Talk:Rocky Flats Plant

message: The article omits exactly what Rocky Flats produced during it's years in production.  Besides warhead "PITS", it had a Beryllium machining center, and was the site where the "Marmon" tractors were outfitted, which were used to transport weapons and weapons materials throughout the U.S.  These were typically referred to as SSTs, Safe Secure Transports.  Rocky Flats was also heavily involved in medical studies of the impacts of exposure to Beryllium.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.179.195 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pit consists of both the plutonium core and the beryllium pusher. The later is not a separate component. Bomazi (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rocky Flats Mission

message: The article says that assertions about elevated cancer rates had been "refuted", meaning "proved false".  Is this the correct word?  Or would it be more correct to say "challenged", "denied", or something less definite that "proved false"?  The report was "indicating lower cancer rates", to me this seems less definitive that "proved false".
Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Refuted?

message: Can anyone explain what this means? It can't possibly be literal, since 25,000,000 literal hours would equal 1,041,667 days, or roughly 2,854 years, which is impossible. This figure needs to be explained in the article. 68.55.223.238 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably 25,000,000 man-hours. Bomazi (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  25,000,000 Continuous Safe Hours? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rocky Flats Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331142610/http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/leroy-moore-papers/dem-public-heath-at-rf-12-10.pdf to http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/leroy-moore-papers/dem-public-heath-at-rf-12-10.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120827190040/http://archive.boulderweekly.com/010605/coverstory.html to http://archive.boulderweekly.com/010605/coverstory.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517040403/http://www.cdphe.state.co.us:80/rf/keyquestionsaddressed.htm to http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/keyquestionsaddressed.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
 — Gorthian (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently, it states: 
"Following World War II, the United States began production of nuclear weapons."
Wait, what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.67.137 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be referring to "mass production", which followed the one-by-one building of weapons that was done towards the end of the war. — Gorthian (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the US start making nuclear weapons? 

message: The following statement was added on March 6, 2021:  However, in 1994 Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary admitted that 1.3 tons of plutonium “could not be accounted for."[13]
Possible issues:
1. The reference is a 2012 Denver Post article that attributed the statement to an email from Kristen Iverson, however, the article then goes on to argue that the statement is misleading. Probably need a better reference.  
2. A 1996 Associated Press article (DOE's "Missing' Plutonium May Turn Up At Rocky Flats”, Feb 07, 1996) reported that Hazel O'Leary had announced that 3.1 tons of plutonium were unaccounted for at Rocky Flats.  Is it possible that in the Iverson email “1994” should be “1996” and “1.3 tons” should be “3.1 tons”? Again, a better reference would help.     
3. The subject statement was inserted in a paragraph about site cleanup, which implies the 1.3 tons was a likely environmental risk.   However, per the Denver Post and AP articles, all or part of the 1.3 tons figure could be due to incorrectly tracked material or an over-estimate of original plutonium production.  Hence the 1.3 tons figure may have little to do with any environmental impact and likely for this reason was not included in off-site risk estimates by the Colorado Department of Health. This needs to be clarified if the statement is to remain in the article.
4. Finally, the word “admitted” implies confession or reluctance to make a statement on the part of Secretary O'Leary.  Was this the case?  If so, what is the reference to support this other than the Iverson email? 
 Howbeit (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement Concerning 1.3 Tons of Plutonium 

message: A measurement of 30 million dpm/gram is of limited use without knowing the corresponding soil area.  The reference cited (a 2006 Rocky Mountain News editorial) does not give the area or any follow-up references.  The measurement is also not mentioned in any of the plutonium source term documents that were developed later to quantify public risk from Pad 903 releases (directed by CDPHE).  These documents include 1. The Rocky Flats Plant 903 Area Characterization, Meyer, H.R., et al., RAC, 1996,  2. Development of the Rocky Flats Plant 903 Area Plutonium Source Term, Rev. 1, Weber, J.M., et al., RAC, 1999, and 3. Technical Summary Report for the Historical Public Exposure Studies for Rocky Flats Phase II,  Till, John E.; et al.,  RAC, 1999.   
A better indicator would be the total plutonium activity that spilled onto the pad over time. Per Reference 3 above, this activity is estimated to be 6 to 58 Curies.  This information should be added to the Rocky Flats article, preferably in the “1960's” Section since that is when the leakage and cleanup occurred.  
Also, the state standard of 2 dpm per gram was (and still is) for uncontrolled, off-site areas.  The standard is not applicable to AEC/DOE on-site controlled areas such as the 903 storage pad.
Howbeit (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to 30 million dpm/gm (1970s Section) 

message: In the "1950s" Section, the statement on barrel leakage in 1959 needs to be removed.  In the CDPHE Phase II Reports on the 903 Area leakage, the detailed chronology of events indicates that barrel corrosion was found in 1958 and barrel leakage was noted “by 1962”.  However, it does not reference any known barrel leakage in 1959.  Until a reference can be cited for leakage definitely occurring in 1959, and that this was in fact “open field” leakage, the statement should be deleted.  The subsequent sentence about public knowledge of the 1959 leakage therefore should be deleted (or re-worded) also. Howbeit (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just move it to the '60's section, rephrase, and source it. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I will move and rephrase the first sentence as suggested. The second sentence (about public knowledge) I can't rephrase because I don't know of any reference for this information (and none is given). I think it should be simply deleted based on no citation. Howbeit (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, and is consistent with WP:BURDEN: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.". VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. Still learning the ins/outs of editing.   Howbeit (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on Leaking Barrels in 1959 

message: The following changes were made to the paragraph on the 1969 fire under “1960s”:
1) Revised “May 11, 1969 saw a major fire...” to “On May 11, 1969 there was a major fire...”, 2) Inserted the word “likely” in the sentence about the accident being the most costly in US history. This is mainly because no reference is given for the original statement, 3) Inserted “pre-EPA” at the end of this same statement to clarify that in 1969 there was no EPA to drive any of the cleanup cost, as there would later be (justifiably) in industrial accidents like Exxon Valdez or Deep Water Horizon, 4) Split the last sentence into two – one on the cleanup time, and one on the safety upgrades. Previously the sentence wording implied that the cleanup activities led to the safety upgrades. Howbeit (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of Accident