Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum(13) Workers at Nuclear Waste Site in New Mexico Inhaled Radioactive Materials
By MATTHEW L. WALDFEB. 27, 2014
WASHINGTON Thirteen employees who worked the night shift at a nuclear waste burial site in New Mexico after an underground leak are carrying radioactive materials in their bodies, but it is too soon to say how much health risk this poses, Energy Department officials said on Thursday.
The workers inhaled plutonium and americium, which if lodged in the body bombards internal organs with subatomic particles for the rest of the persons lifetime. The dose calculation is a bit arcane because the dose in such cases will be delivered over many years.
Calculating a lifetime dose will require several urine and fecal samples, taken over time, to determine the rate at which the body is eliminating the materials, said Joe Franco, manager of the Energy Departments Carlsbad, N.M., field office, which oversees operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, where bomb wastes are buried in an ancient salt bed deep beneath the desert.
Right now we have one single data point; there was one reading, Mr. Franco said at a news conference in Carlsbad, explaining that more readings were necessary. Sensors in the salt mine detected a leak at about 11:30 p.m. on Feb. 14. At that hour, no one was in the mine, and automatic systems reduced the ventilation and ran the exhaust through high efficiency particulate filters, officials said, minimizing the flow of materials to the surface.
The next morning, after officials realized that the surface was contaminated...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/workers-at-nuclear-waste-site-in-new-mexico-inhaled-radioactive-materials.html
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Pray for them, because modern medicine has no answer.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)May she rest in peace.
NMDemDist2
(49,313 posts)the workers got a tiny dose, much less than a chest e-ray. WIPP has a policy 'anything over a zero reading is too much'
it's a great philosophy, but it makes the headlines sound much worse than it is
madokie
(51,076 posts)Especially if its plutonium
I don't think the headlines is over stating the dangers here at all.
http://enenews.com/us-official-large-amounts-radioactive-particles-were-released-during-puff-at-leaking-nuclear-site-expert-plutonium-and-americium-can-travel-a-long-way-in-wind-tv-reporter-they
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Also the proximity of the particles to cell tissue is a factor that makes the X-ray comparison questionable without knowing a bit more about who is making that assessment.
More here:
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/060411.php
caraher
(6,278 posts)Argonne National Lab has some handy fact sheets that are a good starting place for figuring out what a given radionuclide does in the body (I just Google "Argonne fact sheet <element>" to find them).
From the plutonium fact sheet:
So about 90% of inhaled plutonium typically remains in the body for decades. Estimating health risks requires knowing the amount inhaled; the fact sheet gives two different ways of looking at the risk. They report a lifetime excess cancer mortality risk of about 3 x 10^(-8) per picocurie for inhalation exposure. They also say, "...for inhalation (the exposure of highest risk), breathing in 5,000 respirable plutonium particles of about 3 microns each is estimated to increase an individuals risk of incurring a fatal cancer about 1% above the U.S. average."
From the americium fact sheet:
So very little americium is absorbed; but what does remain stays for a long time, very much the way plutonium does. The excess cancer mortality risk per picocurie is comparable to, but smaller than, the values for plutonium. But it appears that, per atom, plutonum is a bigger concern because a larger fraction of it stays in the body.
It's worth noting that these biological profiles are very different from the contaminants most prevalent in reactor accidents like Cs-137, which has a biological half-life of a few months rather than decades.
Would you know how accurately they are able estimate the quantity of respirable particles and what the most reliable methods for measuring it are? I'm guessing that the conditions described mean they are dealing with open air exposure that wasn't expected to be there, so...?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)So they can sample the urine several times, and then you can work back to an estimate of original exposure.
caraher
(6,278 posts)I think Yo_Mama has it right - the best way to figure out exposure is ongoing monitoring of the sort described. I'd imagine there will always be pretty big uncertainties associated with any such measurement - you can probably get the order of magnitude right, but since there's also a lot of uncertainty associated with the risk even given accurate exposure data, it's not really necessary to do much better to decide whether doing more than monitoring is warranted.