Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,695 posts)
13. How ironic...
Tue Apr 29, 2014, 12:17 PM
Apr 2014

...since, of course, exactly the opposite is true.

They just did go back down in the hole after two months.

And this is evidence that there was a nuclear explosion?

And they had to get the fuck out since it was so radioactive.

There's your imaginary fantasy world again. In the real world, they left when the time they were allowed to stay underground (based on battery life for their suits and the temperature wearing the equipment) expired. They have since been back down without trouble.

They never even got close to where they THINK the explosions/fires occurred.

Also untrue... all three statement. They don't think there was an explosion... and the only fire that occurred was several days earlier and they know where that was... and they have been close to the actual source.

Nobody (apart from you it appears) thinks there was an explosion (let alone a nuclear one). The two most likely causes of the release were considered to be a roof collapse (broken roof bolts were seen in the active storage room just a couple days before the event), or damaged containers from handling (likely by a forklift piercing a drum).

They have since been back down to room 7 of panel 7 (both front and back faces of the stack), and the roof collapse theory is now out. The drums at each face appear to be undamaged, so now they're planning a more detailed examination (cameras on extension polls, etc) of the rest of the room. They've pretty definitively identified it as the source (as expected) by mapping counts-per-minute on both faces of the drums. Nothing anywhere high enough to "get the fuck out since it was so radioactive"... particularly since it would be primarily alpha particles.

Obviously... none of that would be possible if there had been a nuclear explosion in the room.

They burn clothes and such. They don't bury minor reactive materials. They bury the really dangerous stuff like that which is too HOT for weapons and parking lot storage.

Why on earth do you just wing these things when it's so simple to look them up? You appear to have a world-record tolerance for making yourself look foolish.

1 - Just look up "transuranic waste" and "TRU". The definitions are pretty straightforward:

TRU waste is contaminated with man-made radioactive materials with atomic numbers greater than uranium, such as plutonium, americium, and curium. Transuranic waste is officially defined as waste contaminated with alpha-emitting radionuclides, having atomic numbers greater than 92 and with half-lives greater than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste. These wastes include such materials as laboratory clothing, rubber gloves, tools, glove boxes, glassware, piping, air filters, plastics, wood, metals, and solidified waste water sludges contaminated with transuranic materials.


2 - Think before you type. It would be pretty darn stupid to burn clothing contaminated by plutonium. The clothes would burn... the plutonium wouldn't. You've now released the plutonium into the exhaust plume of your fire.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

bullshit NMDemDist2 Apr 2014 #1
Quoting directly from an area NM newspaper is fear-mongering, eh? DeSwiss Apr 2014 #3
Those are some heavy quotes RobertEarl Apr 2014 #2
Yep. DeSwiss Apr 2014 #4
bravo sir...bravo backwoodsbob Apr 2014 #5
Sure RobertEarl Apr 2014 #6
what evidence do you have of this? backwoodsbob Apr 2014 #7
Not that I expect it'll make any difference..... DeSwiss Apr 2014 #8
Not that I expect it'll make any difference... but that's nonsense. FBaggins Apr 2014 #9
That isn't how a nuclear explosion works at all. FBaggins Apr 2014 #11
There you go again FBaggins Apr 2014 #10
You don't know what you are saying RobertEarl Apr 2014 #12
How ironic... FBaggins Apr 2014 #13
I'm curious...do you work in or for the nuclear industry? truebrit71 Apr 2014 #14
I do not now, nor have I ever FBaggins Apr 2014 #15
To answer your question... truebrit71 Apr 2014 #16
He gets his info from pro-nuke websites RobertEarl Apr 2014 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Paper: WIPP workers ''not...»Reply #13