It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

130 Mile Trail of Lethal Radiation in UK

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   





Blunder left trail of lethal radiation

A LETHAL beam of radiation was emitted from a casket containing highly radioactive waste on a three-and-a-half-hour road journey across England, it was disclosed yesterday.

Thousands of people were put at risk by the “cavalier” attitude of workers for the privatised company in charge of transporting the hospital waste.

Anyone standing one yard from the beam and in its direct path would have felt sick within ten minutes. After two hours they would have been dead.

More...





Unbelievable!

:shk:

While the articles says no one was "directly" exposed, its says:




Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.



So how many were indirectly exposed....and don't know it? 130 miles is no small distance...

Also, how lax do things need to be for the driver to not even know the freakin' safety cap was off????




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Woah WTF?? radiation leak and the only way we find out about it is through ATS?? what about any people caught in traffic behind this lorry? OMFG the company should be working with the police to find all those that got to close - theres enough cameras and video footage of UK roads to find affected people. This is totaly outrageous behaviour from the company involved.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
wow...that company should have some damn stiff fines coming its way.

thats just crazy...dead in only 2 hours.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Erm...where exactly did this take place. I live about 40 miles from Sellafield and there has been controversy in the past regarding covert shipments of spent fuel during the night.

Apparently they also make a habit of 'misplacing' spent fuel, so the idea that a leaky vessel containing radioactive material being hauled accross this green and pleasant land doesn't suprise me really.


CX

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The radioactive cannister/tank was from Cookeridge Hospital in Leeds, Uk. I think i'm right in saying they are a specialist cancer treatment hospital. My girlfriend recentky went through her chemo treatment there, we used to go every fortnight.

This was in the main news a couple of weeks ago, and some seem to brush it off more than others, saying it was'nt a significant risk as the beam was directed into the ground for the entire journey. Then again i guess they would make light of it would'nt they, it's not the sort of thing you want being public knowledge.

CX.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
The radioactive cannister/tank was from Cookeridge Hospital in Leeds, Uk.

Ahhh right, cheers. Yorshiremen being zapped by a radioactive beam is acceptable, nay, neccesary even, in my book!



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Good work loam.


Thanks - and keep it up.

Our world is SO full of contamination, chemicals, radiation and weird new chemical compounds it's an absolute wonder that we are not all chronically sick, or that cancer isn't epidemic, or that we don't have species going extinct or animals and people being born deformed everyday.





posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
These industries get off way too easy. Dupont was fined a pathetic pittance in the States after it was learned they deliberately buried research that showed that Teflon is a major health risk. How many thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people are sick or dying as a result and Dupont, an absolute financial monster gets but a slap on the hand. Where is the Enviornmental Protection Agency? Can we talk about factory farming, the water, children with brain cancers, deforestation yadda, yadda, yadda???? We're entering the dark ages here - common folk are expendable while the rich ascend to their lead-lined towers.
This stuff puts me in such a bad mood....



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I would highly recommend anyone living anywhere near this catastrophe purchase a portable radiation detector. There are numerous inexpensive units available via online mail order.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltman
I would highly recommend anyone living anywhere near this catastrophe purchase a portable radiation detector. There are numerous inexpensive units available via online mail order.


The only way a rad detector would have been of any use would have been when the source passed by. Since the article didn't state any of the source leaked out, the only hazard is line-of-sight from within the container through the hole. You would be able to detect gamma radiation only if you were within that beam. Afterwards, you would not detect anything, as gammas do not "hang out" when the source is gone. When you shine a flashlight on most objects and then take the light away, the object does not stay lit. Same concept. A neutron source would be a different matter, but not in this case.

This article needs work. It incorrectly uses terminology (ie, "contaminated" is very wrongly used here) and causes the general public that has little knowledge of the nuclear industry and radiation concepts to misunderstand the situation.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tanin

Originally posted by Saltman
I would highly recommend anyone living anywhere near this catastrophe purchase a portable radiation detector. There are numerous inexpensive units available via online mail order.


The only way a rad detector would have been of any use would have been when the source passed by. Since the article didn't state any of the source leaked out, the only hazard is line-of-sight from within the container through the hole. You would be able to detect gamma radiation only if you were within that beam. Afterwards, you would not detect anything, as gammas do not "hang out" when the source is gone. When you shine a flashlight on most objects and then take the light away, the object does not stay lit. Same concept. A neutron source would be a different matter, but not in this case.


It is true that a detector would not help prevent exposure in this particular case, but if radioactive materials are being handled carelessly in one's general area, the possibility of past/present/future contamination persists. Since these industries clearly cannot be trusted to monitor themselves, I think it is prudent for people to have a basic understanding of the threat and the equipment to detect it, especially if this sort of industry is in (or passing through) your neighborhood.

BTW, many digital radiation detectors have min/max/avg recording functions over time periods, so even if they couldn't prevent exposure to a brief burst of radiation, it could record the exposure which is itself valuable information.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Thank you Tanin, for injecting a measure of sanity and reality into this thread.

Your comments were the same as what I was thinking as I read this thread.

I am not trying to minimize the situation, this indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed, however, that doesn’t excuse some of the blatant fear mongering in evidence here.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Thank you Tanin, for injecting a measure of sanity and reality into this thread.

Your comments were the same as what I was thinking as I read this thread.

I am not trying to minimize the situation, this indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed, however, that doesn’t excuse some of the blatant fear mongering in evidence here.


I just re-read the article and this entire thread, and I fail to see any blatant fear mongering in evidence here. Accidental radioactive contamination is a real documented threat that has injured/killed people in the past. Often, the contamination is discovered only by chance, and I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many events go undetected or unreported.

See: www.johnstonsarchive.net...

I stand by my comment that people living near sites that are producing/storing/disposing radioactive materials should have a detector handy, I do not believe this is fear mongering.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltman

I just re-read the article and this entire thread, and I fail to see any blatant fear mongering in evidence here. Accidental radioactive contamination is a real documented threat that has injured/killed people in the past. Often, the contamination is discovered only by chance, and I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many events go undetected or unreported.

See: www.johnstonsarchive.net...

I stand by my comment that people living near sites that are producing/storing/disposing radioactive materials should have a detector handy, I do not believe this is fear mongering.


I am in complete agreement with you in that regard. You cannot completely entrust your life to anyone, so reasonable protection measures are always prudent. My main point was to inform any follower of the thread that in this specific case that monitoring equipment would only be effective during the actual event, as gamma radiation is emitted from a source and only exists when that source is present.

I took issue with the wording of both the thread title and the original post. Before reading the article, i took the "150mi trail" to be a persistant swath of contamination; it clearly is not.

Also, 'contamination' is much different from 'exposure.' Contamination is when radioactive material is impregnated, on or in a material, person, etc. That radioactive material (usually activated dust, rust, fission product, etc.) emits radiation. Exposure is the reception of radiation. Exposure to gamma radiation does not make you contaminated, as you don't retain any radiation energy after the exposure. Getting the source on you would contaminate you, and it would continue to emit radiation. That did not happen here.

I hope I helped clear some things up with this discussion.

edit: deleted a section about direct/indirect exposure. It didn't add anything more than I already stated.

[edit on 2/28/2006 by Tanin]

[edit on 2/28/2006 by Tanin]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Transporting radioactive waste is perhaps one of any nations most crucial health issues. (this time they were immensely lucky)
And I thought that transportation of Nuclear waste was a Government regulated industry? When did they turn it over to private flunkies?

Just how well can we guarantee that some idiot wont hit a truck/train, and knock it over right next to a population center? We cant... which is why Nuclear power is anything but a good option.

we can't store the waste safely
we cant transport it safely
we cant keep it out of unsafe hands
about the only thing we can do is harness the power of an atom, at a barely profitable rate...

So why do we hail the advent of nuclear power again?


All things considered... I would rather cover kansas with windmills than use nuclear power

Sorry for the rant.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong


The radioactive hazard came from transporting radioactive waste used for medicinal or calibratory uses, not nuclear power. Tangents about the pros and cons of nuclear power are out of the scope of the thread.

It might be different in the UK, but the "private flunkies" are still under the regulation of some governing body and will be dealt with in accord with their operational license.

[edit on 2/28/2006 by Tanin]

[edit on 2/28/2006 by Tanin]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tanin
Since the article didn't state any of the source leaked out, the only hazard is line-of-sight from within the container through the hole. You would be able to detect gamma radiation only if you were within that beam. Afterwards, you would not detect anything, as gammas do not "hang out" when the source is gone.




What? The article explicitly says:



Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


It obviously "hung out", as you put it, for 24 hours.


[edit on 28-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   


And I thought that transportation of Nuclear waste was a Government regulated industry? When did they turn it over to private flunkies?


Mr Blair has been kind enough to privatise anything and everything in a bid to raise a quick buck. This includes anyone from Qnetic, the guys that design our advanced weapons, to schools and hospitals....



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltman

Originally posted by HowardRoark


I just re-read the article and this entire thread, and I fail to see any blatant fear mongering in evidence here.


It is fear mongering plain and simple. because it clearly panders to the fears of those who do not understand radiation, what it is, it's various forms, etc.



Only by “pure chance” was no one directly exposed to the high concentration of cobalt-60 gamma rays that streamed from the container because of the failure to install a lead safety plug.

Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


Yep, fear mongering.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Tanin
Since the article didn't state any of the source leaked out, the only hazard is line-of-sight from within the container through the hole. You would be able to detect gamma radiation only if you were within that beam. Afterwards, you would not detect anything, as gammas do not "hang out" when the source is gone.




What? The article explicitly says:



Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


It obviously "hung out", as you put it, for 24 hours.


[edit on 28-2-2006 by loam]


Well, since Co-60 has a half life of 5.27 years, I wouldn't expect that the levels from the cask would have dropped much in one day.

This is either a blatant example of total fear mongering to sell newspapers or the worst case of scientific ignorance I have ever seen.

Since I don't think they are that stupid, and that they really want to sell papers, I think I'll call it for what it is: fear mongering.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join