B1g Brother, this is precisely the problem!! There is a rather simple (OT) solution to this problem. "Don't do anything that draws the attention of law enforcement."
When we peel away the onion skin on some of these police shootings (that get people all bent out of shape), we find that some of the decedents have had a long history of inter-action with law enforcement agencies.
Those of us who have accumulated significant life experience do not need to be reminded by Mrs. Clinton on the importance of giving back to our communities and/or giving forward to our young people. One of the ways that I find works is to actually spend quality time with vulnerable youth.
A great joy is to inspire these young people to do what they were put on Earth to do. Provide the encouragement, provide the networking and resources that you can, then turn these young people loose. When young people have the opportunity to be creative, they can self-motivate to do amazing things. What these young people do can only be limited by their own imaginations.
When we empower today's young people to take the initiative (as Americans for more than 240 years have done), we remove one of the "Planks in the Democrat Platform" (victimhood). This concept is ultimately at the root of Mrs. Clinton's position.
As I write this post, Whitney Houston's Classic, "One Moment in Time" is playing on our sound system. Enough Said!
This is just the latest example of the depths that the Obama Administration appears to go in order to maintain Political Correctness. First, it was Vladimir Putin utilizing his considerably well-developed skills (compared to POTUS et al.) in taking advantage of the US in both the Ukraine and Syria and now it's the Iranians seemingly making essential material purchases for maintaining (and possibly expanding) their nuclear program. The world is an inherently more dangerous place, as a result of the Obama Administration's apparently naivete in hewing to Political Correctness, rather on understanding the implications of the facts on the ground.
Fundamentally, this isn't any different than the seemingly ludicrous comments of AG Lynch on "loving terrorists." I guess that there will have been "a whole lotta love" given to Mr. Putin, to the Iranians, and to the terrorists before the Obama Administration finally fades into the sunset. An open question on all of this is whether the US will survive until January 20, 2017, due to all of this Political Correctness and "love".
The issue raised is part of the problem of revisionist history that the American Left projects. The media is in lock-step with those who seem to deliberately want to suppress the facts.
Lewis, it is unclear when the work that I am responding to was published.
There also appears to be some confusion between the chemical and radiological toxicity of (for example) plutonium. The chemical toxicity of plutonium is the more immediate risk.
The issue of radiation exposure is different between the clinical setting (treatment for cancer) and the occupational setting (exposure on the job).
In the former, a medical/radiation physicist will determine dose and duration for medically prudent treatment. This is a controlled dose.
In the latter, the dose is often uncontrolled. When dosimetry records are incomplete, there is no way to estimate with any precision what the exposure actually was.
As a result of multiple decade latency periods (from exposure to diagnosis), the patient may be retired and the patient may not remember a specific, trigger incident.
Lewis, I'm not sure what the NRC is trying to accomplish with the proposed new regulations. In working with workers made sick due to their employment at federal nuclear weapons complex facilities, it is not unusual for a cancer and/or serious non-malignant disease to arise many years after the employee ended their service in the complex.
With latency periods (from exposure to diagnosis) of multiple decades, it is often the low dose exposure to forms of ionizing radiation (i.e., alpha and beta particles, neutrons, and gamma rays) that takes the longest time to manifest itself.
While the protections and the safeguards today are certainly better than those that existed while I was working, until there is a significant amount of data suggesting that the new regulations are appropriate, then we must always err on the side of caution.
Work in the federal nuclear weapons complex has not been without risk (from the Manhattan Project to the present time). We ought to think (and then think again) before we make a change that has the potential to be hazardous to the worker, the neighbors of the site, and the local environment.
Lewis, this is a hugely important story. Hanford has been operated continuously since the 1940s and Hanford is arguably the most (chemical and radiological) contaminated site in the US federal nuclear weapons complex. We are now getting a third and a possibly a fourth generation of workers sick from unprotected exposures to (chemical and radiological) toxins.
The situation has deteriorated significantly in recent times. It has become increasingly evident that management remains reluctant to communicate the nature of the hazards extant and therefore continues to place workers in harm's way. The Attorney General of Washington State (Mr. Bob Ferguson) has had enough of the failure to communicate relevant information to the affected employees and he has now acted.
The net result is (to the best of my knowledge) the first instance where an Attorney General of a state has actually initiated legal proceedings against the US DOE and some of the site contractors. To me, it is outrageous that the US DOE and some of the site contractors appear to be continuing the historic pattern of deploying site employees to problematic locations and then thinking that "saying we're sorry" somehow absolves these entities of their respective accountability/responsibility.
This issue is possibly worst at Hanford. At the very least, the issues raised are not going away.
The enrichment level in the uranium-235 isotope at Paducah was limited by the facility itself and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to less than 10% by mass. As Moose has noted, the tails is actually a form of depleted uranium (concentration of the uranium-235 isotope is less than the 0.71% of the uranium-235 isotope found in the natural ore).
The chemical form of the uranium is uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Of all of the common compounds of uranium, UF6 is the easiest one to vaporize. When UF6 is in the gas phase, it can then effuse through a gaseous diffusion cascade and/or be spun in a cascade of centrifuges in order to effect enrichment to the desired level.
Metropolis, IL is across the Ohio River from Paducah, KY. If we treat the enrichment process of the uranium-235 isotope in UF6 at Paducah as Step 3 in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, then we can treat the fabrication of fuel rods (chemical conversion of UF6 to uranium oxide) at Metropolis as Step 4 in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. The geographic proximity of these two cities would enable a significant decrease in transportation costs.