Apple is located on GE Intersil Superfund site that received radiological isotope Kr 85 from the DOE

“List of DOE Radioisotope Customers w/Summary of Radioisotope Shipments,FY85.”
D. A. Baker
Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830

Page 2.4 Item number 53.
G. E. Intersil Inc.
10710 North Tantau Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

Given that the Superfund site is the G. E. Intersil site, this associates it with the San Jose G. E. nuclear reactor assembly plant where they were assembling portable nuclear reactors for the US Army, a project started in the mid 1950s when radiological contamination levels were very relaxed and when they were strengthened in 1959 to 1/3 of what they were before, so all of these reactors were too hot for safe use. The entire program was scrapped by 1965. But this program required a large amount of new electronics and this brought about the beginnings of Silicon Valley.

Unfortunately for the people of San Jose they were dumping waste directly into the sewer system using 1955 standards which are nuclear accidents today. That is the problem with nuclear radiation, the clean up standards of the past, including the most recent past have been less and less radiation so that a site cleaned up 25 years ago is an accident today!

These were portable nuclear reactors that you could put on a truck, a transport plane, a ship or a train and bring it to a military site that had a deep pool with all of the necessary hook ups to set up a nuclear reactor to power the base or for colleges and universities. These reactors had no meaningful shields and were a serious radiological hazard to modern specifications.

San Jose CA – GE Nuclear Fuel Processing Facility at The Plant Shopping Center

There were several other portable nuclear reactor plants in the Bay Area, two I featured in this article Two nuclear reactors sites, 369 Whisman Road Mountainview (now Google) and San Ramon CA where the EPA should also look into assessing the damage to the environment and the people who now live within range of those reactor sites. The 369 Whisman Road reactor site had a high curb surrounding the building to contain the radioactive waste!

The EPA has regulations on conducting radiological surveys for sites and basically everything within 200 feet of a site is considered on the site, that goes for chemical contamination as well as radiological. DTSC has interpreted this to mean the property lines of toxic waste sites but the EPA has different rules. Then there is the distance from the contamination to a quarter of a mile is considered a near neighbor and the distance from a quarter of a mile to a mile is also a near neighbor but with a different set of calculations. The danger is evaluated based on the population near a site so in the case of Apple, this could be a big problem for them. How many people work in their Wheel?

The Federal Law, 40 CFR Appendix A to Part 300 – The Hazard Ranking System which is used to determine if a site is subject to Superfund status, the range of contamination goes out to various distances from the exact contamination site.

It depends on what happened to the Kr 85 which is a Byproduct Material, meaning it came out of a nuclear reactor and cannot be dumped in low level radiation facilities but would have to be disposed of most likely in the Nevada Test Site.

In order to use an isotope like this, the facility would require a hot cell which is a device or room to store radiological isotopes usually with mechanical hands to remove the isotope from the container and use it in whatever industrial process GE was using at the time and the necessary Geiger counter device to measure the Beta radiation from this isotope. It has a half life of 10 years so its still hot. Some hot cells are portable and look like aquariums or those isolated rooms with hands you see in movies or TV shows.

I outline the distances using San Francisco as an example showing the ranges of contamination that can result from Chemical, Biological and Radiological contamination in this article:
“Downtown San Francisco within Contamination Range of Treasure Island Atomic, Biological and Chemical Warfare training sites”

If the radiation was used on a device that has since decomposed in the soil, then you have the larger ranges of water and air contamination that can go out 4 miles from the site.

The Question is, does the EPA know that the isotope was used on the site. Given the other sites in the Bay Area I would give my opinion as to say no, but this will have to be looked into.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had done its job, then there would be a set of inspections and a series of surveys to confirm the radiological isotopes were disposed of property and how they were used.


Two nuclear reactors sites, 369 Whisman Road Mountainview (now Google) and San Ramon CA

ATL Job 5164 ATL-D-619 7 June 1961
Page 46

ATL Job 5164
7 June 1961

Google currently occupies the location where American Standard built portable nuclear reactors that were sent overseas in trade shows for the Atomic Energy Commission and for colleges and universities. The AEC shut down the facility because it was located in a densely populated area and given the accidents from these reactors and that the location had no shielding or even containment for the radioactive gasses and radioactive water, it was decided to pull the plug on the reactors. They had two reactors on site and built these reactors for other entities:

Iowa State University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute / North Carolina State college
Australia (Atomic Energy Commission)
Japan (Kinki University) Osaka
Japan (Tokai University)

ATL Job 5164 ATL-D-619 7 June 1961
Page 27

From the report page 6:

“B. Reactor Building
The reactor will be housed in an existing 20′ x 32′ x 14′ eave height steel frame
reactor building. The building is supported on a reinforced concrete foundation and has corrugated steel walls and roof and a concrete floor sealed with Amercoat. A concrete curb around the base of the building will prevent run off of radioactive water. Gas-tight construction has not been provided. Entry to the building is provided by two sliding doors, which may be locked with a padlock. A stairway provides access to the top of the reactor. A one-ton electric hoist is available for removing the concrete closures from the reactor”

Note the curb around the building to prevent run off of radioactive water and the padlock on the door for security. Remember this is for two nuclear reactors.

These are the concentric circles that the Atomic Energy Commission requires for safety. If there was an accident everyone within range would have to be permanently evacuated. page 44

This reactor type was based on the Argonne reactor which had some serious defects causing a melt down.

Ruzich, K. C.., Sturm, W. J.. Hazard Summary Report for the Argonne AGN-201 Reactor. United States: Argonne National Laboratory, 1962.

When the (Atomic Energy Commission changed the safe levels of radiation to the lower number in 1959, these reactors suddenly had a problem, they were over the limits and so shielding had to be devised to keep them running. So American Standard sent the following letter to the Atomic Energy Commission to get them to change their rules, otherwise they were out of business.
Guess what, it didn’t work, they are out of business.

Comment of E. Wilson, Advanced Technology Labs, to H. Price, on proposed rulemaking concerning environmental factors to be considered in site evaluation for power and test reactors. 06/26/1959

The portable nuclear reactors were capable of being placed on a truck or train car and moved to any location where a deep pool of water with the necessary hook ups would be arranged so they just lower the reactor into the pool, connect it to the system and you are done.

You would think that something like this would be noticeable in the State of California or even the EPA but for some strange reason, they do not seem to know anything about this. The Atomic Energy Commission knew about it. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission knows about it.

There is a disconnect between the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA even though the EPA is registered with the NRC for its own radiation detection equipment and it has its own NRC license.

San Ramon Nuclear Reactors were being built 10 at a time

Another location as the Aerojet-General Nucleonics Nuclear Reactor plant in what is now downtown San Ramon which at any one time was building 10 portable nuclear reactors.

Aerojet Radiography and Research Reactor Hazards Summary Report, September 1964 (Redacted Version)
page 114 of 123 in the PDF file

In the above map:

1) An AGN-201 reactor, currently opera ting at 20 w, used for instrument and dosimeter calibrations and for research work in connection with AGN’s fission-chemistry development programs.
2) A hot cell with high-density concrete walls 20 in. thick. And high-density glass viewing windows, also 20 in. thick, designed to handle specimens up to 300 curies at 1 Mev
3) Chemistry laboratories, including two radiochemical laboratories, two wet chemical laboratories, a sample preparation laboratory, and storerooms
4) A specialized experimental laboratory for AGN’s fission-chemistry programs, used for UO2 slurry circulation, sample vessel assembly, loading, and unloading, safety tests, and sample analysis

5) A metallurgical and material laboratory for evaluation of high temperature materials and nuclear applications of both fueled and unfueled materials
6) A liquid metals Laboratory, including two liquid metal capsule corrosion test facilities, a boiling and condensing heat transfer test facility for space system radiators and boilers, and a dynamic liquid metal corrosion loop test facility
7) An electronics development laboratory
8) A nuclear measurements laboratory with equipment for precision alpha, beta, and gamma counting

The main office building (2) contains engineering and administrative offices, drafting rooms, computer facilities, a document control center, and printing, photographic, and other supporting services. It includes special AEC and DOD restricted area, for work on classified projects.

The shops building (3) includes a general machine shop, a separate bay of 3000 sq ft for welding operations, specialized machine tool areas for the handling of radioactive materials, facilities for the fabrication, assembly, I maintenance, and calibration of instrumentation and electronic equipment, and supporting shop services.

The nuclear fuel fabrication facility (7) is used for ceramic fuel production, sealing and assembly of wire-spaced pins for elements, and preparation of fuel-loaded parts. It is equipped with dust-free assembly rooms, glove boxes, and special equipment for inspection, testing, analysis, and leak
detection. Fireproof vaults are provided for storage of plutonium and uranium.
The entire facility is a restricted area, and appropriate accountability and
health physics services are provided.

Other installations on the western side of the railroad tracks include a special radionuclide laboratory (14), cleaning and decontamination facilities, housing for pumps, generators, and air compressors, and special storage facilities for inflammable (5) and hazardous (9) materials.

To the east of the tracks, a new facility (51) for testing power conversion equipment and other rotating machinery was completed this year. The facility includes a high-bay assembly area, control room, test room, and special power sources and testing machinery. The concrete floor slab extends outside the building to provide a base for testing fully-assembled power conversion units for nuclear power plants.

A new physics laboratory (52) was recently completed to accommodate AGN’s expanding research in plasma physics and related fields. The laboratory houses various large magnetic-field power supplies, capacitor banks, vacuum chambers, von Ardenne and other ion sources, an energetic arc, microwave diagnostic equipment, and other special equipment for experimentation and analysis. The building is-300 ft from the site of the proposed AGNIR facility.

A new building (55) for a pulse power research facility is now under construction northeast of the new physics laboratory. The building will provide 650 sq ft of floor space for research and experimentation in the field of pulsed power production.

At the time the area was orchards wih very few people living within range of the site in the case of a nuclear accident. Unfortunately they used the city sewage for the release of radioactive water which would flow downstream through Walnut Hill and then all the way to Suisan Bay and given the safety levels of the times, this was a lot of radiation.

They built portable nuclear reactors for the following entities:

Catholic University of America
Oklahoma State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
University of Akron
Texas A&M
University of Utah
Argonne National Laboratory (AEC)
Colorado State University
University of California Berkeley
University of Delaware
Oregon State University
AGN 201-111 was operated in the commercial exhibit of the 1958 International Conference in Geneva prior to transfer to the University of Geneva
Switzerland (University of Basel)
Italy (University of Palermo)
U. S. Naval Post Graduate School (USN) – melted down but was contained; no explosion
National Naval Medical Center (USN)
William Marsh Rice University
University of Oklahoma
West Virginia University, College of Engineering
Aerojet-General Nucleonics (5 reactors) AGN 201 reactors
Aerojet-General Nucleonics (5 reactors) AGN 211 Reactors

Today the City of San Ramon parks its School Buses on the site. Google Map

The radioactively contaminated water from the site went into the sewer system of San Ramon and gets dumped into Suisun Bay through Walnut Hill. Unfortunately 1950’s standards for radiation were so dangerous that in 1959 they were cut to 1/3 of what they were in 1955 and this put the portable nuclear reactor business under as the effects of radiation became apparent and all of these reactors were emitting at least 7.5 mrems per hour when today the level of safety is 2 mrems per hour. Any amount above that number is a nuclear accident.

They also had issues with meltdowns and explosions. The Santa Susana reactors near Simi Valley built for NASA and satellites had three nuclear reactors melt down and at least one of them exploded making it the worst nuclear reactor disaster on record. People think Three Mile Island was bad, the reactor exploded and a radioactive cloud of Strontium 90 spread over the valley from the site into Simi Valley and across the hills to Los Angeles County to the River.

We nuked Antarctica

I think I should mention the nuclear reactor built by the Seabees at Port Humene in Antarctica melted down and exploded.

The Navy base at Port Humene is used by the Navy to conduct the radiation studies of Hunters Point Shipyard and Treasure Island. They were directly involved in the studies that purposely contaminated areas for testing.

The Reactor at McMurdo was cleaned up, the materials were sent to the Nevada Test Range for burial. But someone had to clean it up.

San Jose CA – GE Nuclear Fuel Processing Facility at The Plant Shopping Center

Atomic Power Equipment Department of the General Electric Company
175 Curtner Avenue which is today “The Plant Shopping Center” How can the state do things like this? Here is the State of California’s Envirostor map of the location https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=80001780&zl=16


This site was associated with the GE Vallecitos Nuclear Reactor site which is located near Sunol which is next to the San Antonio Reservoir. Let us hope that the creek does not empty into the water supply! In this map the site is near the middle 84 marker on this map and you can see Little Valley Road to its west.

How could the state of California allow a shopping mall to be built on top of a Uranium processing plant in the middle of the city of San Jose CA?. The site dumped radioactive waste directly into the city’s sewer system according to 1957 standards for disposal of nuclear waste into city sewer systems.

But 1957 standards for radiation exposure are nuclear accidents today. For example, in 1957 the maximum exposure for workers to be 1500 mrem of radiation a week for a person to be safe, that’s 18 full Rems a year. Today 5 REMS is the maximum amount for a nuclear worker a year but for civilians living on the site 0.1 REM or 100 mrems per year is the limit for safety for members of the public, the people of San Jose. 1 REM is 1000 mrems.

When the state says it was made safe, ask them what year and what were the standards back then!

Today’s nuclear radiation exposure levels from the Federal Register

Continue reading “San Jose CA – GE Nuclear Fuel Processing Facility at The Plant Shopping Center”

Treasure Island Hunters Point Shipyard ranked 25 worst site by the EPA

This is the original National Priorities list ranked by worst to first in classes. Treasure Island Hunters Point Annex is ranked in the 5th class, 25 on this list of names of sites. Note equal to the Savannah River Plant that has to this day, radioactive waste in barrels on the site. It is also worse than a Hanford site.

Fact Book: National Priorities List Under the Original Hazard Ranking System, 1981-1991, United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. pp. 49-51
Continue reading “Treasure Island Hunters Point Shipyard ranked 25 worst site by the EPA”


These are the people I am fighting for to publish the Navy reports on my Treasure Island website and on this Disaster Area website documenting the Navy’s contamination of Hunters Point shipyard by the US Navy’s Radiological Defense Laboratory based at Hunters Point and at Treasure Island, the Navy’s Atomic, Biological and Chemical Warfare Training Center.

And if you want a sample of the Navy’s own sources, of what they dumped and polluted at Hunters Point Shipyard, here is their Health and Safety report from 1960 documenting the exposures by building number and listing the radiological accidents just for 1960
U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory., Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. (1961). Radiological safety at USNRDL: annual progress report health physics division ; 1 January to 31 December 1960. San Francisco, California: U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. Note: This text is searchable on that website


13577 Radiation Film Badges were used at Hunters Point Shipyard in 1960

In 1960 the US Naval Radiological Defense Lab developed 2655 Radiation Measuring Film Badges for Treasure Island and 12,688 for the US Naval Radiological Defense Lab at Hunters Point Shipyard along with 889 for Hunters Point Shipyard separate from the Defense Lab. These badges are dosimeters that measure how much radiation a person was exposed to during a period of time and they were collected from all over the Bay Area to be developed and analyzed at the Defense Lab for the year of 1960.

U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory., Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. (1961). Radiological safety at USNRDL: annual progress report health physics division ; 1 January to 31 December 1960. San Francisco, California: U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. p 20

This document is a who’s who of radiological exposure just for one year at the US Navy’s Radiological Defense Laboratory and I highly recommend it as reading material to give you a look into the radiation experiments they conducted on the shipyard (including building numbers) and all throughout the Bay Area, including downtown San Francisco!

The presence of radiation badges means each time a human being was exposed to radiation over the course of an experiment or regular monitoring of radiation exposure on site. A very frequent and robust radiological contaminations were taking place at the Shipyard and Treasure Island in 1960.

Camp Parks in Dublin CA was the field station for the Lab where they conducted radiological tests on the base while military personnel worked and lived on the base. These experiments included using the gymnasium to rain down radioactive isotopes to determine its effects on roof structures and that gymnasium was then “cleaned up” and was used by the Navy and then the Air Force when they took over the base and as recently as last year by private entities before it was torn down. Stanford Research did a lot of radiological work at Camp Parks and it is clear they had many nuclear accidents reported in this report from 1960.

They did this for other locations listed below:

Dosimeter films developed at the USNRDL 1960
NRDLFilm ProcessedTotals
Laboratory personnel7684
Laboratory visitors1619
Environmental monitoring471
Calibration film900
Special films for Nucleonics Div.109
Special films for Bio-Med Div.5
Special films for Health Physics Div.3
RadCon Team film (controls)11
Special test exposures163
Camp Parks Personnel and visitors1361
Camp Parks Environmental monitoring362
Outside Activities
San Francisco Naval Shipyard889
Treasure Island Inspector of Navy Material523
Treasure Island Radiac Maintenance School and Dispensary2122
Port Chicago958
NAS Moffett Field97
USN Dispensary, 50 Fell St. , San Francisco56
DPWO, 12ND30
NSC, Oakland (Naval Supply Center, Oakland)200
NAS Fallon. Nevada67
USNH, Oakland (US Naval Hospital Oakland)21
MSTS, San Francisco24
NAD, Hawthorne, Nevada17
U. S. Coast Guard5

The Uptake by Plants of Plutonium and Some Products of Nuclear Fission Adsorbed on Soil Colloids

[Editors note: plants absorb contaminants, so in radiological areas it is important to not landscape them, that by doing so spreads the radition or contaminates into the ecosystemand food chain. Extensive testing in this area was extensively conducted to determine the extent of the contamination. ]

“It has been found that barley and pea plants take up the fission elements Y (yttrium), Ce (cerium), Zr (zirconium) + Cb (columbium), Te (tellurium), Sr (strontium), and the three valence states of Pu (plutonium), even when these elements are present in trace amounts on the surfaces of clay or soil particles. For all the elements tested, the greatest fixation is in or on the roots. With the exception of Sr, translocation occurs only to a limited extent. The trans- location of Sr is relatively quite large. Activity levels of 0.1 microcuries per gram of soil are sufficient to cause very pronounced injury over a three-months period. (Technical Information Pilot, Sc. and Technol. Proj. by Library of Congress for Office of Naval Research, 13 Aug. ’48. Abstract furnished by Atomic Energy Commission of article by L. Jacobson and R. Overstreet)”

Citation: 24 Medical News Letter, Vol. 12, No. 6  Friday, 10 September 1948 p. 24 https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b364858?urlappend=%3Bseq=210

1946 Project Crossroads Nuclear Test Film

Here is a summary of the time stamps of this video:

Project Crossroads – Nuclear Test Film (1946)
Courtesy: U.S. Department of Energy

1:50 USS independence next to the Nagato before Test Able
2:20 target ships mapped
4:14 The scientists and samples
6:00 Radio controlled drones
7:00 Manhattan project scientists at Kwajalein
9:40 dropping of the bomb
14:31 diffused cloud “dangerous radioactive particles in the air had become so diffused it was no longer a danger to the area.”
15:52 camera on bikini showing shock wave.
17:20 map of what ships got hit as they dropped the bomb off target. Independence noted
18:55 Independence seen just after explosion when the support ships entered the lagoon.
21:54 animals
24:31 Skate stating the inside were damaged, so they went inside it.
25:21 USS Independence
27:34 Baker Test, second test underwater explosion.
40:00 USS Independence

Project Crossroads – Nuclear Test Film (1946)
Courtesy: U.S. Department of Energy

Continue reading “1946 Project Crossroads Nuclear Test Film”


Purposely contaminating hands to see what damage it would do and to figure out how to protect hands during radiation tests. Also this shows how they lay out radiation tests with the names of the mailing lists. At the time of publication this was secret information so they kept track of who got which report. Note “* number” is the citation number. La140 is Lanthanum 140 a radioactive isotope which is a daughter product of Barium 140 and due to its use this means that at Camp Stoneman had a hot cell on hand to mix the radioactive materials into the sand so workers deposited the radiation using lawn fertilizer spreaders onto roofs, yards and roads in what is now modern day Pittsburg California.

This article is the result of the staff being contaminated by spreading radioactive materials all over buildings, streets and roads of what is present day Pittsburg California and was the second Camp Stoneman radiation test published in 1958. Previous studies had been conducted using more damaging long lasting radiological isotopes and they wanted to make sure that they were cleaning up with sufficient means to protect themselves from the radiation.
Pittsburg California Radiation Experiments covering half of the City

NY 320 – 001
U. S. Army
27 August 1958
R. H. Black

Health and Safety Technical Objective AW-5C – Technical Developments Branch
M. B. Hawkins, Head Chemical Technology Division
E. R. Tompkins, Head Scientific Director Commanding Officer and Director P. C. Tompkins
Captain J. H. McQuilkin, USN

ABSTRACT Hands of field test personnel became radioactively con- taminated with (a) dust slurry synthetic fallouts containing La140 tracer, and (b) La140 in acid solution. Two protective creams and several cleaning materials were used in an attempt to reduce adherance of contaminant and to facilitate decontamination. The protective creams were not found to be advantageous. Three experimental cleaning solutions (isotonic neutral solution of a complexing agent plus a detergent and germicide; an isotonic saline solution at pH 2.0 plus detergent and germicide; and a 3% citric acid solution) were found to decontaminate skin more readily than soap and water. A waterless mechanic’s hand cleaner was found to clean hands with the same effectiveness as soap and water.

ii U N C L A S S I F I E D

NONTECHNICAL SUMMARY The Problem Radioactive contamination of the skin of personnel following a nuclear weapon detonation or a radiological accident can constitute a serious health problem. However, study of preventing contamination or removing contaminant until now has been limited to laboratory-scale tests of creams and liquids for protecting and cleaning hands. Evaluation under field conditions has been lacking. Findings The hands of personnel became contaminated with synthetic fallout during a land reclamation field test. Two protective creams were used in an attempt to reduce adherance of the contaminant, and several cleaning materials to facilitate decontamination. The protective creams were not found to be advantageous. Three experimental cleaning solutions were found to decontaminate skin more readily than soap and water. A waterless hand cleaner was found to clean hands with the same effectiveness as soap and Water. –

iii U N C L A S S I F I E D



The work reported was an outgrowth of an investigation conducted by this laboratory under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the U. S. Army (OCE). This investigation is described, as Program 6, Problem 3, in this laboratory’s Preliminary Presentation of USNRDL Technical Program for FY 1957, dated February 1956.

This test was made possible by the cooperation of Mr. J. D. Sartor, who was conducting a field test in which the synthetic fallout was produced and utilized. He and his entire team were most generous in donating time for the hand-cleaning tests.

The technical assistance of Mr. D. A. Gustafson, of the San Francisco Naval Shipyard Electronics Shop, was invaluable for maintaining continuous instrument operation.

iv. U N C L A S S I F I E D


Radioactive contamination of the skin of personnel following a nuclear weapon detonation or a radiological accident can constitute a serious health problem. However, study of preventing contamination or removing contaminant until now has been limited to laboratory tests on the cleaning of contaminated skin. No information is available on the relative merits of cleaning materials used under field conditions.

Prevention through the use of rubber gloves is desirable, but under field conditions this may not always be practical or possible. Also, contaminants have been known to penetrate surgeon’s gloves.*1 Therefore, it is necessary to have alternate means of protecting or cleaning hands which are vulnerable to contamination under field conditions.

Various laboratories that utilize radioisotopes in research have published the results of case studies in which the skin of personnel which had become accidentally contaminated were decontaminated. Most of these decontaminations were performed with strong chemical reagents which are generally not applicable to field work inasmuch as they require careful supervision to prevent serious skin irritation.

Mild chemical skin decontamination methods were studied at USNRDL in 1949. *2 Two types of solutions that appeared suitable were developed: one type consisted of isotonic neutral solutions of complexing agents, plus a detergent and germicide; the other was an isotonic saline solution at pH 2.0, plus a isotonic and germicide. The toxicity of these solutions was studied in 1950; *3 both were found slightly irritating, probably due to the germicide. This study also showed that these solutionſ tended to increase the absorption into the body of a soluble Sr89CL2 contaminant.

At Operation CASTLE the hands of technical personnel and decontamination crews often became contaminated. Usually the contaminant was removable by scrubbing with soap and water or scrubbing with a mixture of

[1] U N C L A S S I F I E D

cornmeal and detergent, but on one particular individual such treatment did not remove the contaminant. An ammoniacal petroleum-based waterless hand cleaner was found to be effective in cleaning this individual’s hands.

Barrier creams, advertised as reducing dermatitis caused by contact agents, such as solvents, grimes, pollens, and irritating plants, are a possible preventive. The use of barrier creams has reduced the problem of skin contamination in one atomic energy plant;” but tests using barrier creamſ: to reduce the effect of other contact agents have not been conclusive. *4

Barrier creams may actually interpose a physical barrier between the skin and potential contaminating agents. The cream, if applied heavily enough, might even act as a shield against alpha and low-energy beta radiation. Personnel from this laboratory who have used various barrier creams found them generally useful for reducing the effect required to clean hands after working with ordinary industrial greases, paints, and grimes, and the creams caused no skin irritation. It was upon these bases that a test of the value of barrier creams was proposed for Operation REDWING as part of Project 2.8. Only limited data were obtained due to the effectiveness of the Radiological Safety Program. *5

USNRDL conducted a land target recovery field test at Camp Stoneman, Pittsburg, California, in September 1956. Full-scale decontamination procedures were used on limited areas contaminated with synthetic fallout; this provided an excellent opportunity to test methods and procedures of hand decontamination. This report describes the experiment which was undertaken. The objectives were to determine the effectiveness of barrier creams in preventing contamination from adhering to hands and to determine the effectiveness of a waterless cleaner and three experimental solutions in removing radiological contamination from the skin of the hands.


During the land target recovery tests the normal field pperation duties included: Le140 solution preparation; mixing the La140 solution with soil to make the synthetic fallout; dispersing the synthetic fallout; radiation survey; and decontamination operations. Selected test personnel were given the experimental protection of a barrier cream prior to entering the contaminated area. Any person returning from the contaminated area with over 500 c/min on his hands, as determined by the Radiological Safety Monitor, was directed by the monitor to the hand cleaning center where a sequence of count-clean-count was performed on the palms of his hands using the experimental procedures described below in the section headed “Cleaning.” When the experimental band cleaning sequence for an individual was completed, he was released to the Radiological Safety Group for routine personnel decontamination.

[2] U N C L A S S I F I E D


Three types of contaminant were used in this experiment. Most of the data on which this report is based came from contamination by synthetic fallout traced with La140; other data came from contamination by acid La140 solution used in preparing the synthetic fallouts. The La140 is a Beta and Gamma-emitting radioisotope with a 40-hr half-life.

The two types of synthetic fallout were: dry, using ambrose clay loam and slurry, using San Francisco Bay harbor bottom material. The La140 tracer concentrations for these synthetic fallouts were 7.5 µc/g and 0.75 µc/g, giving a total of four combinations.6 Previous experiments had indicated that the La140 was firmly adsorbed to, the synthetic fallout and that cleaning operations did not desorb the La140 from the bulk carrier material; in other words, the detection of La140 radiations was a good indication of the presence of synthetic fallout.”7

The third contaminant type was the acid La140 solution. The La140 in this solution was in a chemical form suitable for absorbing onto most solids, The La140 in this form was not a tracer for a bulk carrier material; it was the contaminant.


The routine rad-safe procedure for protecting the hands of those performing the La140 solution preparation included the wearing of surgeon’s gloves, while cotton gloves were worn when manual work was being performed. Additional experimental protection was provided to randomly selected personnel by the application of a barrier cream prior to working in the contaminated areas.

The creams tested were Cream A., a hard, wax-like cream,” and Cream B, a soft, easily smoothed cream similar to common cleansing cream.*8 Both were proprietary preparations selected as suitable for Wet work.


The hand cleaning was performed by test personnel under supervision. A vigorous l- to 2-min wash was prescribed, but not timed. Drying was done with paper towels. The formulations of the different washes tested and application procedures are given in Table 1

Soap and water washing was chosen as a control. The EDTA and saline solutions were selected as a result of previous work at USNRDL.*2 The waterless cleaner was selected because of favorable experience at Operation CASTLE. The citric acid was recommended by the Radiological. Safety Representative for the field tests.

“Kerodex 71,” manufactured by Ayrst Laboratories, New York, New York. –
U N. C. L. A. S. S. I. F. I. E. D


Two washings by the same method were performed in each case, unless one wash brought the count very close to the background count. More than two washings using the same method were performed When activity levels permitted.

In some instances of unusually high beta readings, more than one cleaning method was prescribed.


The instrument for routine initial radiological safety monitoring was a Geiger-Muller end-window count rate meter.* The instrument used in this study for assessing contamination on the palms of the hands was the USNRDL Large Area Beta Detector. This instrument, designed and built by the Nucleonics Division of USNRDL, consists of a modified AN/UDR-9 radiac set, a pre-amplifier, and a detector. A 5-min timer** replaces the normal switching and timing circuits of the AN/UDR-9 to simplify the operation of the instrument. The pre-amplifier is a 3-tube device with a voltage gain of approximately 1,000. The detector uses an 8 x 10 x 1/8-in, sheet of plastic scintillant.* The scintillant is coupled with 106 centistoke DC-200 silicone oil be a segmented plexiglas light-pipe, which is coupled to a 5-in. diameter photomultiplier tube.* The detector pre-amplifier combination is contained in a light-tight box with a removable cover. The instrument was set to give a 15-sec count. The physical relationship between a person with his hands in position for counting and the elements of the beta counter preamplifier is shown in Figure 1.

Two 12-µc samples of synthetic fallout were prepared for instrument standardization. Sample l was 0.75 µc/g San Francisco Bay mud (dried). Sample 2 was 7.5 µc/g San Francisco Bay mud (dried). The averaged 15-sec count was used as the standardization factor to convert from counts per 15 sec (c/15 sec) to microcuries (µc).


The effectiveness of the various methods tested is expressed as a residual fraction, the beta radiation reading of the palms of the hands taken immediately after a washing divided by the beta reading taken

  • Model 2750, Berkeley Scientific Div., Beckman Instruments Corp., Richmond, Calif. –

** “Microflex” Timer, Eagle Signal Corp., Moline, Ill.
*** “Scintilon B”, National Radiac, Newark, N. T.
**** Type 6364, A.B. Dumont Inc., Clifton, New Jersey.



Fig. 2 Comparison of Waterless Cleaner With Soap and Water

immediately before the washing (that is, the readings taken before and after any one of several washings). All types of contaminant are included in the evaluation of a cleaning method, unless otherwise noted.

Protection Methods

The two barrier creams tested, when used in conjunction with a soap and water wash, gave approximately the same results as a soap and water wash with no special protection (Table 2).

Cleaning Methods

The residual fractions for the soap, EDTA, and waterless cleaning methods were divided into three groups to determine gross effects due to initial contamination level. These group divisions were based on initial level: less than 0.03 µc, 0.03 to 0-3 µc, and greater than 0.3 µc. The logarithmic mean residual fractions are presented in Table 2. They were normalized to l µc, 0.l µc and 0.01 µc for convenience of comparison (Figs. 2 and 3). The results presented are for all three contaminant types combined. The British maximum permissible level9 of fixed radioactivity on the skin is 10*-5 µc/cm3, which is equal to 0.00, µc uniformly distributed on the palms of both hands.”

  • The U. S. has no comparable maximum permissible level.



Fig. 3 Comparison of Aqueous Cleaning Methods

Waterless Hand Cleaner

The averages of the first Washings with waterless cleaner were approximately as effective as the equivalent soap washings (Table 2, Fig. 2). A review of the washing procedure will show that while the soap and water washing method was not limited by the amount of water that could be used, the waterless method used only 15 cc of cleaner for one Washing


The average residual contamination from Washing with EDTA was considerably lower than that of soap and water (Table 2, Fig. 3).

To further test the effectiveness of EDTA, we deviated from the original plan of using a single Washing method; the initial Washing was with soap, the second with EDTA, The result of this test showed that the



residual fraction for the EDTA wash was smaller than residual fraction for the soap wash. Also, two EDTA washings removed more contamination than the one soap wash plus one EDTA wash.

Saline Solution, pH-2.

The average residual contamination from washing with the acidic saline solution was considerably lower than that of soap and somewhat higher than that of the EDTA (Table 2, Fig. 3).

A test, similar to the special test for EDTA, was performed using the saline solution (Table 2, Fig. 3). The first two washings were with soap. The third was with saline solution. The residual-fraction from the saline solution washing averaged about half the residual fraction for the equiv- alent soap wash, showing that the saline solution removed the contaminant to a greater degree than soap.

Citric Acid Solution.

The citric acid solution was given a cursory test (Table 2, Fig. 3). The average residual from the citric acid washing was approximately the same as that of the EDTA and saline solutions.

Miscellaneous Cleaning Methods.

Three individual case studies are reported (Fig. 5). In these, an assortment of methods was used on each subject to remove a relatively high level of contamination from the hands. Conventional methods were used at the beginning and as they appeared to lose effectiveness experimental methods were tried in an attempt to reduce contamination of the hands as much as possible. In two of these cases it appeared as though contamination were “fixed” at approximately 0.1 µc but upon changing to EDTA wash the hands were cleaned to less than 0.01 µc.

Near the conclusion of the test series, two individuals’ hands became contaminated to approximately 5 µc, presumably from the acid La140 solution. One sequence of soap scrub, water rinse, EDTA scrub, water rinse (using a nylon scrub brush and warm solutions, including rinse) was used as a washing procedure. The final levels were approximately 0.05 µc, or overall residual fraction of 0.01. The cleaning sequence used in these two cases may be of interest if further investigative work is to be performed.

In another instance a man mistakenly used the waste water from the day’s hand decontamination work (containing a combination of all cleaning solutions) as the wash for his hands. His hands had an initial contami- nation level of .006 µc, which was considerable lower than the average for the day; but the waste solution cleaned his hands to .002 µc, nearly background. This one case indicates that in the event of water shortage, cleaning solutions cans perhaps, be reused. Naturally, more data would be required to substantiate the idea and to explore possible adverse side effects.



A nylon brush was used to a very limited degree against resistant contaminant, as the Health Physics Representative had warned us that the contaminant would be driven into the skin by brushing. No adverse effects were observed. The results of one case where a nylon brush was used are presented (Fig. 4). Further investigation could be applied to reevaluating the effect of scrubbing the skin with a nylon brush, perhaps after an initial Wash without brushing.

Miscellaneous Observations

Physiological Effects.

No attempt was made to determine toxic effects of the cleaning preparation or barrier creams. Each person used several materials over the period of the field operation; therefore effects could not be isolated. Several persons, who did not regularly use the soft cream emollient which was available, complained of chapped skin. Previous works indicated a Slight toxicity of two cleaning solutions traceable primarily to the disinfectant.

Comparison of Contaminant Types.

In a parallel analysis the data for soap, washing were separated by contaminant type and compared, i.e. , acid La140 solution, slurry 0.75 µc/g, slurry 7.5 µc/g, loan 0.75 µc/g, loam 7.5 uc/g. Slurry contaminant with 7.5 uc/g was the only one that showed a noticeably different residual fraction; it apparently was easier to remove than other contaminants. As there were only four data points showing this effect no definite conclusions can be drawn concerning the effect of contaminant type.

Initial Level Effect.

The effectiveness of the first washing was related to the initial contamination level. In general, a lower residual fraction was obtained from the washing of hands contaminated to a higher initial level of La140. This would be expected if there were a maximum level of tightly adhering synthetic fallout. There was no observable difference in the residual fractions, with respect to contamination level, for the second or third Washings.

Comparison With Previous Laboratory Study.

Comparison of some of the findings from this field test and a laboratory experiment performed in 1949, *2 upon which a portion of the field test work was based, show that in tooth cases EDTA and saline solutions were more effective decontamination agents than soap, leaving a residual fraction of approximately half that of soap. Laboratory experiments using rats gave much lower residual fractions than those observed at the field test; however, the second Washings at the field test gave residual fractions numerically almost the same as the second washing on the skin from a cadaver in laboratory tests. An additional factor, which lends further interest to the correspondence of



the findings, is that the contaminating agents were quite different: synthetic fallout (and La** in acid solution, in a few instances) was used for field work, while a neutral solution of Sr** was used in the laboratory experiments.

Laboratory-scale decontamination tests were performed with the cooperation of human volunteer subjects*10 at approximately the same time as the field tests. A synthetic fallouts composed of Ambrose clay-loam traced with La140, was dry-sprayed onto a 10-cm2 area of the underside of the forearm, then rubbed into the skin with a rounded glass rod.

The residual fractions resulting from the cleaning operations were much lower for the laboratory tests than for the field tests, indicating that the methods were more effective in removing the synthetic fallout under the laboratory conditions. This may have been a result of a com- bination of effects, among which are the type of skin studied (i.e., palms vs underside of forearm), the total area contaminated, the mechanical action grinding the synthetic fallout into skin and mechanical action of scrubbing, the degree of supervision, the synthetic fallout contact time, etc.

However, the qualitative findings of both tests were essentially the same: barrier creams offered no large decontamination advantage, the first wash was the most effective wash (when a single cleaning agent was used), waterless mechanic’s hand cleaner was at least as effective a decontamination agent as soap and water, and EDTA and citric acid were more effective than soap as decontamination agents.

Potential Decontamination Methods

Some cleaning formulations have been suspected of increasing the absorption of Sr89C12 solution into the body.*3 However, before any cleaner is disqualified for this reasons all its properties should be weighed in the light of anticipated field con- ditions. It may be that after the contaminant has been in contact with skin for several hours, the additional absorption caused by the use of a special cleaner would be negligible. Furthermore, it may be possible that for some instances of high level contamination, a two-part wash (such as described in the second paragraph under “Miscellaneous Cleaning Methods,” would be desirable in an effort to maximize removal and minimize absorption.

The wetting agent, used alone in 0.5-percent solution has been shown to be a good decontamination agent.”*2 It may be advantageous to further evaluate this agent, for absorptions toxicity, and decontamination effectiveness under field conditions a




The barrier cream pre-treatments did not detectably alter the effort required to remove the contaminants by soap and water washing.

The waterless hand cleaner showed the same effectiveness as soap and water in removing contaminant from the hands, but required the least total material volume of all cleaners tested.

The EDTA, saline, and citric acid solutions (as formulated) were more effective than soap and water in removing the contaminant.

There was no observable difference in decontamination effectiveness traceable to contaminant type.

There is no method yet which has shown itself to be reliable enough in cleaning contaminated hands to be used without the necessity of a radiation check after washing, to comply with peace-time maximum permissable levels.
Approved by:
E. R. Tompkins
Head, Chemical Technology Division

For the Scientific Director




  1. Towler, G. S. Utilization of Barrier Creams in Atomic Energy Plants. Atomics Eng. Technol. , Vol. is No. 3, p. 88.
  2. Mayer, S. W. & Britton, J. B. The Removal of Radioactive Contaminants From Skin by Solutions of Complexing Agents, Keratolytics and Detergents. U. S. Naval Radiological Defense. Laboratory Report AD-118(C), 29 April 1949.
  3. Loeffler, R. K. , Thomas, V. A Quantitative Study of Percutaneous Absorption. II. Toxicity and Effect. Upon Absorption of Two Decontamination Solutions • U. C. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory Report AD-25l.(B), 2 October 1950.
  4. Madson’s As Patch Tsäts on Skin Prepared With Kerodex. Acta Dermato Vernereological, Vol. 32, supplementum 22 (1952), p. 213.
  5. Heiskell, R. H. Shipboard Radiological Counter–Measure Methods. Project 2.8, Operation REDWING, Interim Test Report ITR-1322, U. S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, July 1956 (Classified).
  6. Weisbecker, L. W. , Lane; W. B. “Hot Laboratory for Producing Synthetic Radioactive Fallout.” Advances and Problems in Nuclear Engineering. Pergamon Press, Inc London, 1957
  7. Wiltshire, L. L., et ai. The Absorption of La 140 on Ambrose Clay Loam. U. S. Naval. Radiological Defense Laboratory Technical * Memorandum No. 67; 3 January 1957
  8. Private Communications, Dr. G. H. Hiatt’s Eastman Kodak Co., and Pat , No. 2,221,139 and 2,249,523.
  9. Dunster, H. J., The Derivation of Maximum Permissible Levels of Contaminé+ion of Surfaces by R&#icactive Materials • Atomic Energy Research Establishment (Great Britain), AERE HP/R 1495, 5 July 1954.
  10. Friedman, W. F., Decontamination of Synthetic Radioactive Fallout From the Intact Human Skin. Am. Ind. Hyg: J., Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 15, February 1958.





  • l–6 Chief, Bureau of Ships (Code 3,8)
  • 7 Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
  • 8 Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics (Code AEl,0)
  • 9 Chief, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts (Code SS)
  • 10-11 Chief, Bureau of Yards and Docks (D–ll,0)
  • 12 Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-Cll)
  • 13 Chief of Naval Operations (Op-36)
  • 14 Commander, New York Naval Shipyard (Material Lab.)
  • 15–17 Director, Naval Research Laboratory (Code 2021)
  • 18-32 C0, Office of Naval Research, FPO, New York
  • 33 Office of Naval Research (Code l;22)
  • 34 Naval Medical Research Institute
  • 35 CO, Naval Unit, Army Chemical Center
  • 36 U.S. Naval School (CEC Officers)
  • 37 CO, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering (Res. and Eval. Lab.)
  • 38 Director, Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratory
  • 39 CO, Naval Schools Command, Treasure Island
  • 40 CO, Naval Damage Control Training Center, Philadelphia
  • 41 U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
  • 42 CO, Fleet Training Center, Norfolk
  • 43 CO, Special Weapons Training Center, San Diego
  • 44 Commander, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver Spring
  • 45 Commandant, Twelfth Naval District
  • 46 Office of Patent Counsel, San Diego
  • 47 Commander Naval Air Force, Atlantic Fleet (Code 16F)


  • 48-49 Chief of Research and Development (Atomic Div.)
  • 50 Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations
  • 51-52 Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2
  • 53 Chief of Engineers (ENGEB, Dhein)
  • 54 Chief of Engineers (ENGNE)
  • 55 Chief of Transportation (TC Technical Committee)
  • 56 Chief of Ordnance (ORDTN-RE)
  • 57 Ballistic Research Laboratories
  • 58 Chief Chemical Officer
  • 59 The Quartermaster General
  • 60 CG, Chemical Corps Res., and Dev. Command
  • 61 Hd. , Chemical Corps Materiel Command


  • 62 President, Chemical Corps Board
  • 63-65 CO, BW Laboratories
  • 66 CO, Chemical Corps Training Command (Library)
  • 67 CO, Chemical Corps Field Requirements Ageooy
  • 68-70 CO, Chemical Warfare Laboratories
  • 71-72 CG, Aberdeen Proving Ground (Library)
  • 73 Office of Chief Signal Officer (SIGRD-8B)
  • 74 CO, Army Medical Research Laboratory
  • 75-76 Director, Walter Reed Army Medical Center
  • 77-78 Brooks Army Medical Center
  • 79 Hq. U.S. Army Nuclear Medicine Research Detachment, Europe
  • 80 CG, Continental Army Command, Fort Monroe (ATDBV-l)
  • 81 CG, Quartermaster Res. and Eng. Command
  • 82 President, Quartermaster Board, Fort Lee
  • 83 Director, Operations Research Office (Librarian)
  • 84 CO, Dugway Proving Ground
  • 85-87 The Surgeon General (MEmI)
  • 88 CO, USASRDL, Fort Monmouth
  • 89 CG, Engineer Res. and Dev. Laboratory (Library)
  • 90 CO, Transportation Res. and Dev. Command, Fort Kusti8
  • 91 NLO, CONARC, Fort Monroe
  • 92 Director, Office of Special Weapons Development, Fort Bliss
  • 93 CO, Ordnance Materials Research Office, Watertown
  • 94 CO, Watertown Arsenal
  • 95 CO, Frankford Arsenal
  • 96 Tokyo Army Hospital


  • 97 Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence (AFCIN-3B)
  • 98 Commander, Wright Air Development Center (WCRDO)
  • 99 Commander, Wright Air Development Center (WCRTY)
  • 100 Office of Surgeon General (AFCSG-1S)
  • 101 Commander, Air Res. and Dev. Command (RDTW)
  • 102 Directorate of Installations (AFOIR-ES)
  • 103 Director, USAF Project RAND (DAPD)
  • 104-105 Commandant, School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB
  • 106 CO, School of Aviation lIedicine, Gunter AFB
  • 107 CG, Strategic Air Command (Operations Analysis Office)
  • 108 Office of the Surgeon (SUP5), Strategic Air Command
  • 109 Commander, Special Weapons Center, Kirtland AFB
  • 110 Director, Air University Library, Maxwell AlB
  • 111-112 Commander, Technical Training Wing, .3415th TTG
  • 113 CG, Cambridge Research Center (CRZT)


  • 114 Chief, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
  • 115 Commander, FC/AFSiP, Sendia Base (FCTG Library)
  • 116 Commander, FC/AFSWP, Sandia Base (FCDV)


  • 117 OIC, Livermore Branch, FC/AFSWP
  • 118 Assistant Secretary of Defense (Res. and Dev.)
  • 119 National Library of Medicine
  • 120-129 Armed Services Technical Information Agency
  • 130-131 Federal Civil Defense Administration
  • 132 Also Products, Inc.
  • 133-135 Argonne Cancer Research Hospital
  • 136-145 Argonne National Laboratory
  • 146-147 Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
  • 148-150 Atomic Energy Commission, Washington
  • 151-152 Atomics International
  • 153-154 Babcock and Wilcox Company
  • 155-156 Battelle Memorial Institute
  • 157-158 Bettis Plant
  • 159 Boeing Airplane Company
  • 160-163 Brookhaven National Laboratory
  • 164 Brush Beryllium. Company
  • 165 Chicago Operations Office
  • 166 Chicago Patent Group
  • 167 Columbia University (Failla)
  • 168 Columbia University (Hassialis)
  • 169 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
  • 170 Committee on Atomic Casualties, Washington
  • 171 Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation
  • 172-173 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation
  • 174 Convair-General Dynamics Corporation
  • 175-177 Defense Research Member
  • 178 Department of Food Technology, MIT
  • 179 Dow Chemical Company, Pittsburg
  • 180 Dow Chemical Company, Rock;y Flats
  • 181-183 duPont Company, Aiken
  • 184 duPont Company, Wilmington
  • 185-186 General Electric Company (ANPP)
  • 187-192 General Electric Company, Richland
  • 193-194 Goodyear Atomic Corporation
  • 195 Hawaii Marine Laboratory
  • 196-197 Iowa State College
  • 198-200 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
  • 201-202 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Marietta
  • 203-204 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
  • 205 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
  • 206 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Hardy)
  • 207 Mound Laboratory
  • 208 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
  • 209-210 National Bureau of Standards (Taylor)
  • 211 National Lead Company, Inc., Winchester
  • 212 National Lead Company of Ohio
  • 213 New Brunswick Laboratory
  • 214-215 New York Operations Office
  • 216 Nuclear Development Corporation of America
  • 217 Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies
  • 218-222 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  • 223 Patent Branch, Washington
  • 224-229 Phillips Petroleum Company
  • 230-231 Public Health Service, Washington
  • 232 Radioisotopes Laboratory (Thoma)
  • 233 RAND Corporation
  • 234 Sandia Corporation
  • 235 Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.
  • 236 Technical Research Group
  • 237 Tennessee Valley Authority
  • 238 The Martin Company
  • 239 Union Carbide Nuclear Company (C-31 Plant)
  • 240-241 Union Carbide Nuclear Company (ORGDP)
  • 242-244 United Aircraft Corporation
  • 245 U.S. Geological Survey, Naval Gun Factcry
  • 246 UCLA Medical Research Laboratory
  • 247 University of California Medical Center
  • 248-250 University of California Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley
  • 251-252 University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore
  • 253 University of Chicago Radiation Labcratory
  • 254 University of Rochester (Technical Report Unit)
  • 255 University of Tennessee (Hall)
  • 256 University of Utah (Stover)
  • 257 University of Washington (Applied Fisheries Lab.)
  • 258 Weil, Dr. George L.
  • 259 Western Reserve University
  • 260 Westinghouse Electric Corporation
  • 261-285 Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge


  • 286-325 USNRDL, Technical Information Division


Lennar HQ at HPS is contaminated with nuclear radiation officials and politicians exposed to cancer causing isotopes

City of San Francisco Officials, City Staff, Politicians and their families, why do you think your are immune to radiation? It is not just for poor people, it is an equal opportunity killer and you were exposed.

Lennar builders couldn’t have picked a worse site to locate their site office at Hunters point Shipyard, the Submarine Barracks, the decontamination chamber for the dock workers who sandblasted the radioactive ships from the Atomic Bomb tests in the Pacific.

If you worked for Lennar, or if you were a city official, or staff for the politicians, or a politician, and their families who did photo ops on the shipyard, you will need to watch out for cancer for the rest of your lives. That means telling your doctor that you were needlessly exposed to the products of an Atomic Bomb:

EPA Facts about Plutonium
EPA Facts About Strontium 90
EPA Facts about Cesium 137
EPA Facts about Cobalt 60 Continue reading “Lennar HQ at HPS is contaminated with nuclear radiation officials and politicians exposed to cancer causing isotopes”