[ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination unearthedatformerrockettest site n...

Mon Dec 31 14:05:16 CST 2012

There are a couple of separate but related problems:

A "ramjet" doesn't have turbines or compressors or what-have-you to move
air into the jet when the aircraft is at low speeds (all the way down to
stopped).  The aircraft has to be moving fast enough to "ram" air into
the intake, in order for it to be heated (regardless of the heat source)
and shoved out the back, pushing the aircraft forward to ram more air.
Ramjets always need some other propulsion system to get them up to speed
(such as rockets).  For the nuclear ramjet, the cooling is the air going
through it, with a delta T of thousands of degrees in a fraction of a
second.  You need a minimum speed to provide cooling and to maintain
lift.  Controlling power level of a reactor by controlling criticality
with control rods is hard and slow (that's why no one does it that way
for moment-by-moment power level control, at least that I am aware of).
It wouldn't work for an aircraft.  You can control speed a little by
increasing or decreasing drag, but throttling the reactor really isn't a
viable option.  

Reactors in space are a different issue.  I have given it some thought,
as I have a novel I am playing with space ships that use reactors.  It
is an interesting problem once you get reactors big enough to require
coolant be moved through them.  Think about what happens when liquid
boils, or gas heats, but there isn't gravity to produce density
gradients, and cause hot things to rise.  As for cooling in space,
vacuum isn't cold; it is a really good insulator.  If you are in shadow,
then you lose heat through radiation to your surroundings.  If you are
in sunlight, half of you is heating up and half is radiating, which can
lead to complications.  There are several entertaining ways of shedding
heat, depending on your particular situation, but everything is more
complicated with no gravity, variable acceleration, and only the
air/water you bring with you.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
JPreisig at aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:26 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination
unearthedatformerrockettest site n...

Radsafe,

      I expect, if you put such a sophisticated  reactor in a bomber
aircraft, one of the real problems is how to cool the reactor well.  On
a submarine or aircraft carrier, you  can always??? readily get cooling
water.  In a spaceship in space, one could cool the reactor by using the
cold temperatures of outer space (circulate a water loop outside of the
spaceship???).

     As for a ramjet having two speeds, that is a  really neat problem.

Clearly, you change the power
level in the reactor using the control rods.  But in a ramjet, or
bomber, or whatever, you really need the ability to change power levels
quickly --- there are times when a ramjet, a  jet or a bomber needs to
accelerate or decelerate quickly.  In a jet the inertial guidance
system has been specifically designed (using ring laser gyroscopes
and/or accelerometers) to respond quickly --- and one wants the ability
to make flight control surfaces (i.e. flaps etc.) respond quickly.  A
reactor, even a sophisticated one, doesn't lend itself to making rapid
changes (on demand).  Really  pretty interesting.

    I guess dive planes in a submarine usually move pretty  slowly????

    Regards,   Joe Preisig

In a message dated 12/31/2012 12:26:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV writes:

I had a  professor who worked on the nuclear powered ramjet.  He said it
could  power a bomber to supersonic speeds, but not with the mass needed
to shield  the reactor enough to service the plane.  They looked at a
lot of different possible work-arounds, but never came up with anything
that was good enough.

He said one of the real deal-killers was the acknowledged fact  that
airplanes sometimes crash, and no one wanted to be involved in cleanup
of  a particularly hot reactor after it hit the ground at a couple
hundred miles  per hour.

-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent:  Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:20 PM
To: The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ]  Radioactive contamination unearthed
atformerrockettest site near Los Angeles -  U.S. News

I believe you are refereing to the "Pluto" program managed by  the Los
Alamos Lab. Pluto was a rocket powered by liquid hydrogen by running  it
through a nuclear reactor expanding its volume to provide the necessary
thrust. It worked, but I assume because it invoved nuclear energy,  it
was politically unacceptable to the politicians in Washington. During
the same  period (the 60's), Livermore Lab was working on a nuclear
powered ramjet  engine. 
Following its first sucessful test, this project was also killed by  the
federal government.
Jerry  Cohen

________________________________
From: Edmond  <edmond0033 at comcast.net>
To: The International Radiation Protection  (Health Physics) Mailing
List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent:  Sat, December 29, 2012 10:20:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive  contamination unearthed
atformerrocket test site near Los Angeles - U.S.  News

I think (not very sure) at one time the DOE or (AEC) was trying to
develop a rocket engine that was to be powered by radioactivity.  It was
canceled for whatever reason.

Ed  Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net

-----Original Message----- From:  Douglas Minnema
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:44 PM
To: The  International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
Subject:  Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination unearthed
atformerrocket test site  near Los Angeles - U.S. News

Just curious, what about  tritium?

Twelve or so years ago, when I was doing a safety management  system
review of the DOE-funded cleanup operations at that site, there was
clear (and
acknowledged) evidence of a tritium plume moving from the site  into
off-site areas.  I was surprised at the time because there had not  been
any active reactors or other obvious sources for the tritium at the site
for many years before that time, but it was equally clear that the plume
was associated with one of the old test reactor locations.

I understand  that the intervening half-life of time will have reduced
the quantities  further (please, no lectures on radioactive decay :-)
but at that time the  quantities were easily measurable.  I'm not sure
that one half-life would  have been enough to "make it go away."
Physical dispersal of the plume  might be enough to reduce it to below
detectable, but I don't have a good feel  for that.

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
US Defense Nuclear Facilities  Safety Board

-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 1:54 PM
To:  The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination unearthed at
formerrocket test site near Los Angeles - U.S. News

Here is the EPA's  Fact Sheet on the study results:
EPA Radiological Characterization Study  Results http://j.mp/12dBJrt

It lists some of the specific results in a  table.
e.g.
Am-241: 3 positive in the 0.05-0.06 pCi/g  range
Cs-137:  291 positive in the 0.2-200 pCi/g  range
Pu239/240:  14 pos in the 0.02-0.19 pCi/g range
Sr90:   153 pos in the 0.08-21 pCi/g range Etc.

---
Cary  Renquist
cary.renquist at ezag.com

-----Original  Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 10:35 AM
To:  The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination unearthed at
formerrocket test site near Los Angeles - U.S. News

U.S. EPA's  Final Technical Memorandum Look-Up Table Recommendations
This is a link to a  pdf that seems to have the background threshold
values for the nuclides of  interest (Table 2 of attachment 1).
http://j.mp/QYILg4

Pursuant  to an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of
Energy
(DOE) and  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the USEPA has
conducted a  Radiological Background Study to determine the background
levels for  radionuclides in surface and subsurface soils associated
with Area IV and the  Northern Buffer Zone (Area IV Study Area1) of the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), located in Ventura County,
California. In addition, the USEPA is currently conducting a
radiological characterization of the Area IV  Study Area to identify
areas that exhibit radionuclide concentrations in surface and subsurface
soil and sediment above background levels (herein, "soil" shall mean
surface and subsurface soil as well as surface and subsurface sediment
unless otherwise specified).

I didn't see a doc  that has the presented results of the soil samples,
however, this article at  least has some details:
Latest soil tests at Santa Susana Field Lab site  shows radioactive
material remains - LA Daily News  http://j.mp/TSusGW

The EPA researchers collected 3,735 samples of  mostly surface soil and
found that of those, 500 contained concentrations of  radioactive
materials that exceeded what is known as background standards - or  the
levels occurring naturally in the environment. Almost all were man-made
radionuclides. Most of those samples contained Cesium-137, and of those
one  sample reached levels up to
1,000 times above background standard. There  were 153 samples of
Stronium-90 and of those some hits reached levels that  were 284 times
higher than background.

Both radioactive elements are  considered dangerous to human health when
present at high  levels.

"There were some hits that were elevated but for the most part,  they
were in the range that we expected," said John Jones, federal project
director with the Department of Energy.

Cary

---
Cary  Renquist
cary.renquist at ezag.com

-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of Robert J
Gunter
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 6:38 AM
To:  'Robert Atkinson'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health
Physics)Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination  unearthed atformer
rocket test site near Los Angeles - U.S. News

Not a  very informative statement:  "10 percent contained radioactive
concentrations exceeding background levels."

This could easily be fill  from another location or different aggregate
based on this statement  alone.  Is it NORM or Cs-137?

Robert J. Gunter, MSc, CHP
CHP  Consultants/CHP  Dosimetry
www.chpconsultants.com
www.chpdosimetry.com
Toll Free:  (888) 766-4833
Fax:  (866) 491-9913
Cel:  (865)  387-0028
rjgunter at chpconsultants.com

________________________________
From:  Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
To: The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012,  2:53
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination unearthed at former
rocket test site near Los Angeles - U.S. News

Dec. 13