Re:‘Criticality safety event’ occurred at LANL’s plutonium f...
by mikeash on Sunday September 24, 2017 @11:36AM
(#15325073)
The lab was created as part of the nation's balls-to-the-wall effort to build a nuclear bomb with which to smite its enemies in war. I imagine that safety was only a concern to the extent that incidents would slow them down. Otherwise, with thousands of people dying each day in the war, it's worth the risk to people at the labs if they can end the war faster.
Slotin got himself killed after the war was over, but it was less than a year after, and I imagine that sort of "get it done at any cost" culture does not change overnight.
I wonder if that attitude is in fact the root of the trouble today. Especially since I bet that the "save the nation and damn the risks" attitude came back for at least a decade or two once the Cold War ramped up.
Re:‘Criticality safety event’ occurred at LANL’s plutonium f...
by rleigh on Sunday September 24, 2017 @01:13PM
(#15325543)
I think you may well be correct in your assessment. Culture doesn't change overnight, and it's also inherited so may well have persisted to the present day. It also doesn't change without external pressure, and only reluctantly even then.
I've seen different cultures in various labs I've worked in or had contact with, and it can vary wildly from being extremely disciplined to extremely sloppy and both practices can be picked up by new people from the individuals concerned.
Re:‘Criticality safety event’ occurred at LANL’s plutonium f...
by userbinator on Sunday September 24, 2017 @12:25PM
(#15325314)
That was 71 years ago. A lot of things considered highly dangerous today weren't back then, and the dangers of radiation were also not as well known.
Re:‘Criticality safety event’ occurred at LANL’s plutonium f...
by tatterdemalion on Sunday September 24, 2017 @01:41PM
(#15325662)
Upthread there are quotes from other physicists chiding Slotin because what he was doing was extremely dangerous. It was known at the time.
Re:‘Criticality safety event’ occurred at LANL’s plutonium f...
by kobeya on Monday September 25, 2017 @01:37AM
(#15328282)
It was theorized at the time. Much of what we know about nuclear safety was learned from accidents like this. Slotin was doing excessively dangerous and downright stupid even for the time, but let’s still be careful to only judge him by the standards of the day.
When I look at the steps I used to go through multiple times a day when working in Cat 2 and Cat 3 biological containment facilities to work with cells and pathogens, including double door airlocks under negative pressure, safety hoods, protective gear etc., stringent aseptic practice LANL seems quite lax in their practices. We all watched ourselves and each other for bad technique and careless infractions to maintain that discipline without the need for dedicated separate safety inspectors (though periodic inspections did occur). That good practice was also tied into self-preservation of self and others when working with dangerous stuff; no one wants infection by some horrible pathogen. It seems quite bad to be working with even more lethally hazardous materials with basically zero protection, and the description of the attitude of the management 2011 and the present day towards safety seems to be equally cavalier.
In all the academic and industrial environments I've worked in, we had rigorous inventory and tracking of all dangerous materials (biological and radioactive), so it seems odd that LANL fails so badly here. This was the first casting in four years, and they immediately failed: why wasn't there preparation and planning for moving the material before the casting even started? Is Pu randomly stored around with place? Is there no oversight at all? In the lab I currently work in, we have to track every last trace of radioactivity (mainly P, N for biological labelling I think; I'm not involved directly) and account for it for statutory reporting every quarter, and if you fail to do it properly there would be a massive investigation and you would be banned from working with it; the lab managers make a bit deal of it, and rightly so.
It's a little ironic that safety has been compromised in order to meet production targets, but this resulted in a complete shutdown. Had they worked safely and sensibly and avoided the shutdowns, they would have overall been vastly more productive even if this was slower than the management would have liked. I've seen this pattern several times now in multiple places, from factories, to research laboratories to software development. It all comes down to unrealistic management goals from the top which dictate working at a fast place with attendant quality and safety problems no matter that a better end goal could be realised by working at a slower place with a little more care and thought. We see the same problem every time software design or implementation is compromised by a tight deadline with no scope for doing it the right way for the longer term, purely to meet some unimportant (in the greater scheme) short term deliverable.