IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i4p893-906.html

Environmental Surveillance at Los Alamos: An Independent Reassessment of Historical Data

Author

Listed:
  • Ken Silver
  • Richard Clapp

Abstract

Since 1971, a series of annual Environmental Surveillance … reports have served as the official public record of Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) environmental performance. In northern New Mexico, where past LANL emissions are a public health concern, there is public skepticism over the accuracy of information contained in these reports. To test the hypothesis that LANL Environmental Surveillance … reports systematically understate past emissions, we compared the data on releases in LANL's own internal Occurrence Reports Collection (ORC) to the data reported to the public in the Environmental Surveillance … reports. A data set of 89 environmental occurrences recorded in the ORC in the time period from 1971 through 1980 was assembled. We did not find a systematic pattern of quantitative underreporting of source terms. However, 17 of the 89 (19%) environmental occurrences recorded in the ORC were not reported to the public in the Environmental Surveillance … reports. The observed discrepancies are discussed in terms of their relevance to public health concerns. Methodological caveats dictate restraint in applying these findings beyond the scope of the relative comparison performed here. Possible social origins for the rejected hypothesis are discussed. Areas for further consideration by the Centers for Disease Control's dose reconstruction study of LANL are identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Ken Silver & Richard Clapp, 2006. "Environmental Surveillance at Los Alamos: An Independent Reassessment of Historical Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 893-906, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:893-906
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00786.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00786.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00786.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dale Hattis & David E. Burmaster, 1994. "Assessment of Variability and Uncertainty Distributions for Practical Risk Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 713-730, October.
    2. Eric Frohmberg & Robert Goble & Virginia Sanchez & Dianne Quigley, 2000. "The Assessment of Radiation Exposures in Native American Communities from Nuclear Weapons Testing in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 101-112, February.
    3. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    4. Kulldorff, M. & Athas, W.F. & Feuer, E.J. & Miller, B.A. & Key, C.R., 1998. "Evaluating cluster alarms: A space-time scan statistic and brain cancer in Los Alamos, New Mexico," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(9), pages 1377-1380.
    5. Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1994. "An Improved Framework for Uncertainty Analysis: Accounting for Unsuspected Errors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 441-447, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    2. S. N. Rai & D. Krewski, 1998. "Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 37-45, February.
    3. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    4. Barker, Kash & Haimes, Yacov Y., 2009. "Assessing uncertainty in extreme events: Applications to risk-based decision making in interdependent infrastructure sectors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(4), pages 819-829.
    5. Sami Ullah & Hanita Daud & Sarat C. Dass & Hadi Fanaee-T & Husnul Kausarian & Alamgir, 2020. "Space-Time Clustering Characteristics of Tuberculosis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan, 2015–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-10, February.
    6. Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Ruiz-Cárdenas, Ramiro & Mineti, Leandro Brioschi & Prates, Marcos Oliveira, 2021. "Dynamic time scan forecasting for multi-step wind speed prediction," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 584-595.
    7. Yigong Hu & Binbin Lu & Yong Ge & Guanpeng Dong, 2022. "Uncovering spatial heterogeneity in real estate prices via combined hierarchical linear model and geographically weighted regression," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(6), pages 1715-1740, July.
    8. Yingqi Zhao & Donglin Zeng & Amy H. Herring & Amy Ising & Anna Waller & David Richardson & Michael R. Kosorok, 2011. "Detecting Disease Outbreaks Using Local Spatiotemporal Methods," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1508-1517, December.
    9. Maged M. Hamed & Philip B. Bedient, 1997. "On the Effect of Probability Distributions of Input Variables in Public Health Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 97-105, February.
    10. Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2005. "Additivity of Information Value in Two‐Act Linear Loss Decisions with Normal Priors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 351-359, April.
    11. Lin, Shi-Woei & Bier, Vicki M., 2008. "A study of expert overconfidence," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(5), pages 711-721.
    12. Dale Hattis & David E. Burmaster, 1994. "Assessment of Variability and Uncertainty Distributions for Practical Risk Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 713-730, October.
    13. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    14. Bistline, John E., 2015. "Electric sector capacity planning under uncertainty: Climate policy and natural gas in the US," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 236-251.
    15. Timothy J. Downs & Edward R. Carr & Rob Goble, 2017. "Re-imagining environmental science and policy graduate education for the twenty-first century using an integrative frame," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 177-188, June.
    16. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    17. Paul Price, 2020. "Interindividual Variation in Source‐Specific Doses is a Determinant of Health Impacts of Combined Chemical Exposures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2572-2583, December.
    18. Sami Ullah & Hanita Daud & Sarat C Dass & Hadi Fanaee-T & Alamgir Khalil, 2018. "An Eigenspace approach for detecting multiple space-time disease clusters: Application to measles hotspots detection in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Dianne Quigley & David Sonnenfeld & Phil Brown & Tracie Ferreira, 2022. "Redefining ethics and ethics research directions for environmental studies/sciences from student evaluations," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(4), pages 739-755, December.
    20. James K. Hammitt & Yifan Zhang, 2013. "Combining Experts’ Judgments: Comparison of Algorithmic Methods Using Synthetic Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 109-120, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:893-906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.