[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
That may make sense with some things. But the fuel cell section I mentioned is an excellent example of why I think it’s a bit of an over-reaction to mandate that as a routine procedure. First off the danger, if someone could take that section of fuel cell to some kind of weapons lab, is very potent. The CRUD found inside a core section would be ideal for making the “dirty bomb” that is a favorite threat for some people. That the fuel matrix is likely exposed only provides even more esoteric isotopes, in higher concentrations, than the CRUD would.
Having said that, the exposure that someone would take trying to walk off with this item is such that I’m not convinced that they could do it - they’d probably make it past the gate, then fall down vomiting blood. And that’s assuming that the rad monitors on site don’t detect such a high level source moving through the facility.
I’m not arguing that in all cases such dramatic responses are unwarranted - just that in many cases it’s an over-reaction.
I’m also skeptical of the report you linked - it seems to me (based on a quick skim-through) that they’re basing their discrepancy claim on the assumption that all the estimates for deposited Pu are completely accurate and unassailable, while the extimates for current levels are potentially incorrect and amenable to statistical correction. I don’t think that’s a reasonable set of assumptions.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that there could be statistical issues but I still get nervous when there is even the possibility of a loss or missing material. This
1996 DOE memo (warning, PDF) has a table where they attempt to explain why there are discrepancies in the amount of plutonium. Some of the explanations still have question marks! For Los Alamos the explanation includes the sentence, “Is full difference due to what is still managed under safeguards and security?”
If the CDC lost a vial of smallpox or ebola or anthrax, I think we should be told. If plutonium is missing, we should be looking for it.
I don’t disagree, Erie774. Any quick look at the history of management at Hanford would leave anyone questioning just how much National Security seems to exclude Americans who are caught up in the works.
I don’t mean to imply that the potential for loss isn’t worrisome. Nor that it doesn’t need to be investigated. Having said that, based on some of the things I know about the mess at Hanford, sometimes it seems the only answer that will be available to us, now, is to hope that the original numbers were off. Not very comforting, I know.
[QUOTE=Billdo]
Did they check behind the couch cushions? I sometime find my missing keys there.
[/QUOTE]
Dave tried to check, but his couch appears to have eaten him.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Maybe GWB could search the Oval Office again.
“Nope, not under here…”
[/QUOTE]
To paraphrase one of the Perfect Master’s more memorable asides: “…and if he were to actually find it there, the whole country might be a whole lot better off.”
…Hey, wait a second! I clearly remember that column, and the one in the archives has been significantly altered in tone! …Yep, found my Straight Dope paperback; page 229! I mean, I can accept a bit of judicious updating to acknowledge the fact that Reagan’s more dead than he was back then, but holy Christ! “You know I loved the Gipper…” What the hell is that about?! Foul! I call foul, Cecil! Loving the Gipper? Oh god, now my brain is being attacked by images of Reagan/Adams nasty! Why are you doing this to me, Unca Cece?! WHY?!?
Oh man, even the parting shot has been emasculated! The original line was: “The upshot of all this is that Re[a]gan’s statement consists of about 1 percent fact to 99 percent jive-- about what you’d expect from a guy who once claimed pollution was caused by trees.” Now it’s: “Politicians can say what they like, but nuclear waste just won’t go away.” A generic slam on politicians? That’s limper than month-old celery! Who are you, Jay Leno?
This is terrible! All my illusions are crumbling. I suppose that ten years from now, the final line of this archived column will read something like: “If history has judged Bush with less affection than I do, it’s not because of misperceptions surrounding his youthful service to his country, but because of political bias against a dear, dear man.” These archives are full of lies, I tell you! LIES!
Cecil, why have you forsaken me?
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Or, you can have an agency of your own government give it to a political ally, while publicly claiming that such a thing could never possibly happen. That’s the way we do it.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
But would they (or we) advertise it as missing afterwards?
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
The best example I can think of is from 2002 when a shut down reactor in California was reported to have lost control of a cut section of fuel cell. They think it’s in the storage pool, but they can’t prove it.
[/QUOTE]
Wetsuit. Scuba gear. CEO. Some assembly required.