Rocky Flats, Westminster, Standley

[pvnisher]

Read that plutonium isn't water soluble and yes, is heavy, so the catch basins from the creek caught (and hold) a lot, and the reservoir then would have plutonium in the bottom but was long as you aren't dredging the dirt then it should be pretty contained.
So that also contributed to wading, swimming, and motorized craft being banned. First it's just a good idea for a drinking water reservoir, but also keeps the bottom from being churned up.

Seems like the immediate threats are things like new construction, erosion, even animal burrows and similar, exposing soil and then wind carrying it (or inhaling it).

I'm going to keep looking around. I'll probably visit and use the trails and lake, but will probably not move in right next door.

[onebyone]

I bike at Rocky Flats all the time and have zero concerns. I think there are people who really want people to actually get cancer from there just they can say, told ya so. Yeah, I know, harsh.

Personally, I'm more concerned about all the plastic bottles I keep drinking out of for some reason.

my overall thoughts are if you live there for decades youre probably 2-3x as likely to get radiation related cancers like thyroid/leukemia, which is still a very small chance. nowadays a lot of the millenials are getting colon cancer which is probably related to processed foods/plastic and more of a danger than living in westminster

There's zero proof that this is true. The 2-3x more likely to get radiated cancers from Rocky Flats. As for the rest of this statement, prob something to it, although I have a feeling it's the convergence of multiple factors.

[cottonmountaineering]

I bike at Rocky Flats all the time and have zero concerns. I think there are people who really want people to actually get cancer from there just they can say, told ya so. Yeah, I know, harsh.

Personally, I'm more concerned about all the plastic bottles I keep drinking out of for some reason.

my overall thoughts are if you live there for decades youre probably 2-3x as likely to get radiation related cancers like thyroid/leukemia, which is still a very small chance. nowadays a lot of the millenials are getting colon cancer which is probably related to processed foods/plastic and more of a danger than living in westminster

There's zero proof that this is true. The 2-3x more likely to get radiated cancers from Rocky Flats. As for the rest of this statement, prob something to it, although I have a feeling it's the convergence of multiple factors.

in the 2017 addendum to rocky flats cancer study they stated

"The count of 74 males with pancreas cancer
compares to an expected count of about 49 cases for a statistically high observed/expected ratio
of 1.50. Observed/expected ratios were statistically higher for non-Hispanic whites (1.61) and
the age 65-74 cohort (1.63)."

1.5 is a 50% increase over baseline, which is why i stated probably 2-3x likely to get radiation related cancers, still a small chance but it is showing in the data

[onebyone]

my overall thoughts are if you live there for decades youre probably 2-3x as likely to get radiation related cancers like thyroid/leukemia, which is still a very small chance. nowadays a lot of the millenials are getting colon cancer which is probably related to processed foods/plastic and more of a danger than living in westminster

There's zero proof that this is true. The 2-3x more likely to get radiated cancers from Rocky Flats. As for the rest of this statement, prob something to it, although I have a feeling it's the convergence of multiple factors.

in the 2017 addendum to rocky flats cancer study they stated

"The count of 74 males with pancreas cancer
compares to an expected count of about 49 cases for a statistically high observed/expected ratio
of 1.50. Observed/expected ratios were statistically higher for non-Hispanic whites (1.61) and
the age 65-74 cohort (1.63)."

1.5 is a 50% increase over baseline, which is why i stated probably 2-3x likely to get radiation related cancers, still a small chance but it is showing in the data

https://oitco.hylandcloud.com/cdphermpo ... ocpop.aspx

 There was no evidence of higher than expected frequencies of thyroid cancer in the
vicinity of Rocky Flats. Thyroid cancer was not higher than expected for the entire 10-
RSA area combined and for the ten individual RSA regions for males or females.
 For the entire 10-RSA region combined, the incidence of “rare” cancers was not higher
than expected for either males or females compared to the remainder of the Denver
Metro area.
 Nine of the ten RSA regions for each gender had incidence of “rare” cancers that was
not higher than expected compared to the remainder of the Denver Metro area.
 One of the ten RSA regions, RSA 205, “Wheat Ridge”, had a statistically higher than
expected count of “rare” cancers for one gender, males, a finding explained by higher
rates of male, pancreatic cancer. Pancreas cancer has many risk factors associated
with it, among which are smoking, heavy alcohol use, being overweight or obese.

Also, even if your claims were true, which are far from corroborated, you are implying that a person moving to Candelas or the surrounding area as of today are 2-3x more likely to get radiation related cancers. There is zero evidence to support this claim. I think you are trying to prove something you already believe versus looking at it objectively. If you want to argue that you have concerns and worries, then that is one thing. But scientifically as stands, there is no evidence to support your claims.

[cottonmountaineering]

There's zero proof that this is true. The 2-3x more likely to get radiated cancers from Rocky Flats. As for the rest of this statement, prob something to it, although I have a feeling it's the convergence of multiple factors.

in the 2017 addendum to rocky flats cancer study they stated

"The count of 74 males with pancreas cancer
compares to an expected count of about 49 cases for a statistically high observed/expected ratio
of 1.50. Observed/expected ratios were statistically higher for non-Hispanic whites (1.61) and
the age 65-74 cohort (1.63)."

1.5 is a 50% increase over baseline, which is why i stated probably 2-3x likely to get radiation related cancers, still a small chance but it is showing in the data

https://oitco.hylandcloud.com/cdphermpo ... ocpop.aspx

 There was no evidence of higher than expected frequencies of thyroid cancer in the
vicinity of Rocky Flats. Thyroid cancer was not higher than expected for the entire 10-
RSA area combined and for the ten individual RSA regions for males or females.
 For the entire 10-RSA region combined, the incidence of “rare” cancers was not higher
than expected for either males or females compared to the remainder of the Denver
Metro area.
 Nine of the ten RSA regions for each gender had incidence of “rare” cancers that was
not higher than expected compared to the remainder of the Denver Metro area.
 One of the ten RSA regions, RSA 205, “Wheat Ridge”, had a statistically higher than
expected count of “rare” cancers for one gender, males, a finding explained by higher
rates of male, pancreatic cancer. Pancreas cancer has many risk factors associated
with it, among which are smoking, heavy alcohol use, being overweight or obese.

Also, even if your claims were true, which are far from corroborated, you are implying that a person moving to Candelas or the surrounding area as of today are 2-3x more likely to get radiation related cancers. There is zero evidence to support this claim. I think you are trying to prove something you already believe versus looking at it objectively. If you want to argue that you have concerns and worries, then that is one thing. But scientifically as stands, there is no evidence to support your claims.

all of this has the caveat that they are studying a 15 year period, people are moving to and away from these areas, etc. there is still radioactive material there which is being dug up with the new construction in candelas

[onebyone]

in the 2017 addendum to rocky flats cancer study they stated

"The count of 74 males with pancreas cancer
compares to an expected count of about 49 cases for a statistically high observed/expected ratio
of 1.50. Observed/expected ratios were statistically higher for non-Hispanic whites (1.61) and
the age 65-74 cohort (1.63)."

1.5 is a 50% increase over baseline, which is why i stated probably 2-3x likely to get radiation related cancers, still a small chance but it is showing in the data

https://oitco.hylandcloud.com/cdphermpo ... ocpop.aspx

 There was no evidence of higher than expected frequencies of thyroid cancer in the
vicinity of Rocky Flats. Thyroid cancer was not higher than expected for the entire 10-
RSA area combined and for the ten individual RSA regions for males or females.
 For the entire 10-RSA region combined, the incidence of “rare” cancers was not higher
than expected for either males or females compared to the remainder of the Denver
Metro area.
 Nine of the ten RSA regions for each gender had incidence of “rare” cancers that was
not higher than expected compared to the remainder of the Denver Metro area.
 One of the ten RSA regions, RSA 205, “Wheat Ridge”, had a statistically higher than
expected count of “rare” cancers for one gender, males, a finding explained by higher
rates of male, pancreatic cancer. Pancreas cancer has many risk factors associated
with it, among which are smoking, heavy alcohol use, being overweight or obese.

Also, even if your claims were true, which are far from corroborated, you are implying that a person moving to Candelas or the surrounding area as of today are 2-3x more likely to get radiation related cancers. There is zero evidence to support this claim. I think you are trying to prove something you already believe versus looking at it objectively. If you want to argue that you have concerns and worries, then that is one thing. But scientifically as stands, there is no evidence to support your claims.

all of this has the caveat that they are studying a 15 year period, people are moving to and away from these areas, etc. there is still radioactive material there which is being dug up with the new construction in candelas

There is no evidence that radioactive material is being dug up at Candelas. Are we using science or not using science. I think you are using more emotion than science.

[cottonmountaineering]

https://oitco.hylandcloud.com/cdphermpo ... ocpop.aspx

 There was no evidence of higher than expected frequencies of thyroid cancer in the
vicinity of Rocky Flats. Thyroid cancer was not higher than expected for the entire 10-
RSA area combined and for the ten individual RSA regions for males or females.
 For the entire 10-RSA region combined, the incidence of “rare” cancers was not higher
than expected for either males or females compared to the remainder of the Denver
Metro area.
 Nine of the ten RSA regions for each gender had incidence of “rare” cancers that was
not higher than expected compared to the remainder of the Denver Metro area.
 One of the ten RSA regions, RSA 205, “Wheat Ridge”, had a statistically higher than
expected count of “rare” cancers for one gender, males, a finding explained by higher
rates of male, pancreatic cancer. Pancreas cancer has many risk factors associated
with it, among which are smoking, heavy alcohol use, being overweight or obese.

Also, even if your claims were true, which are far from corroborated, you are implying that a person moving to Candelas or the surrounding area as of today are 2-3x more likely to get radiation related cancers. There is zero evidence to support this claim. I think you are trying to prove something you already believe versus looking at it objectively. If you want to argue that you have concerns and worries, then that is one thing. But scientifically as stands, there is no evidence to support your claims.

all of this has the caveat that they are studying a 15 year period, people are moving to and away from these areas, etc. there is still radioactive material there which is being dug up with the new construction in candelas

There is no evidence that radioactive material is being dug up at Candelas. Are we using science or not using science. I think you are using more emotion than science.

data for claim:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/rocky-flats
Go to CSU sampling, analytical procedures and results Jefferson Parkway sample set

you can see Pu-239/240 activity concentrations: 264 pCi/g

EPA standard for remediation varies but it is generally under 3pCi/g, normal is like .1

[timewarp01]

all of this has the caveat that they are studying a 15 year period, people are moving to and away from these areas, etc. there is still radioactive material there which is being dug up with the new construction in candelas

There is no evidence that radioactive material is being dug up at Candelas. Are we using science or not using science. I think you are using more emotion than science.

data for claim:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/rocky-flats
Go to CSU sampling, analytical procedures and results Jefferson Parkway sample set

you can see Pu-239/240 activity concentrations: 264 pCi/g

EPA standard for remediation varies but it is generally under 3pCi/g, normal is like .1

Your cited source explicitly regards samples not collected at Candelas. They were taken along Indiana St, directly east and downwind of the Rocky Flats site.