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."

Comments

Ouch

[ScArE2100]

And everyone said nuclear power was "safe" and "efficient". So much for that. Sometimes I wish I didn't live in Washington State.

Told ya so!

[Cervantes]

Weren't we telling the nuclear power industry 20 years ago "Hey, you know all that glowing stuff your reactors keep spitting out? You know you'll need somewhere to put it, right?".
And, as I recall, the industry said "Yeah, sure, we've got plans, no need to worry. Reactors in every state, money for everyone!". And there was much rejoicing, because the industry knew the problem, and would save us from it, regardless of whether it cost them an arm and a leg.

Yeah, so much for that. Letting capitalists handle any situation where the good of the people must be weighed against the almighty dollar is just a BAD IDEA.

Now, looking at all the glow-y stuff in your water, and the 3 headed pig on your dinner plate... who's for MORE deregulation? Anyone? Raise your hands...

-Cerv