Yanlex t1_iszdv8x wrote
Reply to comment by SomethingElse521 in Missouri school to close after radioactive waste report by KCPanther
It was literally declared a superfund site 30yrs ago. That shouldn't be surprising in and of itself.
I wish they released the actual measured amounts detected. It says they detected "22x the amount of radioactive lead-210 expected at the playground". Uhh... what exactly is the "expected amount" of radioactive material that is found at an elementary playground?
EDIT: Here is the actual report. Its pretty bad. They specifically call out the Army Corps of Engineers for doing a negligent job on earlier testing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/124fnZz3VJ2KozmhmbYiiedqaPKetRST9/view
Kagrok t1_iszitc9 wrote
>Uhh... what exactly is the "expected amount" of radioactive material that is found at an elementary playground?
Background radiation is everywhere. The US averages about 3mSv/yr
Yanlex t1_iszj2hs wrote
Yes, but they are talking about radioactive materials being present: lead-210, polonium, and radium. The 22x amount specifically for the lead-210, not radiation level in general.
zer1223 t1_iszkz99 wrote
There's a tiny bit of that stuff everywhere, yes. And I mean really really tiny
kapootaPottay t1_it0nunu wrote
in your runninh microwave, but not in your popcorn.
Yanlex t1_iszmnjo wrote
No, there is not radioactive lead and polonium everywhere.
razorirr t1_iszzhz5 wrote
Yeah there is for lead 210. Its a naturally occuring trace element in soil.
Dig up the ground on your property, send it for analysis, and they will find some amount of it. In the vast majority of places this amount will be so small, it wont matter.
Same goes for polonium 210.
The numbers are tiny, but they are not 0
DiscountFoodStuffs t1_it05rse wrote
Lol what? Google: Polonium-210 and lead-210 in the terrestrial environment: a historical review or Occurrence and Geochemistry of Lead-210 and Polonium-210 Radionuclides in Public-Drinking-Water Supplies from Principal Aquifers of the United States
bretto2004 t1_iszwjhm wrote
Are you stating a horrible fact, or genuinely sleep better at night thinking that only "tiny" amounts somehow don't cause cancer?
Mend1cant t1_it04uyq wrote
I mean, tiny amounts don’t necessarily cause cancer. It really depends on how tiny it is. Radiation effects aren’t a black and white thing at low levels. Airline pilots are exposed to radiation at a higher level than most people working next to nuclear reactors just from background.
ChumaxTheMad t1_iszwvm5 wrote
The local issue has been govt refusal to admit/recognize/study the issue (of leaks in Coldwater into the wider watershed and the superfund site actively harming communities around it, which the govt actively denied) and especially to help the victims. Maybe we're getting a bit closer now. I live really close to this and I really hope I luck out of it.
kapootaPottay t1_it0oznc wrote
I'm furious! 1. engineers can't create an accurate Superfund boundary? 2. They are just realizing it now??? A Fuckin Geiger Counter that a 4 year old can operate while walking in the woods;
"paw? it's clicking."
ChumaxTheMad t1_it0pbd2 wrote
A lot of these sites are engaged in active cover-up in order to not have to deal with the associated costs, especially bc a lot of it should be paying to relocate people. Especially ones located near poor and indigenous communities. There's a history and legacy of this kind of bullshit with superfund sites.
[deleted] t1_it1j95b wrote
[removed]
DarkSideMoon t1_it2url9 wrote
Every time I read something about the Corps of Engineers it blows my mind how such a rogue, corrupt, fraudulent, and frankly criminal organization can continue to operate with almost total impunity. What they did with dams in the middle of the 20th century was criminal. They openly admitted to lying to Congress about how much money it would take to rebuild the levees in New Orleans after Katrina so they could build them to a higher spec.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments