW Reactors in the immediate background. The historic B Reactor,
the world's first plutonium production reactor, is visible in the
distance.
The federal government produced plutonium
for the country’s nuclear weapon program at Hanford for more than 40
years, creating huge amounts of radioactive and chemically hazardous
waste.
An estimated 444 BILLION gallons of [JUST] contaminated liquid
was dumped into the soil, causing extensive groundwater contamination.
(Image: U.S. Department of Energy)
ABOVE PHOTO: A 20-foot by 20-foot hole in the roof of a storage tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Wash., Tuesday, May 9, 2017. The tunnel with the collapsed roof was built in 1956 over a rail spur. (CREDIT:U.S. Department of Energy via AP) A
September 1990 Department of Energy dangerous waste permit application
for the two storage tunnels revealed that some of the parts stored
inside were spewing radioactivity at the rate of 5 rem to 25 rem per hour.
THE MAXIMUM "ALLOWABLE" RADIATION DOSE USED TO BE JUST 1 REM PER YEAR, CHANGED TO 5 REMS PER YEAR IN 1981 (SEE PG. 10 OF THAT ACTUAL DOCUMENT BY THE EPA, PG. 16 OF THE PDF), AND FOR NUCLEAR FACILITY WORKERS...50 REMS FOR HANDS AND 30 REMS FOR OTHER ORGANS PER YEAR, BUT REMAINED AT 5 REMS PER YEAR FOR EYES AND GONADS.
ACCORDING TO THE NRC, IT IS STILL 5 REMS, WHOLE BODY, PER YEAR.
SEE: Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," establishes the dose limits
for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the
affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for the whole body is 5,000 mrem (5 rem).
NOT PER HOUR, PER YEAR.
AND ABOUT THAT "STORAGE TUNNEL"...
THAT TUNNEL WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO STORE RADIOACTIVE ANYTHING.
IT WAS BUILT TO TRANSPORT NUCLEAR WASTE AND FUEL BY RAIL, THAT RAILWAY BEING AN ABOVE-GROUND SYSTEM COVERED ONLY BY DIRT.
THERE IS IMPROPER SHIELDING FOR LONG-TERM STORAGE OF SUCH HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AS ARE NOW STORED THERE.
ACCORDING TO NBC NEWS, THE HOLE WAS NOT DISCOVERED FOR DAYS AFTER THE CAVE-IN:
"The large sinkhole that caved in a tunnel filled with radioactive waste at a sprawling Washington state nuclear waste repository may have gone unnoticed for days before its discovery because workers do not patrol tunnel sites daily, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy said Thursday.
The cave-in could have happened as many as four days before its discovery on Tuesday, said energy department spokesman Mark Heeter.
"We don't know exactly when it occurred," Heeter said."
The tunnel collapse reinforced longstanding criticism that toxic remnants at Hanford are being stored in haphazard and unsafe conditions, and time is running out to deal with the problem.
The most dangerous waste at Hanford is 56 million gallons stored in 177 underground tanks, some of which have leaked."
THEY DON'T PATROL THOSE TUNNELS DAILY?
THEY DON'T MONITOR THE TUNNELS DAILY?
THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THE THING COLLAPSED?
HOW INSANE IS THAT AT THE NATION'S MOST TOXIC NUCLEAR FACILITY WITH THAT HUGE AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL JUST 8 FEET UNDERGROUND?
AND ONE MUST WONDER HOW THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL BURIED IN THOSE HUNDREDS OF ACRES CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS "MOST AND LEAST" DANGEROUS AND WHO DOES THE CLASSIFYING.
AFTER ALL, IT'S BEEN LONG-ADMITTED THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ALL IS BURIED AT HANFORD NOR HOW MUCH IS BURIED THERE NOR EVEN WHERE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS WERE HASTILY STUFFED AS AMERICA HURRIED TO DEVELOP THE BOMB.
HOW BAD WAS THIS LATEST "MISHAP" AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR "SUPER-FACILITY" IN WASHINGTON STATE?
SO
BAD THAT THEY DETECTED THE SPIKE IN RADIATION AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE
COLLAPSED TUNNEL, EVACUATED AND/OR SHELTERED IN PLACE THOUSANDS OF
WORKERS, AND WARNED-OFF AIRCRAFT FLYING ABOVE AND NEAR THE WASTE DUMP
SITE.
THE RADIATION LEAK OBVIOUSLY EXTENDED THAT HIGH ABOVE GROUND.
"Officials requested that the Federal Aviation Administration put a
temporary flight restriction in place, according to the FAA."
[NOTE: The Statesman Journal also reported this temporary no-fly zone over Hanford, stating it began Tuesday morning, May 9, and would extend for 24 hours: Checking the FAA website, I find NO restriction and wonder why.]
THE
TUNNEL HAS A 20-FOOT WIDE GAPING HOLE, VISIBLE BY AERIAL VIEW OF
THE FACILITY, AND INSIDE IS THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE
CESIUM-137 THAT WAS RELEASED BY FUKUSHIMA ON THE DAY THE JAPANESE POWER
PLANT FIRST EXPLODED.
AND YET THE NRC ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT
FROM THE SELF-MONITORING FACILITY THAT THERE WAS "NO IMMEDIATE DANGER
TO THE ENVIRONMENT".
I ASK YOU, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
RADIATION
SPIKE DETECTED AT A DISTANCE FROM THE TUNNEL COLLAPSE, RADIATION ABOVE
THE HOLE LEFT BY THE COLLAPSE, EVACUATION OF WORKERS, A NO-FLY ZONE WAS
CREATED, AS MUCH RADIATION INVOLVED AS THE INITIAL MELTDOWN AT
FUKUSHIMA, BUT WE'RE JUST FINE, THANKS...REALLY?
NO!
THAT'S A BLATANT LIE, ISN'T IT?
IS THERE ANY LOGIC TO THE STATEMENT "NO HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT"?
The tunnel was filled and sealed in 1964, and a second, parallel, and much longer tunnel was built next to it. That one was filled with radioactive equipment contaminated with plutonium, americium, cesium and strontium as the site’s bomb-making factory was dismantled. It was sealed in 2000.
It is unclear when contractors running the plant first became concerned that gamma radiation, which changes the molecular structure of wood cell walls, would significantly weaken the first tunnel’s timbers.
As early as 1971 the integrity of the wood was checked and determined to be sound.
The 1980 study said however that said the wood’s strength had deteriorated to 64.5 percent of its original strength. It predicted that the structure should be sound until at least 1982, by which time the authors anticipated it would be cleaned out.
A September 1990 Department of Energy dangerous waste permit application for the two storage tunnels revealed that some of the parts stored inside were spewing radioactivity at the rate of 5 rem to 25 rem per hour.
“This alarming emergency compels us to take immediate action — to hold the federal government accountable to its obligation to clean up the largest nuclear waste site in the country,” Maia Bellon, director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said Wednesday in a written statement.
“It’s not acceptable that the hole could have been open for four days,” said Alex Smith, the nuclear waste manager for the Ecology Department, according to an AP report.
A Department of Ecology inspection in 2015 noted that because the tunnels were closed up, “no permanent emergency equipment, communications equipment, warning systems, personal protective equipment, or spill control and containment supplies” were located inside — deficiencies that could complicate emergency efforts in the case of a tunnel fire or other safety incident.
A Government Accountability Office estimate in 2016 placed the total cost of cleaning up the toxic legacy of the U.S. nuclear weapon program at more than $250 billion.
IN 2015, TIME MAGAZINE WROTE WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN EXPOSE' OF THE BAD PRACTICES AND DISREGARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY THE HANFORD SITE'S CONTRACTORS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINES FOR CLEANUP AND FOR USING BETTER METHODS TO KEEP LEAKS AND RADIATION LEVELS DOWN. "Unfortunately, the Justice ruling—to scrimp on radioactive waste management while the DOE spends lavishly on bombs—makes for business as usual in the history of Hanford.
It’s never been a matter of knowing the danger.
In 1944, Hanford designers understood that the radioactive by-products issuing from plutonium production were deadly.
Executives from DuPont, which built the Hanford plant for the Manhattan Project, called plutonium and its by-products “super poisonous” and worried about how to keep workers and surrounding populations safe.
At the same time, DuPont engineers were rushing to make plutonium for the first Trinity test in Nevada in 1945, and they did not pause to invent new solutions to store radioactive waste.
Plant managers simply disposed of the high-tech, radioactive waste the way that humans had for millennia.
They buried it.
Millions of gallons of radioactive effluent went into [OPEN] trenches, ponds, holes drilled in the ground and into the Columbia River.
The most dangerous waste was conducted into underground single-walled tanks meant to last ten years.
Knowing the tanks would corrode, as the high-level waste ate through metal, Hanford designers planned to come up with a permanent solution in the future.
But, as the years passed, no new answer surfaced to safely store nuclear waste.
The Atomic Energy Commission, which was in charge of bomb production, left radioactive garbage to its private corporate contractors.
For two decades, the AEC had no office to oversee waste management, nor any regulation.
AEC officials didn’t know how much radioactive waste there was or where it was located. They also didn’t pay much fiscal attention to the problem. The AEC allocated to General Electric, which took over from DuPont in 1946, $200,000 a year for waste management, small change in nuclear-weapons accounting.
In the early 1960s, the first tank sprang a leak. Dozens followed suit leaching into the ground a million gallons of high-level waste. From 1968 to 1986, Hanford managers built 28 new, double-walled tanks, designed to last from 20 to 50 years.
What was the major design innovation after two decades of experience?
An extra tank wall.
Since the '40s, Hanford contractors had enjoyed a free hand to produce plutonium and pollute with little AEC/DOE oversight. And for six decades reports of radioactive discharges were denied. It is hard to fix a problem one cannot see—and that’s been, by any measure, an expensive lesson."
ADDED TO ALL THIS ARE THE REPEATED WARNINGS TO THE FACILITY MANGERS OVER THE PAST 30 YEAR, THREE DECADES, THAT THE TUNNEL HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE A KNOWN HAZARD, AN "ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN".
HANFORD'S MANAGERS DECIDED TO DO...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS.
"A series of warnings by state and federal experts, stretching back more than thirty years, preceded this week’s cave-in of a tunnel in Hanford, Washington, that holds lethally radioactive debris from the U.S. nuclear weapons program, according to government documents.
A report in 1980 for the Energy Department, which oversees safety and cleanup work at the site, said that wooden beams holding up the tunnel had lost a third of their strength by then.
A contractor for the department pointed to the issue again in 1991, warning that by the year 2001, the beams would be further degraded.
A group of academic experts, working under contract to the department, said more alarmingly in a 1,969-page report in August 2015 that the roof of the tunnel in question had been seriously weakened and that a “partial or complete failure” could expose individuals even 380 feet away to dangerous levels of radiation.
No action was taken by the department in response, and earlier this month — the precise date remains uncertain because conditions at the site were not closely monitored — a portion of the roof collapsed at the tunnel, creating a 20-foot square hole.
Afterward, the managers of the Hanford site were forced on May 9 to order 3,000 workers to shelter indoors.
But instead of shoring up the beams inside the tunnel in question, they poured in 54 new truckloads of dirt."
THAT WAS CRIMINAL, TO IGNORE THE REPEATED WARNINGS AND DO NOTING TO SAFEGUARD RESIDENTS AND WORKERS WHO WERE UNAWARE OF THIS IMPENDING COLLAPSE.
"The tunnel was one of two at the Energy Department’s Hanford reservation used as dumping grounds from 1960 to 2000 for radioactive machine parts, vessels, and other equipment. It was, in short, a tangible expression of the department’s policy of covering over some of its nuclear bomb-making detritus and effectively pretending it isn’t there.
"Fixing the damaged tunnel could prove difficult. The Energy Department said on its Web site that officials are looking at options that would provide a barrier between the contaminated equipment in the tunnel and the outside air that would not cause the hole in the tunnel’s roof to widen further."
RAIN.
HOW ABOUT A HEAVY RAIN, WOULD THAT WIDEN THE HOLE?
AS OF 5:35 PM, PDST, RAIN IS IN THE FORECAST.
WOULDN'T RAIN INTO THAT TUNNEL ALSO MEAN WATER OUT INTO THE GROUND SURROUNDING THE BREACH?
WHAT ABOUT PREVAILING WINDS?
WHICH DIRECTION IS THE RADIATION BLOWING?
A SOUTHERLY WIND IS CARRYING ANY RADIATION PLUME TO THE NORTH OF THE FACILITY TONIGHT, WITH A CHANGE TO A MORE EASTERLY FLOW TOMORROW.
A LOCAL TV STATION HAS REPORTED THAT THE HOLE HAS BEEN BACK-FILLED, BUT WILL ANOTHER 8 FEET OF DIRT ON TOP OF ALL THAT RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE MEAN RESIDENTS ARE SAFE?
NO. EVEN LEAD SHIELDING WOULD ALLOW SOME LEAKAGE.
AS A PHYSICIST EXPLAINED AFTER THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER: "There are two reasons why lead isn't
enough. First is that the lead might develop cracks that let radiation
leak through. Second is that the lead isn't actually "removing" any
radiation."
Radiation shielding usually consists of barriers of lead, boron, concrete or water.
NOT DIRT.
In fact in some cases an inappropriate shielding may even worsen the radiation situation instead of protecting people from the ionizing radiation.
Structural materials of pressure vessel and reactor internals are damaged especially by fast neutrons. Fast neutrons create structural defects, which in result lead to embrittlement of material of pressure vessel.
In nuclear power plants the central problem is to shield against gamma rays and neutrons, because the ranges of charged particles (such as beta particles and alpha particles) in matter are very short.
On the other hand we must deal with shielding of all types of radiation, because each nuclear reactor is a significant source of all types of ionizing radiation.
Gamma rays travel at the speed of light and they can travel thousands of meters in air before spending their energy.
Since the gamma radiation is very penetrating in matter, it must be shielded by very dense materials, such as lead or uranium.
AGAIN, NOT DIRT, AND THE ABOVE, BTW, IS FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY ENGINEERS THEMSELVES, FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE.
AS FOR SHIELDING FROM NEUTRON RADIATION, FORGET IT WHEN YOU USE PLAIN OLD DIRT, BECAUSE DIRT SIMPLY ABSORBS IT AND BECOMES RADIOACTIVE.
OR, AS THOSE ENGINEERS PUT IT:
"In short, neutrons make matter radioactive."
Materials Used in Radiation Shielding
" Gamma and X-ray Shielding
Lead is particularly well-suited for lessening the effect of gamma rays and x-rays due to its high atomic number.
However, it is important to remember that there is still potential for some rays making it through the shielding, and that an absolute barrier may not be possible in many situations.
Lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials."
NOW, FOR OVER 50 YEARS, HANFORD HAS HAD SOME VERY HIGHLY CONTAMINATED NUCLEAR WASTE/GARBAGE SITTING IN A DILAPIDATED, CRUMBLING, VERY CONTAMINATED TUNNEL, COVERED BY A LOUSY 8 FEET OF IRRADIATED DIRT.
THIS REDEFINES THE WORD 'INSANITY'.
YET THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT ALL WAS AND IS WELL, EVEN THOUGH, ONCE THEY FINALLY DETECTED THE LEAK, THEY SHELTERED THEIR EMPLOYEES ALL OVER THAT SITE, SENT OUT AN ALARM AND ASKED THE FAA TO STOP AIRCRAFT FROM FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET OVERHEAD.
IF RADIATION WAS LIKELY AT 10,000 FEET EVEN, WHERE DID IT GO FROM THERE?
HAVE THEY TRAINED IT TO HOVER DIRECTLY OVER HANFORD AND NOT DRIFT AWAY?
DO THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE IT TRAPPED IN THAT ROTTING TUNNEL UNDER A FEW FEET OF DIRT?
HANFORD IS THE WORST OF THE WORSE IN AMERICA, AND ONE OF THE WORST IN THE WORLD FOR LEAKS AND "ACCIDENTS" AND "NUCLEAR EVENTS", BUT IT IS BY NO MEANS THE ONLY MAJOR LEAKER.
HARDLY ONE DAY GOES BY IN AMERICA WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF "NUCLEAR EVENT", THOSE SMALL TO LARGE "ACCIDENTS", HUMAN ERRORS, FAILURES OF EQUIPMENT, OR JUST THE DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS LEAKING QUIETLY INTO OUR AIR, WATER AND SOIL...INTO US.
AMERICANS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE BLISSFULLY UNAWARE WHEN THINGS GO WRONG AT PLACES WHERE RADIATION CAN ESCAPE, ALTHOUGH MOST EVENTS ARE MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S WEB PAGE.
THEY HAVE A "READING ROOM" WHERE ANYONE CAN SCAN THE "EVENTS LOGS" AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED, WHERE, AND WHY DURING EVERY SINGLE MONTH, MONTH AFTER MONTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR.
FROM A MISSING RADIOACTIVE NUT OR BOLT, TO THE MISAPPLICATION OF "RADIATION THERAPY" AT HOSPITALS, TO AN "OOPS MOMENT" AT A RESEARCH FACILITY AND ALL THE WAY UP TO EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN OF ONE THE 100 NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE U.S., THEY'RE LISTED...IF THE OFFENDING PARTY CHOOSES TO REPORT TO THE NRC...NOT ALL DO.
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN 'BUSTED' FOR FAILURE TO REPORT, BUT THEY PAY THE FINES AND GO RIGHT ON WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL, KNOWING THERE WILL BE LITTLE, IF ANY, INTERFERENCE FROM THAT 'REGULATORY COMMISSION' WHICH REGULATES VERY LITTLE EXCEPT FINES AND ITS BANK ACCOUNT.
THE WHOLE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY-REGULATORY COMMISSION SCENARIO IS VERY MUCH LIKE HIRING A KNOWN BURGLAR TO WATCH YOUR HOME WHILE YOU GO ON VACATION.
WE'VE TRUSTED THE NRC TO "PROTECT" US FOR DECADES NOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO PROTECT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY INSTEAD.
THE EPA IS NO BETTER.
THEY LITERALLY SOLD US OUT IN 1981 BY INCREASING THE "ALLOWABLE" DOSE RATE PER YEAR FIVE-FOLD.
EVEN JAPAN ALLOWED ONLY 1 REM PER YEAR FOR ITS CITIZENS UNTIL 2011, WHEN IT BEGAN PUSHING FOR HIGHER DOSES.
OUR OWN NRC AND EPA JUMPED RIGHT ON THAT BANDWAGON AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA FELL IN LINE WITH THE CRY THAT HIGHER DOSE ALLOWANCES WERE JUST FINE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANYONE, ANY AGENCY ANYWHERE IN GOVERNMENT THAT GIVES A SOLITARY DAMN IF WE ALL GLOW IN THE DARK OR NOT.
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AS WELL AS THE NRC AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA OFTEN USE VARIOUS MEASUREMENTS OF RADIATION TO MAKE THINGS SEEM NOT AS BAD AS THEY REALLY ARE. I'VE POINTED THIS OUT BEFORE.
I FOUND A WEBSITE THAT OFFERS A "CHEAT-SHEET" SO WE CAN ALL BETTER INTERPRET ALL THOSE DIFFERENT "READINGS" AND SEE FOR OURSELVES WHERE WE REALLY STAND.
Important: Radiation is accumulative and you must know if the measurements you are looking at is for a single dose or a per hour dosage - This will make a significant
difference to the danger you are in at the time. Radiation exposure
intensity over X time can vary the outcome of possible health risks.
Breathing in radiation
or eating contaminated food/drink is a lot worse than direct body exposure.
"NOW, I AM BECOME DEATH..." ~ J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER IN A TELEVISED STATEMENT IN 1965.
THOSE OLD ATOMIC SCIENTISTS OF THE 1930s TO 1950s OPENED PANDORA'S BOX AND LET LOOSE THE MONSTER WE CALL "NUCLEAR ENERGY", INITIATED THE BUILDING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO CREATE THE MATERIALS NEED FOR "THE BOMB" AND FROM THAT POINT TO NOW, WE ARE BEYOND SCREWED.
THERE'S NO GOING BACK.
THERE IS, HOWEVER, A WAY TO STOP THINGS WHERE THEY ARE NOW AND NOT SEE IT ALL INTENSIFY TO THE POINT THAT THERE IS NO STOPPING.
I WAS WRITING A POST TO THIS BLOG ABOUT THE SUDDEN UP-TICK IN THYROID CANCERS IN AMERICA AND ACROSS THE GLOBE WHEN THE CDC BEGAN ISSUING NEW DIRE WARNINGS ABOUT "ZIKA VIRUS" AGAIN.
OHHHH, THE HORROR!
"ZIKA, ZIKA, ZIKA!"
IT WILL CAUSE STERILIZATION, BIRTH DEFECTS, FATAL ILLNESS, SO DON'T HAVE SEX, LET THE CDC COLLECT YOUR URINE, SPERM, SALIVA, AND PRAY FOR A NEW VACCINE.
BUT THEN IT OCCURRED TO ME...THYROID CANCERS, BIRTH DEFECTS, STERILITY... HMMM...WHAT ELSE CAUSES ALL THAT?
R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N...RADIATION.
WHAT'S BEEN LEAKING INTO OUR ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT FOR DECADES NOW?
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, NUCLEAR MEDICAL FACILITIES, NUCLEAR EVERYTHING.
SO I SPENT ABOUT A WEEK READING AT THE NRC WEBSITE'S LITTLE READING ROOM, THEIR "NUCLEAR EVENTS LOGS".
AND THEN HANFORD HAD A MAJOR "EVENT" AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE IN WASHINGTON STATE...
BUT ALSO ELSEWHERE, MANY ELSEWHERES....
FOR NOW, LET'S REFOCUS ON THE LATEST "HANFORD MOMENT".
MAY 9, 2017
HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
["THE MOST RADIOACTIVE-CONTAMINATED PLACE ON EARTH"]
FROM CBS
"The Department of Energy declared a state of emergency at the Hanford nuclear site after a tunnel storing contaminated radioactive materials collapsed.
The agency said in a statement that the 20-foot section is part of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long and is “used to store contaminated materials.” The tunnel is one of two that run into the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX. The section that collapsed was “in an area where the two tunnels join together,” the department said.
The PUREX facility, once used to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, has been idle for years but remains “highly contaminated,” the agency said.
[NOTE: Hanford is the world’s most polluted nuclear weapons production site. The site has been spewing radiation since it was built. The Tea Room has written much about Hanford, with extensive documentation. See <here>, <here> and <here>.]
THE USUAL LIE...
The Energy Department claims no radioactive contamination has been reported so far from Tuesday’s tunnel collapse.
But Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."
An August 2015 report by Vanderbilt University’s civil and environmental engineering department said the PUREX facility and the two tunnels had “the potential for significant on-site consequences” and that “various pieces of dangerous debris and equipment containing or contaminated with dangerous/mixed waste” had been placed inside the tunnels.
Now the Washington state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program has announced on Twitter that it has taken legal action against Hanford.
Former Energy Department official Robert Alvarez said that remotely controlled rail cars once carried spent fuel from a reactor to the PUREX chemical processing facility, which then extracted dangerous plutonium. He said the plant lies near the middle of the sprawling 580-square mile Hanford site and was “a very high-hazard operation.”
Many contaminated pieces of equipment, including the rail cars, have simply been left in the tunnels, he said.
In an email, Alvarez added that “the tunnels now store contaminated train cars and a considerable amount of highly radioactive, ignitable wastes including possible organic vapors.”
And while the older tunnel is reinforced with timber, Alvarez said, “according to a 1997 DOE report, inspection of the tunnels ‘is not feasible because of radiation levels in excess of five roentgens per hour.’ ”
A roentgen, or rad, is a measure of radioactive exposure; five roentgens is the annual limit for a U.S. nuclear worker.
The Vanderbilt report said that there were eight rail cars in the older tunnel and 28 in the newer one."
ACCORDING TO THE STATESMAN JOURNAL:
“The two tunnels combined have about as much or more of the isotope cesium-137 than was released in the environment during the Fukushima accident."
Some of the other nuclear sites with high-level radioactive waste include the site at Savannah River, South Carolina, and a long-closed nuclear reprocessing plant in West Valley, New York.
Tom Carpenter, executive director of Hanford Challenge, which advocates for workers at the Hanford nuclear site, called Tuesday’s cave-in a “wake-up call.”“They’ve got 177 underground nuclear-waste tanks, most of them were
built in the 1940s,” Carpenter said. “If this were a tank that had
collapsed that would be much, much worse than anything you hear right
now. They need to get on top of their risks.”
FROM REUTERS:
Hanford nuclear site accident puts focus on aging U.S. facilities
May 12, 2017
The collapse of a tunnel used to store radioactive waste at one of the most contaminated U.S. nuclear sites has raised concerns among watchdog groups and others who study the country's nuclear facilities because many are aging and fraught with problems.
"They're fighting a losing battle to keep these plants from falling apart," said Robert Alvarez, a former policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Energy who was charged with making an inventory of nuclear sites under President Bill Clinton.
"The longer you wait to deal with this problem, the more dangerous it becomes," said Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he focuses on nuclear energy and disarmament.
The Energy Department did not respond to requests for comment.
The state of facilities in the U.S. nuclear network has been detailed by the Department of Energy, Government Accountability Office and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. They have noted eroding walls, leaking roofs, and risks of electrical fires and groundwater contamination.
In 2016, Frank Klotz, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an Energy Department agency overseeing maintenance of nuclear warheads, warned Congress about risks posed by aging facilities.
Decontaminating and demolishing the Energy Department's shuttered facilities will cost $32 billion, it said in a 2016 report. It also noted a $6 billion maintenance backlog.
In the 1940s the U.S. government built Hanford and other complexes to produce plutonium and uranium for atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project.
“That was an era when the defense mission took priority over everything else," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We’re dealing with the legacy of that.”
[NOTE: FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE MANY FAILINGS AND NRC's RELUCTANCE TO ACTUALLY MONITOR AND INSPECT AND FINE OR CLOSE THE MOST HAZARDOUS NUCLEAR FACILITIES, PLEASE READ "U.S. REGULATORS OPENING UP ON FLAWED NUCLEAR PLANT POLICING"... IT HAS SOME VERY ALARMING DOCUMENTATION.]
REUTERS CONTINUED...
HOW MANY CLOSED SITES IN AMERICA ARE STILL CONTAMINATED AND A THREAT TO CIVILIANS?
A 2009 Energy Department survey found nearly 300 shuttered, contaminated and deteriorating sites.
Six years later it found that fewer than 60 had been cleaned up.
A 2015 Energy Department audit said delays in cleaning contaminated facilities "expose the Department, its employees and the public to ever-increasing levels of risk."
Risks identified at the sites included leaking roofs carrying radioactivity into groundwater, roof collapses and electrical fires that could release radioactive particles.
A 2014 Energy Department audit noted a high risk of fire and groundwater contamination at the shuttered Heavy Element Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is surrounded by homes and businesses near California's Bay Area.
Problems have also been identified at active facilities including the Savannah River Site, a nuclear reservation in South Carolina.
A 2015 report by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board found "severe" erosion in concrete walls of an exhaust tunnel used to prevent release of radioactive air.
A 2016 Energy Department audit of one of the United States' main uranium handling facilities, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, warned that "intense precipitation or snow" could collapse parts its roof, possibly causing an accident involving radioactivity.
"It sounds crazy, but it's true," said Don Hancock, who has studied the Tennessee facility in his work at the Southwest Information and Research Center, an Albuquerque nonprofit that monitors nuclear sites.
Nationwide, part of the risk comes from having to maintain and safeguard so many sites with different types of nuclear waste, said Frank Wolak, head of Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.
"You’re asking for trouble with the fact that you've got it spread all over the country," he said. "The right answer is to consolidate the stuff that is highly contaminated, and apply the best technology to it."
Did It Take a Fire and an Oil Spill to Get Serious About Closing a Dangerous Nuclear Threat to 20 Million New Yorkers?
HOW MANY OF THOSE MILLIONS KNEW THERE WAS A THREAT
THE NRC's WEBSITE IS A JOKE.
EVEN THE 'READING ROOM' WHICH LISTS REPORTED "EVENTS" DOESN'T TELL THE READER THAT SOME EVENTS GO UNREPORTED, THAT SOME HAVE ONLY COME TO LIGHT WHEN LOCAL RESIDENTS DISCOVERED A PROBLEM, OR WHEN WHISTLEBLOWERS SPOKE UP.
THE RARE TIMES, AND THEY HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, THAT THE NRC PROPOSED ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE THOSE DAMNABLE CRUMBLING NUKE SITES SAFER, MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS STEPPED IN AND MADE IT SEEM THAT THE NRC IS OVER-REACTING OR MAKING IT TOO HARD ON THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, THAT IT WOULD BE"TOO EXPENSIVE FOR PLANT OPERATORS TO COMPLY WITH STRICTER REGULATIONS".
LOOK AT THE FORBES ARTICLE THAT ALL BUT CHOKED ON THE NRC PROPOSING LOWER ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RADIATION FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS.
ALL FORBES COULD THINK OF IS HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST NUKE PLANTS TO COMPLY....TO HELL WITH AMERICANS' HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND SO IT GOES...JUST AS IT HAS FOR OVER 60 YEARS.
THE BIG BOMB BOYS MADE DAMNED SURE WE'D ALL BE FORCED TO LIVE WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, JUST TO MAKE BOMBS, TO BE KING OF THE NUKES, TO DOMINATE OTHER NATIONS AND BE ABLE TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD.
WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE EXORBITANT COST OF STORING, MONITORING, DISPOSING OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE, YOU FIND THAT NUCLEAR POWER IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE ENERGY SOURCE ON EARTH.
IT DOESN'T TAKE A PHYSICS MAJOR TO FIGURE OUT THE HIGH COST OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL PLUS THE VERY HIGH COST OF OBTAINING NUCLEAR FUEL AND ALL THE COMPONENTS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR.
New nuclear power in UK would be the world's most costly, says report
WHAT IT COSTS IN HUMAN LIVES IS HIDDEN FROM US, DENIED, MADE LIGHT OF AND RIDICULED BY THOSE WHO BOW AND SCRAPE TO THAT CURSED INDUSTRY.
WE, THE COMMON PEOPLE, ARE EXPENDABLE...WALL STREET IS NOT.
“If the NRC does not do its job, the American people will demand the shutdown of old nuclear power plants."
(What it took to force the closure of San Onofre in California.)
AND HOW DID THAT TURN OUT?
WE STILL HAVE LEAKING, FAILING, LETHAL POWER PLANTS AND LOOKS LIKE WE ALWAYS WILL BECAUSE AMERICANS JUST WILL NOT READ AND RESEARCH AND SEE THE REAL AND GROWING DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ATOM.
WHY?
WELL, LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED COST TO CLEAN UP HANFORD...$250 BILLION.
THAT IS WHY HANFORD WILL NEVER BE CLEANED UP...AMERICANS JUST WON'T DEMAND IT BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD IT WOULD BANKRUPT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND MAYBE EVEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
THERE ARE 100+ DECREPIT NUKE SITES ON AMERICA AND EACH ONE WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DECOMMISSION AND CLEAN UP, IF WE WANT TO BELIEVE THEY CAN BE CLEANED UP.
100+ TIMES EVEN $3 BILLION PER CLEANUP...NOPE, THE INDUSTRY WILL NEVER SPEND THAT!
WE ARE SCREWED!
I FOR ONE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF IT BANKRUPTS THE WORLD... WE NEED TO BURY AS DEEPLY AS WE CAN EVERY NUKE FACILITY THERE IS SO THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE GUARANTEED, NOT JUST HOPED FOR, AND SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO WONDER WHEN RADIATION LEAKS WILL CAUSE THEM TO DEVELOP CANCER OR WHEN A NUCLEAR PLANT WILL BLOW AND END THEIR LIVES.
MEANWHILE, AGENCIES LIKE THE CDC WILL INVENT NEW REASONS WHY OUR BABIES ARE STILLBORN, BORN WITH NEURAL TUBE DISORDERS AND HORRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS, WHY SO MANY AMERICANS ARE BEING RENDERED STERILE, WHY SO MANY ARE GETTING CANCERS WHO LIVE NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, WHY ANIMALS AND PLANTS ARE DEFORMED NEAR THOSE PLACES, AND WHY WE MUST BLAME LUDICROUS THINGS LIKE THE ZIKA VIRUS FOR WHAT IS THE FAULT OF RADIATION... RADIATION, NOT VIRUSES.
BELOW, AT THE END OF THIS BLOG ENTRY, AT THE TRIPLE ASTERISKS *** , FIND VERY PERTINENT AND PERHAPS EVEN LIFE-SAVING INFORMATION THAT I JUST DISCOVERED AND WISH I HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE AVAILABLE HERE YEARS AGO.
IT'S A LOT OF READING, BUT MAYBE YOU'RE LIKE ME, YOU THINK OUR LIVES ARE WORTH WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SAFEGUARD THEM... READING, CALLING CONGRESS, TRYING TO FORCE THE NRC TO ENFORCE THEIR WORTHLESS REGULATIONS... WHATEVER IT TAKES TO LIVE WITHOUT DAMNED NUCLEAR POWER.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE LAST FROM HANFORD...BE PREPARED.
______________________________________________
FURTHER READING AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE REAL EFFECTS OF ALL RADIATION:
~THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR POWER.
HOW NUCLEAR INDUSTRY LOBBIES AND CONTROLS CONGRESS AND MANIPULATES THE MEDIA AND THE LAWMAKERS.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/12/11/3148/politics-energy-nuclear-power
~ A FAIRLY GOOD SUMMARY OF ONE'S CHANCES FOR SURVIVING A NUCLEAR DISASTER, A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, ETC, FROM A MOST UNLIKELY SOURCE.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-explosion-fallout-radiation-survival-shelter-2017-3
*** ~ THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A BOOK BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, Washington, D.C., 1995:
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE.
THE EXTENSIVE QUOTE BEGINS AT CHAPTER 49.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IN-DEPTH AND INFORMATIVE THINGS I HAVE EVER READ ABOUT RADIATION'S EFFECTS.
I SINCERELY HOPE YOU CAN FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ IT ALL, BUT HERE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS:
Humans receive an average radiation dose of 300 to 450 mrems per year from both natural (about 82%) and man-made (about 18%) sources.
Depending on their physical state, radionuclides may enter the body by ingestion, inhalation, or by absorption through the skin. They may also enter the body through breaks in the skin.
Rapidly dividing cells are the most sensitive to ionizing radiation.
The fetus, with its rapidly dividing cells, is especially radiosensitive.
(THIS IS WHY RADIATION EXPOSURE IN UTERO IS SO DANGEROUS FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN AND ANIMAL FETUSES AND WHY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE ALSO MOST AT RISK.)
Genetic effects due to ionizing radiation are well documented in animals and other nonhuman forms of life.
No reason exists to assume that humans are exempt from radiation-induced genetic effects.
Radiation exposure in these life forms results in congenital abnormalities and mutations that are transmitted to immediate and remote offspring. In experimental animals, the frequency of genetic effects due to radiation exposure generally increases as a linear-non-threshold function of dose.
In children born to survivors of the atomic bomb detonations, a pronounced association exists between gestational age at the time of exposure and the risk of neurodevelopmental effects. Exposure occurring during the first 7 weeks of gestation did not result in increased risks for mental retardation, reduced IQ, or seizure disorders. Exposures greater than 50 rad during gestational weeks 8 to 15, when nerve development and migration are greatest, showed linear dose-effect relationships for each of the above three endpoints and for microcephaly. This gestational period (i.e., 8 to 15 weeks) is recognized as the most sensitive for the development of fetal neurologic effects (see Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Reproductive and Developmental Hazards). A no-effect threshold for adverse neurodevelopmental effects during this gestational period could not be determined.
Cytotoxicity from radiation varies among cell types and tissues. In general, rapidly dividing cells that are poorly differentiated are most radio-sensitive.
For example, lymphocytes, primitive stem cells of the bone marrow, mucosal crypt cells of the gastrointestinal tract, spermatogonia, and granulosa cells of the ovary are particularly affected by radiation.
Endothelial cells of the microcirculation and epithelial cells of many organs have an intermediate sensitivity. Muscle cells, neurons, erythrocytes, and polymorphonuclear granulocytes are relatively resistant to radiation. In most cases, maximum organ damage becomes evident as injured progenitor cells fail to replace the lost mature cells.
The first radiation-induced malignancy to appear in the atomic bomb survivors was leukemia. The latent period between radiation exposure and clinical recognition of leukemia ranged from 2 to 15 years.
In the Japanese survivors, increased incidences for solid cancers appeared considerably later than the excess of leukemia. Carcinoma of the thyroid was the first of the solid tumors noted. An increased incidence of multiple myeloma and cancers at the following sites was also found: breast (female), lung, stomach, esophagus, small intestine, colon and rectum, brain and nervous system, ovary, uterus, urinary tract, and salivary glands. In populations irradiated occupationally or primarily for medical reasons, an increased incidence of cancers at these sites has also been reported, as well as at other specific sites including liver [due to internally deposited radionuclides], skeleton (BONE), and skin.
As with leukemia, the risks for solid tumors in the Japanese survivors are greater in persons who were younger at the time of exposure. The latency period for solid tumors due to radiation exposure is generally one or more decades.
The radionuclides in the environment of greatest potential concern are cesium-137, iodine-131, plutonium-239, radon-222, strontium-90, tritium, and uranium-238.
As of 1990, 113 nuclear power plants were operating in the United States.
In addition, 75 nuclear reactors were being used for training and research, while about 70 reactors were operating at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, and at least 100 were used to power military submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers.
Supporting these reactors are mines, mills, processing plants, and storage sites for spent fuel, all of which are potential sources of radiation exposure.
The current deposits of radioactive waste generated by production and use of atomic weapons and nuclear power reactors will remain a potential exposure hazard for 10,000 years or more.
Worldwide, more than 1 billion medical diagnostic X-ray examinations, more than 300 million dental X-ray examinations, and about 4 million radiation therapy procedures or courses of treatment are performed annually.
In the United States, over half of the population is exposed to X radiation each year, and more than half of these are diagnostic procedures, including dental diagnosis.
The rest experience X radiation during fluoroscopy, radiation therapy (Table 3), and nuclear medicine (Table 4).
Criticality accidents (due to uncontrolled nuclear fission) have occurred at Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1958; Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in 1958; Hanford Works, Richland, Washington, in 1962; and Wood River Junction, Rhode Island, in 1964.
In addition, two early experiments (in 1945 and 1946) at the Los Alamos site resulted in uncontrolled nuclear fission.
These accidents caused three early fatalities of workers closest to the nuclear reactions; the 22 other workers in the vicinity of the accidents were irradiated at doses less than 465 rem, and all survived for at least 5 years.
The radiation from these accidents would have affected a larger area and a greater number of people if conditions during criticality had also resulted in the explosive release of large amounts of energy, which they did not.
Releases of iodine-131 to air and water occurred at nuclear power plants in Hanford, Washington, during the period from 1943 to the 1960s and at Three Mile Island in 1978. The release of radioactivity at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant resulted in an average radiation dose to the surrounding population of about 8 mrem over a radius of 10 miles and about 2 mrem over a radius of 50 miles from the reactor.
Accidental releases of radioactive materials may also occur during transport of radionuclides or at sites storing them. Currently, low-level radioactive waste can be accepted at two commercial storage sites: Barnwell, South Carolina, and Hanford, Washington. The storage site at Beatty, Nevada, no longer accepts shipments of radioactive waste. No repository has yet been designated as a permanent storage site for high-level radioactive waste such as spent fuel from nuclear reactors.
Approximately half of those receiving a radiation dose of 500 rem will die within 30 days if untreated. Below 1000 rem, deaths are attributable to failure of the hematopoietic system. For doses between 1000 and 10,000 rem, death occurs due to ulceration and bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. Doses above 10,000 rem immediately affect the cells of the nervous system. Depending on the exposure dose, these subsyndromes (i.e., hematopoietic, gastrointestinal, and neurovascular), which make up the acute radiation syndrome, may be discrete or overlapping (Table 6).
Lymphocytes are a biologic marker for radiation exposure.
If whole-body radiation has occurred, several hematologic parameters can be used to predict biologic effects, as well as to estimate physical dose. The earliest indicator is a fall in the lymphocyte count, which may reach its nadir within 48 hour.
Table 6. Acute effects of whole-body doses of ionizing radiation...
rem*
0–25
No detectable clinical effects; small increase in risk of delayed cancer and genetic effects
25–100
Temporary reductions in lymphocytes and neutrophils; sickness not common; long-term effects possible
100–200
Minimal symptoms; nausea/vomiting/diarrhea/fatigue in a few hours; reduction in lymphocytes and neutrophils, with delayed recovery; possible bone growth retardation in children
200–300
Nausea and vomiting on first day; following latent period of up to 2 weeks, symptoms (loss of appetite and general malaise) appear but are not severe; hematopoietic subsyndrome; recovery likely in about 3 months unless complicated by previous poor health
300–600
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in first few hours, followed by latent period as long as 1 week with no definite symptoms; loss of appetite, general malaise, and fever during second week, followed by hemorrhage, purpura, inflammation of mouth and throat, diarrhea, and intestine destruction in third week; some deaths in 2–6 weeks; possible eventual death to 50% of those exposed
600–1000
Vomiting in 100% of victims within first few hours; diarrhea, hemorrhage, and fever toward end of first week; rapid emaciation; almost certain death
1000–5000
Vomiting within 5–30 minutes; 100% incidence of death within 2–4 days
>5000
Vomiting immediately; 100% incidence of death within a few hours to 2 days
Also
>15 In men yields temporary sterility
>300 In women yields permanent sterility
*rem=rad equivalent in man or mammal
Adapted from: Goldman M. Ionizing radiation and its risks. In: Occupational disease—new vistas for medicine. West J Med 1982;137:540–7.
Table 1. Units of radiation measurement
Characteristic
Unit
Description
Energy
electron volt (eV)
(also ergs, joule)
Kinetic energy of an electron as it moves through a potential difference of 1 volt.
Rate of radioactive decay
curie (Ci)
Radioactivity emitted per unit of time (1 Ci=3.7×1010 disintegrations per second).
Air exposure
roentgen (R)
Amount of X and gamma radiation that causes ionization in air. One roentgen of exposure will produce about 2 billion ion pairs per cubic centimeter of air.
Absorbed dose
rad
Dose resulting from one roentgen of ionizing radiation deposited in any medium, typically water or tissue. One rad results in the absorption of 100 ergs of ionizing radiation per gram of medium.
Biologic effectiveness
rem
Dose of any form of ionizing radiation that produces the same biological effect as 1 roentgen; 1 rem=1 rad x Radiation Weighting Factor (RWF), where the value of RWF depends on the type of radiation as follows:
X radiation=1.0
gamma radiation=1.0
beta=1.0
alpha=20
neutrons=5 to 20, depending on their energy
A new System Internationale (SI) nomenclature has been adopted, which is used by international, as well as many domestic, professional organizations and journals (Table 2).
Table 2. Equivalency of international units
Unit
Symbol
Equivalency
Gray
Gy
1 Gy=100 rad
Sievert
Sv
1 Sv=100 rem
Becquerel
Bq
1 Bq=2.7×10−11 Ci (or 1.0 disintegration per second)
A useful and sensitive biomarker for dose estimation in acute whole-body radiation exposures, as well as to predict the long-term health risks in large populations exposed to low levels of radiation, is the chromosome aberration assay. Radiation induces several nonspecific but characteristic chromosomal abnormalities, particularly dicentric chromosomes. By scoring the frequency of these abnormalities in lymphocytes in the peripheral blood or bone marrow and comparing the frequency to aberrations
produced by irradiating peripheral blood in vitro, a relatively accurate estimation of radiation dose can be made. Chromosomal aberrations are visible within hours after radiation exposure, and the optimum time to perform the assay is within the first few weeks after exposure. Details of sample preparation and the names of laboratories able to perform cytogenetic assays for radiation exposure can be obtained from REAC/TS (telephone: [615]–576–3131 [day]; [615] 481–1000 [24-hour hotline]).
Indicators of internally deposited radionuclides will depend on the biologic fate and the biologic half-life of the radioactive substance. If the metabolic pathway and biologic and physical half-lives are known, an estimate of dose to the target organ can be made by bioassay. Methods for measuring the amount of radioactivity in the body include urinalysis, fecal analysis, whole body scans, and thyroid scans for exposure to radioactive iodine.
The recommendation in 1934 of the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection (now the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [NCRP]) was to restrict whole-body exposures to less than 0.1 R/day. From 1950 to 1960, attention centered on genetic effects of radiation exposure, and recommendations were proposed to limit exposure to the equivalent of 5 rem/year, which applied to both the general public and workers.
Because any amount of radiation exposure poses some risk, all standards now employ a philosophy that radiation exposures should be limited to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and consistent with the benefits of radiation to society.
Regulatory agencies in the United States that are involved in radiation control include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Transportation, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the General Accounting Office. EPA has also established a standard for drinking water of 5 pCi/L, which applies to radioactivity from radium-226 and radium-228 combined.
A new drinking water standard of 20 pCi/L each for radium-226 and radium-228 has been proposed.
Table 7. Summary of recommendations for ionizing radiation
Dose Limits for Workers*
ICRP, 1991†
NCRP, 1993¶
Based on stochastic effects§ (e.g., cancer and genetic damage)
5 rem (50 mSv) annual effective dose limit
and
10 rem (100 mSv) as 5-year cumulative effective dose limit
5 rem (50 mSv) annual effective dose limit
and
1 rem (10 mSv) times age in years cumulative effective dose limit
Based on nonstochastic effects§ (e.g., lens cataracts and fertility impairment)
15 rem (150 mSv) equivalent dose limit to lens of eye
and
50 rem (500 mSv) annual equivalent dose limit to skin, hands, and feet
15 rem (150 mSv) annual equivalent dose limit to lens of eye
and
50 rem (500 mSv) annual equivalent dose limit to skin, hands, and feet
Dose Limits for the Public*
ICRP, 1991
NCRP, 1993
Based on stochastic effects
0.1 rem (1 mSv) annual effective dose limit, and, if needed, higher values provided that the annual average over 5 years does not exceed 0.1 rem
0.1 rem (1 mSv) annual effective dose limit for continuous exposure and 0.5 rem (5 mSv) annual dose limit for infrequent exposure
Based on nonstochastic effects
1.5 rem (15 mSv) annual equivalent to lens of eye and 5 rem (50 mSv) annual equivalent dose limit to skin, hands, and feet
5 rem (50 mSv) annual equivalent dose limit to lens of eye, skin, and extremities
Embryo-fetus
0.2 rem (2 mSv) equivalent dose to the woman’s abdomen once pregnancy has been declared
0.05 rem (0.5 mSv) equivalent dose limit in a month once pregnancy is known
*The dose limits for both workers and the public exclude medical and natural background exposures. Note that the dose limits for the public are lower, in general, than those for workers. Workers, by virtue of the ability to work, tend to be a healthier population than the public, which includes susceptible populations, the elderly, and children.
†International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP 21. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1991.
¶National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP, 1993. NCRP Report No. 116.
§Stochastic effects are those effects for which the probability of occurrence, rather than the magnitude of the effect, is proportional to dose. Not all irradiated persons show such effects; however, the probability that they will can be described by a dose-response curve that extends to zero with no threshold.
Nonstochastic effects are proportional in severity to the magnitude of the absorbed dose; they probably have a threshold below which no effect will be observed because simultaneous injury to many cells is required.
//WW
