[ RadSafe ] Radioactive contaminationunearthedatformerrockettest site n...

Brennan, Mike (DOH) Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Wed Jan 2 12:32:36 CST 2013 

I also understand that the concept was that the travel over enemy
territory would be at very low altitude.  A supersonic aircraft at 500ft
would indeed have a devastating sonic boom.  While the dose rate from
the reactor would be pretty high, the exposure time would be very small.
On the other hand, given that this weapon system was envisioned to be
used only in an Armageddon-like, hammer-and-tongs, inventory-clearance
"exchange" between the US and the USSR, I suspect that the dose from the
passing bomber wouldn't make it into the top ten long-term health risks
of even the people it passed right over.

I am really, really glad we didn't do that. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bair, William
(CONTR)
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:23 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive
contaminationunearthedatformerrockettest site n...

That coincides with the literature I found regarding the ramjet. The low
altitude also contributed to the horrendous noise level that would be
experienced by those below.  Also, as I understand it, the intent was to
launch the thing and let it travel for as long as needed until a target
was identified.  I don't believe there was much concern regarding speed
control - more of a missile delivery system than a bomber.  That's
probably why the emergence of the Polaris and ICBM programs doomed it.

Bill Bair, Sr. Scientist
Radiological Engineering
NSTec, LLC
Contractor to the US Department of Energy
(702)295-4463 (W)
(702)630-0631 (C)
(702)295-9335 (fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:06 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive
contaminationunearthedatformerrockettest site n...

Mike,
    Thanks for your interesting discussion on the nuclear ramjet. As I
recall, it's mission would have been to fly over enemy territory at an
altitude of ~500 ft. 
imparting a
fatal radiation dose to the people below. It would have been a truly
nasty weapon.
    As you mentioned, retrieving the reactor following its use would
have posed a tricky problem. I think the best approach considered was to
crash it into the deep ocean.
Of coarse, multiple usage would have been out of the question In
retrospect, perhaps it was best to scrub the project-- although  it
posed some interesting technological challenges.

Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive
contaminationunearthedatformerrockettest site n...


> 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
>
> From the NBC article:
>
> "Technicians collected 3,735 soil  samples from a corner of the 
> 2,850-acre hilltop lab where most of the testing  was done. Of those, 
> they found about
> 10 percent contained radioactive  concentrations exceeding background 
> levels."
>
> Yep.  Time to panic.  No doubt about it.
>
> Steven  Dapra
>
>
> At 01:14 PM 12/13/2012, you  wrote:
>>http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15878279-radioactive-contam
>>i nation-unearthed-at-former-rocket-test-site-near-los-angeles
>>s
>
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how  to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how  to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood
>
> the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how  to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently  subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to  RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood
>
> the RadSafe rules. These can be  found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood
>
> the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood
>
> the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list