Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Nuclear Cleanup Carries Major Risks
Roland Piquepaille writes "New Scientist reports in this pretty alarming article that there is a 50-50 chance of a major radiation or chemical accident during the cleanup of the dirtiest nuclear site in the U.S. There are indeed lots of things to clean at the Hanford complex in Washington state: 67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks. A third of them, dating from the Cold War, have already leaked 4 million liters in the environment, contaminating the groundwater and a river. Meanwhile, officials at the DOE, who'll spend $50 billion between now and 2035 on this cleanup, seem less worried than the different specialists interviewed by New Scientist. Please read this overview for selected quotes from the article and from the Hanford site. You'll also find a slide from the DOE showing the timeframe for the cleanup."
I'm pretty sure it has caused more health problems in the U.S. than nuclear power has.
there is a 50-50 chance of a major radiation or chemical accident during the cleanup of the dirtiest nuclear site in the U.S.
And a 100% chance of a major radiation or chemical accident if they don't. So this really looks to be a non-issue.
Learn to love Alaska
Beware the FUD that comes from articles like this. Last night on 60 minutes they ran an article about the Nevada Yucca mountain site. Totally one sided and full of FUD. At one point they interviewed a guy who said there would be 300 foot long tractor trailer trucks "the length of a football field" hauling this through people's neighborhoods. Last I checked, tractor trailers are 80 feet long. Just lots of sloppy reporting without proper fact checking.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Guys, this is a site that has spent most of its existance producing chemicals,etc.. weapons. This is not a nuclear power plant site. Please read the article and stop modding people as informative for saying nuclear power isn't clean the article is not about nuclear power.
No, this is
This entire article is based on a study by one person, no doubt with a political agenda.
I've lived next to Hanford since I was 3 years old, and work a couple of miles from the nuke plant. I've toured the site many times. I've followed local news, which reports on every boring little detail since they have nothing better to do, my entire life.
Are there problems? Sure. I remember when the single walled tanks started leaking, and they pumped everything into new double-wall tanks. Will there be problems in the future? Sure. Will those problems affect me? No. The accidents that take place may be major to the people working on that particular project, but are not catastrophic in the grand scheme of things.
Look: The Hanford site has been operational for decades. The number of serious accidents is tiny, and said accidents have only affected the workers directly involved with that given project, not the rest of us. Yes, there are environmental concerns. No, they aren't as horrible as this article makes them out to be. We swim in and eat fish from the river. Our water comes from the river and local groundwater. None is contaminated enough to be detectible, let alone harm somebody. And I'm right here, a fraction of a mile downstream from the site.
Even if the clean-up goes according to plan, Boldt claims there will still be 260 square kilometres of groundwater exceeding drinking water safety limits for over 10,000 years.
He's full of himself. This is nothing more than paranoid scare tactics.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Who says this waste is from nuclear power plants? It could be leftovers from nuclear weapons/research.
Also, nuclear power plant technology has vastly improved since this particlar waste repository was first opened up.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Yeah, there's that, and the fact that a modern nuke plant produces less hard radioactive waste in a year than a coal-burning plant spews (even past modern scrubbers) into the air every year.
We need to stop grandfathering in old power plants of all types, step up, pay some of the up-front costs, and get some good power generation going.
For the NIMBY folks, I'll volunteer to host a PBR in my backyard.
Contrary to what a lot of places would have you believe, if we'd actually shell out some cash and stop only focusing on the very bottom line for hte first year, we've got affordable, safe, and clean nuke power available to us... and it's a shame we've not made use of it.
to grandparent poster: don't be sad you live in WA, I left 11 years ago now, and I go back every chance I get... it only goes downhill from there.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
"Note, before anyone starts whining about nuclear power not being clean, that Hanford isn't about nuclear power, but about nuclear weapons."
But its the same players. The consultants, contractors, etc, who gave the US the radioactive disaster that is Hanford are the same ones who are running reactors all over the US and the world.
I used to be pro nuclear power but after witnessing the amaturish and dishonest reaction during a crisis at the nuke plant near Rochester NY (with 1 million in the greater metropolitan area), and having a very disturbing cocktail party conversation with the head of safety for a nuke plant in Louisiana, I started to investigate more. Whatever the benefits of the technology, the culture of nuclear power is one of lies, coverup and other forms of deceit.
It's a shame, because judged only on technology nukes come out ahead.
Anti Nuke groups actually love this situation because it insures to keep the crisis mounting, and discourages any future nuclear development. Then if and when a nuclear waste incident occurs they can point and say "I told you so."
Why not go for better storage now, and keep looking for storage/disposal/reprocessing solutions to use later?
Letter To Iran
The operation at Hanford, and much of the early U.S. nuclear weapons program, was run on a "War Emergency" basis. That means that production was considered critical to the national security of the United States. If the plant was producing too much radioactive waste, or had other problems, too bad, we'll deal with it later. If we didn't produce enough nuclear weapons to counter Soviet aggression and expansionism, pollution was going to be the least of our problems.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Let's take California. Look at the number of hydroelectric. Look at the number of wind. How many nuclear? Hard to tell on that map. Just two. Two. Two nuclear plants supply about 20% of all electricity to the state. Two nuclear plants have had less impact on the environment than all other forms of mass electricity production in the state.
And for the record, it is possible to reduce waste dramatically. This can be done with breeder-burner reactors. My personal favorites are IFR/AFR designs. Breeder-burners process the long-lived waste into shorter-lived isotopes while producing electricity.
Now then, on to your other points one by one:
No, not all residents. There are many who aren't in opposition to the internment of the waste.
Questions for you: Do you believe that the current storage pools are safer than Yucca Mountain? Do you have an answer for the existing waste that doesn't involve Yucca? If a method could be found to greatly reduce the volume and threat of existing nuclear waste, wouldn't you be in favor of it?
Breeder-burners can use the spent fuel currently sitting idle in storage pools as well as weapons material that awaits decommissioning. I am against using Yucca for long-term storage but not for the same reasons as you I think. I think Yucca should be a short-term waystation to get the material out of storage pools until breeder-burners are online. My personal favorite is the IRF/AFR model.
And how many accidents have there been? In France where the vast majority of the electricity comes from nuclear power, how many terrorist attacks have succeeded against the rail and trucks that have criss-crossed that nation for decades? What terrorist opportunities? Please enumerate them.
You mentioned hydroelectric. Look back at that energy map of California. What do you think would happen if terrorists attacked those dams, flooding the valleys in front of them, drowning the residents, and washing away homes, businesses, and communities? Or did you think hydroelectric was warm and fuzzy since you can't get thyroid cancer from it?
Yes, it's a loose definition. That's what large-scale electricity generation entails. No form, not green, not nuclear, not fossil fuel-based is 100% safe when producing large amounts of energy on a municipal level.
You're right. It's hard to be safer than an alternative that can't run at the same capacity. 104 nuclear facilities are licensed in the US -- many of them share a physical location. Only 102 of them are actually running. 20% of all US electricity comes from nuclear. How many nuclear accidents have occurred in US history? Now look at the number of injuries and fatalities both of workers and people in
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.