Slashdot Mirror


It Was the Worst Industrial Disaster In US History, and We Learned Nothing

superboj writes "Forget Deepwater Horizon or Three Mile Island: The biggest industrial disaster in American history actually happened in 2008, when more than a billion gallons of coal sludge ran through the small town of Kingston, Tennessee. This story details how, five years later, nothing has been done to stop it happening again, thanks to energy industry lobbying, federal inaction, and secrecy imposed on Congress. 'It estimated that 140,000 pounds of arsenic had spilled into the Emory River, as well as huge quantities of mercury, aluminum and selenium. In fact, the single spill in Kingston released more chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel into the environment than the entire U.S. power industry spilled in 2007. ... Kingston, though, is by far the worst coal ash disaster that the industry has ever seen: 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash, containing at least 10 known toxins, were spilled. In fact, the event ... was even bigger than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010, which spewed approximately 1 million cubic yards of oil into the Gulf of Mexico."

290 comments

  1. Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst industrial disaster in US history is an ongoing event and involves the release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.

    1. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Parent is a global warming scam troll! Mod parent into the Sewer as troll. BTW this post can be modded as offtopic (fair is fair).

    2. Re:Not even close to the worst. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Parent is a Koch drone with the brains of a rotting peanut and the moral standing of a murderous pile of excrement. Mod him -10 "fucktard"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly! We need to all stop exhaling immediately! You first

    4. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The shills (and uneducated) might have downmodded you but I'm happy to spend some karma on supporting your statement.

      And I work in the energy industry...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Not even close to the worst. by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      bullshit, more lives saved and extended and given modern life of luxury through the use of fossil fuels than any other technological action of man

    6. Re:Not even close to the worst. by bunratty · · Score: 1

      We don't dig up fossil fuels out of the ground and eat them.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    7. Re:Not even close to the worst. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but the point you guys need to come to terms with is that fossil fuels aren't the only source of energy production and transport, and it's becoming apparent that the harm outweighs the minor increases in fiscal cost of many other technologies.

      We do indeed have those that think that somehow things were better before industry, but those aren't the people you should be discussing the future with. Just like I shouldn't be discussing energy plans with people who think oil is a divinely provided renewable resource.

    8. Re:Not even close to the worst. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Informative

      We don't dig up fossil fuels out of the ground and eat them.

      What do you think saccharin is made of?

    9. Re:Not even close to the worst. by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing that nuclear power can't fix with a much lower impact.

    10. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

      Parent is an illegal alien.
      He has to be. He's advertising the fact he's a martian right in his name and no country on earth has laws to allow martians to immigrate.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    11. Re:Not even close to the worst. by amorsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We don't dig up fossil fuels out of the ground and eat them.

      If only we did. That would lower fossil CO2 consumption compared to most of the types of food we actually eat.

      Alas, coal is not very tasty and the human body cannot do much useful with it.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    12. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Isn't aspartame a petroleum product as well?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Not even close to the worst. by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i agree, however we're not smart enough like other nations to be researching or building the reactors that can't melt down, make no long -term waste (as in decay in decades rather than millenia), and that can even burn our enormous cache of cooling pond and cask "spent fuel"

    14. Re:Not even close to the worst. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's a perfectly fine argument, but getting rid of the fossil fuels to mitigate the deaths resulting from respiratory problems, coal mining operations, climate change etc. sounds like an even better idea to me.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like I shouldn't be discussing energy plans with people who think oil is a divinely provided renewable resource.

      I don't see anyone saying that. But I have yet to see a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

      Should we be working on replacements? Absolutely. Does that mean we can stop using coal and oil tomorrow (as some seem to think, including the article author and first post)? Solar and wind aren't even close, probably never will be in most parts of the world. Hydro works as long as you can keep building dams, nuke will work eventually if people can get over their irrational fear of it.

    16. Re:Not even close to the worst. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, but he's Mighty too, so maybe we should pretend his papers are in order... just in case.

    17. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, humanity was better off burning wood and whale oil. The average live expectancy was was also in the mid 30's. Get rid of fossil fuels, take nuclear energy off the table and then we will return to those times. Sorry. Wind and solar will never do.

    18. Re:Not even close to the worst. by bunratty · · Score: 2

      Right, the nitpicking. Let me rephrase... 99.9% of the food we eat does not come from fossil fuels we dug up out of the ground. The carbon dioxide we exhale comes almost exclusively from carbon that is already part of the carbon cycle, so the problem with carbon dioxide emissions is not animals breathing.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    19. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get rid of fossil fuels and more people will die due to lack of affordable energy and the economic collapse it would cause than from air pollution.

    20. Re:Not even close to the worst. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Actual US congressmen have said that, sitting on the energy committee have said it. Look up Joe Barton. Terrifying.

      Nukes+solar+hydro+wind is absolutely viable to replace fossil fuels in 20ish years if we started systemic migration today, and there's been more than enough examination of this point by now.

    21. Re:Not even close to the worst. by necro81 · · Score: 0

      Our food system would actually be more efficient and less polluting if we could. Depending on the crop, there's more energy value in the fossil fuel inputs (fertilizer, diesel, pesticides, transportation) than there is in the resulting food.

    22. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      i agree, however we're not smart enough like other nations to be researching or building the reactors that can't melt down, make no long -term waste (as in decay in decades rather than millenia), and that can even burn our enormous cache of cooling pond and cask "spent fuel"

      Exactly how would that put money into the pockets of the Big Oil corporate sponsors?

      (in case it's not obvious, I agree with you completely)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    23. Re:Not even close to the worst. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where do you think we get fertilizers that are used to grow the food we dig out of the ground?
      Not to mention that we dig food out of the ground with fossil fuel powered equipment.

      Our modern agricultural system is not possible without petroleum inputs.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    24. Re:Not even close to the worst. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      We do research, but we don't build anything with the results of our research. Nuclear Reactors that can't meltdown are old hat at the US research level.

    25. Re:Not even close to the worst. by LocalH · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from animals exhaling?

      --
      FC Closer
    26. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst industrial disaster in US history is an ongoing event and involves the release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.

      If it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

    27. Re:Not even close to the worst. by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's being done, but outside the USA.
      Terrestrial Energy Inc of Canada are developing a simpler version of the LFTR reactor, the DMSR, operating on a mix of Thorium and Uranium, with the ability to be at least 50x more efficient than regular LWR reactors (as in GWh of energy produced per ton of fissile/fertile material fed into the reactor). Since it's a molten salt / molten fuel design, once the reactor is decommissioned, it's core materials can be recycled into a new reactor. They are skipping the nuclear material reprocessing (as well as a few others technological advantages of LFTR that carry perceived regulatory hurdles).
      But reprocessing could be performed every so many years, for a huge gain in efficiency (the more fission products kept inside the reactor, the less efficient it gets).
      The main difference of LFTR to DMSR is the DMSR always runs of a mix of Thorium and enriched uranium, such that any U-233 produced is instantly mixed with U-238, such that it makes the U-233 produced just as hard to extract than U-235 from mined uranium.
      But contrary to regular water cooled / solid fuel reactors, Xe-135 produced is immediately captured at the top of the reactor (Xe-135 is the biggest efficiency problem in solid fuel reactors), plus the molten fuel means annual fuel top offs can be done without stopping the reactor, making for a reactor that can run much closer to 100% of the time.
      Finally as all molten fuel / molten coolant reactors, it has the drain tank, the catch pan and the freeze plug that makes the reactor walk away safe (if the reactor overheats the freeze plug melts draining the core material into the drain tank, if the reactor suffers a leak the leakage either solidify plugging the leak or drains into the catch pan. And finally, since the core material is a solid below 300C, and there's nothing at any high pressure, the reactor isn't trying to throw radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
      Hopefully this will be online by 2022.
      Long video (73 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
      Bottom line, if this works (I think it will), doing a full blown LFTR Thorium reactor will be much easier, since the DMSR is in most ways a simplification of the full LFTR reactor.

    28. Re:Not even close to the worst. by LocalH · · Score: 0

      Pragmatically speaking:

      Nuclear and wind power will likely never reach the public support necessary to eclipse the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power because of the perceived harm, and wind power because "ohh those windmills are ugly and I don't want to see them".

      That leaves solar+hydro. Since pure hydrogen does not occur naturally, that means it must be manufactured somehow, so you're basically reduced to solar power (unless you use fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, which sort of defeats the purpose here). I don't think our solar extraction technology is quite efficient enough to cover all of our fuel needs, or we'd already be doing it.

      --
      FC Closer
    29. Re:Not even close to the worst. by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah you don't see one and you've been looking so hard and evaluating all the options. Here's a hint ANY option beats extinction.

      Look up the "princeton wedges" concept. A combination of extant technologies and policies can stop us, right now, from the point of no return. It's not a technological question looking for a fix, it's a socio-political blockage on the part of American / Australian and UK conservatives all fueled by the denial industry which is funded by Exxon, the Koch brothers and the rest of the oil and gas industry.

      BTW, each and every member of their boards might want to look over the Nuremberg trials to see what civilization DOES to people who think that 1) they're beyond the law or 2) since no law currently explicitly prevents them from doing what they're doing, they're forever beyond the reach of justice.

      America will dissolve your assets. We'll seize your assets from your heirs and assignees. We'll nationalize your companies and plow the profits into doing whatever we need to do to survive. You're nothing,and America and her people are everything. In fact, you're less than nothing.

      As for the mouthpieces of denial, the "think tanks" and "scientists" and PR firms don't kid yourselves. We'll hunt each and every one of you down to the ends of the earth, no matter how long it takes, no matter the cost. Rest assured the thoughts and beliefs you have which cause you to think that you'll never be brought to justice, because "you're entitled to your opinion" , because you "really believed it" because you still "really believe it", rest assured that all of that will be swept aside in a torrent of rage and justice seeking and that loophole in the law you think will save from justice will turniinto a noose just like it did at Nuremberg.

      Hear my voice Exxon board? This is the first few faint strains of all that the future holds for you, your heirs, your power and your wealth, your influence and lifestyle. This is just the first tiniest brush stroke of what the future looks like for each of you personally. This is just the smallest , faintest sampling of THE RAGE.

      Guess what happens when civilization starts to collapse first for a few small countries, then poor people in cities, then millions in larger cities and the countryside then tens of millions then billions of people? Guess what happens when you and the cock sucking sycophants you've populated Washington with *no longer hold any power* ? Guess that's pretty much a mere fiction , an impossibility to you.

      The way Nuremberg was to that other group of mass murderers.

      If I were a lawyer, PR agent, accountant , printer, developer, manager, or donation taker I'd start now , today to make pains to put on a VERY public display that you strongly disapprove the Koch - Exxon denial machine and YOU aren't taking money from them in ANY form. Yeah, I'd be thinking hard about whether I wanted to be associated however faintly, with the Great American Denial Machine. I'd be thinking about my future and what my family thinks of me, and what I was doing to them, in, and to you know, reality and the earth where they're going to have to spend the rest of their time.

    30. Re:Not even close to the worst. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would wager 50% of the food we eat depends on green houses an 'life stock stalls' that are lighted, heated and cooled with energy made from fossil fuels.
      Add to that transportation of food and water for life stock, transportation of their dung, themselves their meat etc.
      The meat industry is one of the biggest polluters of the planet ... exactly: industry, the age of mere farmers is gone since ages.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Hydro" almost certainly refers to hydroelectric power in this context.

    32. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydro typically means water power, driven by tides or run of the river type projects. Hydrogen fuel cells are a completely different beast.

    33. Re:Not even close to the worst. by operagost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, this statement was provocative hyperbole that equates controlled use of energy resources to industrial accidents. It's like calling every infamous head of state "Hitler" and is a distraction from setting our priorities to real problems. AC was wise to post AC, because he/she has no real conviction.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That leaves solar+hydro. Since pure hydrogen does not occur naturally, that means it must be manufactured somehow, so you're basically reduced to solar power (unless you use fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, which sort of defeats the purpose here). I don't think our solar extraction technology is quite efficient enough to cover all of our fuel needs, or we'd already be doing it.

      You're conflating hydroelectric power with hydrogen fuel cells. The latter are not a power generator, and the former doesn't require hydrogen generation.

      In any case, no one technology needs to eclipse the use of fossil fuels by itself. It's the combination of several that will be needed. Plus changes in the way we distribute and source power, I'd wager. I'm thinking that things like RTGs and big F$%off Sterling engines are not out of the question, either.

    35. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent hasn't obviously looked at himself in the mirror recently.

    36. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a false dichotomy. There is always a path we can take that will minimize the impact of changing over while maximizing the benefits. No reasonable person is implying we should just cut over.

    37. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Parent is child!

    38. Re:Not even close to the worst. by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. That's why we want to switch from fossil fuels to energy sources that do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, such as solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, etc. "Not breathing" is not the answer to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, nor is moving back to caves or pre-industrial times.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    39. Re:Not even close to the worst. by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Animals breathing does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because the carbon they exhale was already in the carbon cycle. Plants removed it from the atmosphere within the past year or so, animals ate the plants, and then they released the carbon back into the atmosphere when they respired.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    40. Re:Not even close to the worst. by AndrewOsiris · · Score: 1

      and floride. Dont forget that byproduct of the oil industry.

    41. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      and floride. Dont forget that byproduct of the oil industry.

      Something I always wondered about fluoride - if they put it in our drinking water, why does the dentist always tell you to avoid swallowing it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    42. Re:Not even close to the worst. by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Why are these modded down to zero?

    43. Re:Not even close to the worst. by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Not a troll at all. He is just venting about the fact that the people of the world have a reason to root out corruption. These Fuck heads(Putin, et al...) are only hurting humanity by concentrating wealth.

    44. Re:Not even close to the worst. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      You are just a scared little ostrich with his head in the sand.

      You sure are putting the "coward" into AC.

    45. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than enough? Not really. What we know is that subsidies and other incentives which cover most of the cost of installing wind or solar will convince people to install them. But anything outside of a desert climate in the tropics doesn't receive enough solar energy to make a difference. Wind works in certain locations but it's still an expensive alternative before subsidies. What we really need to do is quit pushing so hard trying to convince people that wind+solar can power a large city 24x7 and build a generation system that is always on

    46. Re:Not even close to the worst. by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Why don't we stage a popular revolt by buying stock in the energy companies?

    47. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Wookact · · Score: 2

      Because the amount in their products is many times the amount in your water?

    48. Re:Not even close to the worst. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Clean energy is cheaper than coal once you account for the indirect externalized costs. Your electricity bill has a nice easy number at the bottom, but your health (or the health of some guy in the next city) is much harder to evaluate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Not even close to the worst. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      True, but it's too expensive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so what would we call Hitler, then?

    51. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Zynder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nothing to worry about. He always wastes his time hunting for his Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulators so we really don't have to worry about any Earth-shattering Kabooms!

    52. Re:Not even close to the worst. by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Bart Simpson 2260 blackfield drive Concord ca 94520

    53. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Zynder · · Score: 1

      I am assuming you are referring to the gel they treat your teeth with after a good cleaning.
      2 Possibilities: It is a way more concentrated version and may react harmfully in that dosage, or more likely, it'll make you vomit like swallowing toothpaste often does.

    54. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      That would probably depend on how much tap water you drink, wouldn't it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    55. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      'Twould make an interesting study, to folks interested in that sort of thing.

      Side note, I don't think I've ever ingested enough toothpaste to boot; then again, I've never tried.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    56. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your also forgetting Odumbo, otherwise know as the US president...I'm so shamed for even admitting that.

    57. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydro means hydroelectric dams, not hydrogen fueled generators, lol.

    58. Re:Not even close to the worst. by kriston · · Score: 2, Informative

      The CANDU reactor program got it right decades ago and keeps getting better, but since it's not from the US, and has the false reputation of promoting nuclear proliferation, the US is not interested.

      CANDU also, unfortunately, has a politically-fueled false perception of promoting nuclear proliferation partly because it was falsely accused to have aided the Smiling Buddha program (that was CIRUS, not CANDU, but who's paying attention?).

      Oh, there is that unavoidable 1% tritium release rate, though.

      --

      Kriston

    59. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      Just wait till we start suctioning up the liquid methane from Titan and importing that to burn.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    60. Re:Not even close to the worst. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hyperbole that equates controlled use of energy resources to industrial accidents

      Melting the north pole may not an accident but it is certainly an environmental disaster of unprecedented proportions.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    61. Re:Not even close to the worst. by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling shit. People can't handle reality. This is reality. Accept it now, or have it rammed down your throat later. Those are the only choices you get.

    62. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Anonymous Cowards start at zero. These seven-digit kids these days... have to explain EVERYTHING to them!

    63. Re:Not even close to the worst. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We (US) could have been off oil by now if we had started a firm movement off it starting 20 years ago.

    64. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Wookact · · Score: 2

      Amount of flouride in drinking water? 0.7 to 1.2 ppm
      Amount of fluoride in mouthwash? 225 ppm


      So drinking an ounce of mouthwash is equivalent to drinking between 188 and 321 ounces of water. In standard 8 ounce glasses of water that would be between 23.5 and 40 glasses of water.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
      http://thyroid.about.com/libra...


      So you may have a point if you drink a couple of gallons of tap water a day. I am going to guess that you don't though, so I would recommend that you drink your 8 glasses of water a day and don't drink your mouthwash.

    65. Re:Not even close to the worst. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Are you still pretending that nuke isn't part of the solution I described? Am I some kinda straw-hippy here to only make the arguments that make me look stupid?

    66. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Heh, that'd be one way to get the pitchfork brigade worked up into a good lather, depending on where you live. Any mention of power generation incites some people.

      Here in NZ - land of the NIMBY - 'nuclear' is a swearword to many. You're probably aware that we've enough of a bug up our collective arses about the technology that we even refuse port entry to the nuclear-powered ships of our allies.

      We've been lucky enough to have a lot of hydro resources and we're also exploring geothermal but we need to look at other sources as well. The response is usually some variant of 'don't you dare put nasssty windmills on our precious countryside!' with lashings of 'we'll run you up a flagpole if you even mention nuclear power.'

      Psst! Don't tell the proles NZ had its own small reactor for 19 years.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    67. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is a Koch drone with the brains of a rotting peanut and the moral standing of a murderous pile of excrement. Mod him -10 "fucktard"

      Welcome to Earth. Allow me to correct some of your misconceptions about the state of affairs here:

      Drones aren't manufactured by Koch Industries. Peanuts lack both brains and nervous systems. Peanut rot isn't known to have any impact on brain function.

      Shit doesn't possess the capacity for moral thought, and is by itself a morally neutral byproduct of Earth fauna energy collection, and is incapable of committing murder since it lacks free agency — at most, it could be guilty of manslaughter (were a court silly enough to entertain such a trial) or by liable in a wrongful death civil suit (but good luck collecting shit from shit).

      The minimum moderation score is -1. Finally, there is no "fucktard" option for moderating comments.

      Enjoy your stay, and watch out for ICE.

    68. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, I thought that, but it's nice to know for sure. The fluoride finder in the second link is an especially nice touch.

      Thanks for presenting the empirical data that I was too lazy to look up :)

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    69. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the Thorium reactor proponents always do car interviews? It's an incredibly awkward style.

    70. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on that statement. You process Oxygen, adding carbon exhaling CO2. Otherwise why do they use "scrubbers" in closed systems, if there was no carbon added? Or better yet, experiment with a plastic bag.

    71. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Streetlight · · Score: 2

      American agriculture uses three units of energy to produce one unit of food energy. Much of this comes from methane to produce ammonia. Other energy uses in agriculture are pretty obvious such as fuel for tractors, harvesting combines and transportation to storage elevators. Liquid propane is used by farmers to dry their corn to a low moisture content to prevent it rotting or keep fungus away. This last energy use has affected those who heat their homes with propane this last winter because of its price increase because of the high demand by farmers and the wet autumn. So indirectly much if not all of our food comes from carbon compounds coming out of the ground, not just the carbon dioxide in the air.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    72. Re:Not even close to the worst. by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      No, this statement was provocative hyperbole that equates controlled use of energy resources to industrial accidents. It's like calling every infamous head of state "Hitler" ...

      ...so what would we call Hitler, then?

      A convenient way to dismiss someone's argument with which you disagree, but really have no basis for your disagreement.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    73. Re:Not even close to the worst. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      We have to use nucleur now, and increase solar efficency because we are at or past the halfway point of oil, and oil isn't ever going to get cheaper. We need to encourage electrical motor powered engines for almost all of our future transportation needs.

      Future generations will look back and remember our present time as "The Age of Oil", and the time of plentiful oil is quickly running out. If we don't shift to an all electrically based society within the next 50 years or so, well, I suppose we still have a few whales left, don't we?

    74. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Floride is a dirty commie trick to pollute our precious bodily fluids. :)

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    75. Re:Not even close to the worst. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, humanity was better off burning wood and whale oil. The average live expectancy was was also in the mid 30's. Get rid of fossil fuels, take nuclear energy off the table and then we will return to those times. Sorry. Wind and solar will never do.

      What mostly increased life expectancy was the acceptance of the germ theory of (some) disease, a theory that was actively resisted by the establishment as unscientific, along with the introduction of antibiotics.
      At this point I doubt we'll forget the benefits of washing and sterilizing, unluckily antibiotics aren't currently profitable so new ones aren't being developed as fast as bacteria are evolving and that may lead back to life expectancies of 30 years.
      Nothing to do with replacing wood with coal or whale oil with coal oil and petroleum.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    76. Re:Not even close to the worst. by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      clue for you, the North pole, open sea that freezes over annually, also melts every year, and has been doing so for thousands of years.

    77. Re:Not even close to the worst. by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      those antibiotics are created, transported, marketed with oil and coal power and would not exist without them. fossil fuel has driven human progress, and the ony viable scalable alternative is nuclear power from third and fourth generation reactors.

    78. Re:Not even close to the worst. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong, that is not even close to how the real carbon cycle works. let me give you a clue, the ocean has 93% of carbon dioxide in algae, vegetation and coral.

    79. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No ice = no ice breakers.
      No ice breakers = no pollution from ice breakers.
      See, I'm doing my part!

    80. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you; but I haven't seen any rabbits around to protect our planet when he finally FINDS his Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator, and I've seen the results of untargeted Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator detonation. I don't want to be there.

    81. Re:Not even close to the worst. by FirephoxRising · · Score: 0

      Er, it's pretty easy to drink 40 glasses of water over a week..... That's why I have a filter to block the F in my water. I brush with toothpaste and then SPIT IT OUT! Do not swallow F, it doesn't work to drink it and it may be harmful. F in water is an unmetered dose, they don't know how much you drink, concentration is not dosage. The CDC recommends against F water for those under 1 year. I'm also concerned about how f will concentrate in the food chain as it is added at all points in the production chain and then concentrated by cooking and processing.

    82. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect you would have very good luck collecting shit from shit.

      Otherwise I enjoyed your trip down literal interpretation lane.

    83. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, you think you are discussing this with US Congressmen, including Joe Barton, on slashdot, posting as an AC, you sir are a nutjob

    84. Re: Not even close to the worst. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You're clearly a liar. A Google Maps search revealed that there is no lane or indeed roadway of any kind named "Literal Interpretation".

      --
      I hate printers.
    85. Re:Not even close to the worst. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. Koch Industries does, in fact, make drones.

      http://www.economicpolicyjourn...

    86. Re:Not even close to the worst. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics couldn't exist if coal was replaced by natural gas? While 3rd and 4th generation nuclear sounds promising, I'm not aware of too many commercially successful plants yet and the lead time to bring them into production is not short.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    87. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The ozone hole is still there, but it's better mostly because we actually did something about it.
      "Global cooling" had nowhere near the scientific backing that climate change does.
      Overpopulation, the jury's still out on. It's a bad problem and it's getting far worse, but it's probably not going to amount to "kill us all" in our lifetime.

    88. Re:Not even close to the worst. by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      CANDU is a bit better than LWR, but not by much. Going from using 0,65% of Uranium to about twice as much is still very low efficiency. There's no way around it with solid fuel reactors. All water cooled reactors such in efficiency.
      In a way, the DMSR is the least efficient molten salt reactor design, and still its over one order of magnitude more efficient (considering both how much fissile material gets split + higher efficiency from higher temperature operation).
      The details on David LeBlanc's DMSR are still confidential, it is expected to use a different coolant salt exactly to avoid producing the dreaded tritium.

    89. Re:Not even close to the worst. by lecoupdejarnac · · Score: 1

      ...it is expected to use a different coolant salt exactly to avoid producing the dreaded tritium.

      What's wrong with a little tritium? We'll just have to produce more betalights.

    90. Re:Not even close to the worst. by G-forze · · Score: 1

      ...so what would we call Hitler, then?

      A convenient way to dismiss someone's argument with which you disagree, but really have no basis for your disagreement.

      That's a nice name and all, but kind of hard to remember. I think I'll stick with "Adolf".

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    91. Re: Not even close to the worst. by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Heat kiddo. You know it's still water even if we call it ice in it's solid phase right? Just like steam is also just water.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    92. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We started 40 years ago, but Ronald Reagan put a stop to it.

    93. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO what you're saying is that our current system of feeding ourselves is reliant on a non-renewable resource. Hope I'm not around when that becomes scarce enough that food is more expensive than most people can afford.

    94. Re:Not even close to the worst. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Funny that you should say that, see article:

      Eating Fossil Fuels

      Quote: "In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American"

      Â 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
      Â 19% for the operation of field machinery
      Â 16% for transportation
      Â 13% for irrigation ...etc

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    95. Re:Not even close to the worst. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And just make sure you don't coat your driveway with this stuff (tar sealer):
      Could your driveway be poisoning your kids

      "a coal tar-sealed parking lot next door could cause a child to face a 38-fold increase in lifetime cancer risk."
      (since lifetime cancer risk is already about 30%, this is clearly misquoted unless it relates to a rare cancer only)

      Not 100% on-topic, but I think it's something everyone should know.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    96. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?
      Am I the only one who wants to see the south pole without miles of ice on it?
      I want to go there and see all the things buried under the ice for millions of years.
      Or are you saying that within 100 years the earth will become uninhabitable?

      I sincerely don't give a single fuck about future generations.

    97. Re:Not even close to the worst. by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Otherwise why do they use "scrubbers" in closed systems

      Because whatever "closed" system you are referring to is not really closed. It is only temporarily closed, and likely not entirely closed, due to receiving some amount of energy through light from the outside. But more importantly, just because a system is closed, it doesn't mean it is self-sustaining. If you had an entire balanced eco-system, you would only need light from the outside, and it could go on for millions of years without needing scrubbers. But if you do not have a balanced eco-system, you need to compensate. For example, if you remove plants from the eco-system, you need a supply of food, which will only last a finite amount of time, and you will build up waste products, including CO_2, which you'll need to contain.

      As soon as you have waste products, that don't get recycled, you limit the lifetime of the system. If the waste would build up indefinitely, eventually every single atom in this closed system would be part of the waste products. Of course it doesn't end exactly like that, because the system is likely going to break down before you reach that point. So extrapolating to calculate when the mass of your waste reaches the full mass of the system will give you an upper bound on the lifetime, the lower bound will obviously be lower.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    98. Re:Not even close to the worst. by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Efficiency in fuel burnup is not a factor in deciding which kind of reactors to build today since uranium is cheap at the moment and will not be rare and expensive for at least sixty years and probably longer (the bottom-line cost is thought to be about $300 per kilo of uranium metal extracted from seawater). The uranium mining industry is currently closing and mothballing mines around the world due to lack of ongoing demand for their product.

      The most efficient power reactors running today are the British gas-cooled carbon-moderated AGRs but they're white elephants, as cheap to run as new-design LWRs but more expensive to build in the first place. No more will be built anywhere. CANDUs are also expensive in terms of capital cost per kWh of electricity generated even though they can run on unenriched uranium but the cost savings don't really make them that attractive in the commercial market. They also have proliferation risks due to their ability to be refuelled "on the run" by unscrupulous parties.

    99. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 0

      Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    100. Re:Not even close to the worst. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And might not do it again, if it fails to freeze over in winter. You seem to need a clue for yourself.

    101. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Mein Führer, have a bit of respect.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    102. Re:Not even close to the worst. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      While I get your sarcasm, I feel inclined to point out that the US government, at least since the early 20th century, has had little to no reservation about doing horrific things to large populations of people, just to see what happens.

      Purposefully infecting people with STDs and spraying Americans with radioactive material being two examples that stand out in my mind.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    103. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      And the award for worst use of statistics of the day goes to Rubycodez! Keep at it champ.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    104. Re:Not even close to the worst. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Nuclear... will likely never reach the public support necessary to eclipse the use of fossil fuels.

      I hate to break it to you, but there are entire countries (e.g. France) where this has already happened.

      I don't think our solar extraction technology is quite efficient enough to cover all of our fuel needs, or we'd already be doing it.

      You're wrong. First, we could power the entire world on photovoltaic solar taking up about the same amount of land area as Spain. (That might sound like a lot, but when you realize that you can use wasted area like rooftops and the sky above roads, it doesn't need to take up any new land area.)

      Second, the only reason photovoltaics seem more expensive (per watt) than coal-fired turbines is that the price of the latter does not include externalities.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    105. Re:Not even close to the worst. by guises · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect. Artificial fertilizers account for about a third of crops worldwide nowadays, and they're made from natural gas.

      Strictly speaking, this isn't required. You can make artificial fertilizers sustainably, the natural gas is just a cheap source of hydrogen, but as is usually the case the polluting route yields the greatest profits.

    106. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave farm equipment aside. Suppose we conscript everyone available to harvest manually and get rid of tractors and combines and such.

      Still, three fifths of the world's population could not be alive without the Haber-Bosch process being used. This is very energy intensive process that fixes nitrogen in soil. Crops will not grow without it. There is not enough natural topsoil to feed the world's population. So effectively agriculture has become an extractive industry.

    107. Re:Not even close to the worst. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I think you lost some context.

    108. Re:Not even close to the worst. by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      I believe that maximizing utilization of nuclear material is extremely important for any Gen IV tech, regardless of Uranium costs.
      Nuclear worst enemy isn't cost, it's PR ! So the more we can deconstruct all anti nuclear pundits critics the better.
      Perhaps you haven't realized nuclear is essentially impossible to build today in CA, NY, New England, Germany, do you ? We need reactors that break the mold of all criticism that created that anti nuclear stance.
      One of the many advantages of molten salt reactors is the salt coolant, nuclear fuel and fission products are all mixed up in the core, specially in the DMSR, where you will have a mix of: Th232, U232, U233, U235, U238, Np, Pu238, Pu239, Pu240, Am and Cu, makes the material essentially useless for extraction of nuclear material.
      I have nothing against building new current Gen III+ reactors where possible. But we need a cheaper, better solution. I'm hoping the DMSR will be the first to market Gen IV modular reactor, breaking away from the valid criticism that water cooled nukes are enormous pressure cookers being contained by ultra expensive safety systems. Molten Salt reactors are essentially at ambient pressure, the core material solidifies quickly as it cools, so it's arguably safe even in case the reactor is struck with a precision military strike (or a comet), since there's no pressure trying to throw nuclear material afar.
      Plus it would be useful to have a reactor that has less proliferation potential even than a solid fuel water cooled nuke.

    109. Re:Not even close to the worst. by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Nuclear energy's worst enemy IS cost, the upfront cost of building a unitary reactor structure that will only return its investment over a period of decades in a world where MBA-driven financial returns in the next quarter-year make or break an industry and its decision-makers. Cost is a drum the anti-nuclear religionists beat continually, possibly with the encouragement of the coal and gas interests.

      Gas is currently cheap thanks to ever-improving production technologies including fracking. It kills people, a lot more than nuclear power ever did (six dead, I think, from that gas explosion in Manhattan last week which is already old news compared to Fukushima Daiichi which killed nobody from radiation releases). There's also the CO2 emissions it engenders but nobody cares about those.

      The molten-salt reactors boosters tend to handwave away many severe problems with their assorted designs, things like the existing light-water reactor designs have already overcome or just don't have problems with such as how to decommission an obsolete molten-salt reactor at end-of-life where much of its structure has been in direct contact with highly radioactive isotopes at very high temperatures for decades. With "normal" reactors the fuel and its waste products stay in the fuel rods and when they're removed the reactor vessel structure is only slightly radioactive and just leaving it for a few decades in Safestore makes it trivial to take apart.

      As for proliferation risks all molten-salt reactor concepts I've ever seen require a continuous-processing facility next to the reactor to continuously remove problematic isotopes from the fuel stream that would disrupt its operation by absorbing neutrons. In the case of the thorium-breeder designs the neutron economy is quite precarious since they need to breed Th-232 into fissile U-233 to work at all which is not a problem existing light-water reactors face.

      Given that the molten salt stream has to be processed on-site then it is not impossible that an unscrupulous operator could tweak the processor to, say, remove and collect U-233 in small amounts over a given period and that is quite acceptable bomb-making material.

    110. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the point you guys need to come to terms with is that fossil fuels aren't the only source of energy production and transport, and it's becoming apparent that the harm outweighs the minor increases in fiscal cost of many other technologies.

      Yup. Germany actually had a pretty sane policy until Fukushima, now they just import lots of gas from Russia. I wonder how that's working for them now?

    111. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the early 1930's, the Tennessee Valley Authority built the "Hawk's Nest Tunnel" through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia to build a hydroelectric facility. In order to accomplish this, the workers drilled though one mile of almost pure silica. Five thousand people worked on this project; no safety precautions were taken to prevent respirable-silica exposure. Approximately 1,200 workers developed silicosis, and approximately 400 - 600 of these perished from the disease. This is know as the "Hawk's Nest incident," and it is considered America's worst industrial disaster [Jack 2005 at pp 8 - 9].

      --Jack, JG (the Honorable),
      "Order No. 29: Addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, expert testimony and sanctions,"
      In re Silica Product Liability Litigation (2:03-MD-1553), June 30, 2005.

    112. Re:Not even close to the worst. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I dunno, someone who is so uncultured that they don't get the reference? Or someone who so lacks a sense of humour that they don't find it funny?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    113. Re: Not even close to the worst. by MaxCasey · · Score: 1

      You are an abject moron

    114. Re:Not even close to the worst. by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      The high cost of nuclear is the result of Nuclear being ostracized since Three Mile Island.
      It's the classical chicken-egg problem.
      It's too expensive because it has no scale, and it has no scale because it's too expensive.
      Plus water cooled reactors can't be very cheap to begin with.
      And until Nuclear can be made cool again, neither nuclear operators nor nuclear suppliers will do anything to lower costs.

      Finally, the anti nuclear movement is very strong inside the NRC, my perception is the NRC will only be happy when they finish up with the whole nuclear industry.
      Like goes the old saying about the FAA, and you can replace FAA with NRC, we're not happy until you're unhappy. They have no incentive to keep nuclear affordable. They don't care about the costs of their measures, even the ones that aren't essential to safety. They will happily create regulatory burden with huge costs that increase nuclear safety very little. This isn't particular to the NRC. It happens all the time in the FAA, FDA, DoE, DoT, ... It's the law of the land of the US federal govt.

    115. Re:Not even close to the worst. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it would, they would (and will, in other countries) just become nuclear energy barons. they make money, not oil

    116. Re:Not even close to the worst. by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Florida is a dirty commie trick to pollute our precious bodily fluids. :)
      FTFY

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    117. Re:Not even close to the worst. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there is not sufficient natural gas (itself a fossil fuel) to replace all of coal or oil though I agree would be wonderful idea to replace as much as possible while cleaner energy sources worked out.

    118. Re:Not even close to the worst. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that has never happened

  2. Nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothin indeed.

  3. There real reason ... by drsmack1 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Is that the media decided not to cover it because it was not on either coast and they didn't have a clear way to blame it on the Bush administration.

    1. Re:There real reason ... by BullInChina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just remember, every vote against nuclear is a vote FOR coal.

    2. Re:There real reason ... by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      So much easier for you to blame someone else (the media...) than to accept responsibility for you own apathy.

      We had the huge recession, and the media was more interested in Obama's victory.

      More importantly, the coal industry spent a lot of money and legal effort to prevent the media from getting photos.

      I heard about it from the main stream media and remember being offended by how the industry was restricting coverage.

      If you didn't, then perhaps you should accept responsibility for watching crappy media instead of blaming the media for being crappy.

      That is, not all media is as incompetent as the ones you watch.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:There real reason ... by cusco · · Score: 2

      Editors and publishers have learned the hard way that you don't fuck with the energy companies unless you have a battalion of lawyers at your disposal. You especially don't fuck with Big Coal in the middle of coal country.

      As far as the Bush Madministration, the link is trivially easy to make. Shrub reduced inspections, regulations, reporting, safety rules and liability levels for the entire range of extractive industries. Obama's only blame is not restoring them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kingston is a TVA operation. So yeah, no evil private corporation to hate on.... so no press.

    5. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly could the coal industry prevent coverage? Do they have their own police force? Did they stop reporters from flying in?

      You are so completely full of shit that it's coming out of your mouth.

      NOTHING will stop a *motivated* media from getting at a story. They were criminally not interested in this story for the exact reasons I outlined.

    6. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, that's why we see anti-fracking stories daily? Because the media doesn't dare to mess with the energy companies? You are completely full of shit.

      Obama was in office when this happened, the similarities to Katrina motivated them to not look too deeply into the response by the federal government.

      Honestly the whole line of the point you are making is completely pathetic.

    7. Re:There real reason ... by rnswebx · · Score: 2

      There are many stories that are "gotten" but never actually make it to mass media. I agree with the sentiment that a motivated reporter will usually be able to get a story, but that doesn't mean it gets printed or played on air. Most media outlets have giant corporations as their parent, and often those corporations are heavily influenced by lobbyists and others who are actively working to keep negative news from the press.

    8. Re:There real reason ... by gewalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've read a number of different estimates for deaths related to coal pollution, 10-15K annually in the US, 150-300K globally. Even if those estimates are 10 time actual, it is hard to beat coal pollution as the top killer for industrial activity. Disasters like collapses of mines, dams, coal ash pond get a lot more attention.

      Turning off every coal plant today would be a much bigger disaster -- people freezing, starving, diseases, etc. would be far worse, but hey, I am all for replacing coal with safer nukes, etc. All major systems will results in accidents and deaths, it is kind of the way it is. Even today, $/kwh from coal is generally cheaper than the viable alternatives. Arguably, a new generation of nuclear power could be cheaper than coal (fuel costs on the order of 15-25% of coal), but this is certainly not guaranteed.

      You still need transportation fuels (hard to replace jet planes with battery operated or nuclear).,

    9. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      NOTHING will stop a *motivated* media from getting at a story.

      I have to agree. There was no wall-to-wall 24x7 on this. It was in the news cycle for about 48 hours. That missing plane in Malysia has gotten a lot more coverage.

      It's a TVA operation. That's the federal government for those that don't know. No Evil Korporats to hate on and plenty of Congress critters to apply pressure on the media corporates where needed.

      Where are the sob stories from survivers? Where are the PBS NOVA multi-part "investigations" with the awkward questions of TVA officials? Where was the TVA show trial? Deepwater Horizon produced all of that and more.

      One benefit of nationalizing stuff is that once it's the Government's fault the Left foregoes its usual hysteria. War appears to be the sole exception to that.

    10. Re:There real reason ... by houghi · · Score: 1

      And the other way around as well. So you vote for either one industry or the other.

      Where are the votes in favor of the people are going? You know, A government of the people, by the people,

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or FOR natural gas...

    12. Re:There real reason ... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      They're going in a bin labeled "pointless rhetoric that doesn't actually begin to address real-world problems." Both major parties are really good at sucking votes out of that bin, and the remaining sludge in it is made of people who think cynical non-participation makes them somehow morally superior.

    13. Re:There real reason ... by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

      I heard about it from the main stream media and remember being offended by how the industry was restricting coverage.

      The media needs to stop "being offended" and start being journalists.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    14. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Amish vote, you insensitive clod!

    15. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had the huge recession, and the media was more interested in Obama's victory. More importantly, the coal industry spent a lot of money and legal effort to prevent the media from getting photos.

      No, it wasn't covered so much because it was in a hillbilly backwater, no one died, and because ash sludge doesn't make for good TV.

    16. Re:There real reason ... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      I do remember some bs about not allowing an d helicopters in the vicinity because of health reasons and very little coverage.

      It is a shame that some things are swept under the rug when they should be magnified appropriately. But when people want to silence an issue, there is ALWAYS a price it can be paid to be achieved . . . .

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    17. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you remember that the entity involved in this was the federal government and not "the coal industry"? Just wondering...

    18. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Obama was in office on December 22nd, 2008? Typical Republican ignorance.

    19. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember that every vote for coal is a vote for nuclear waste-product pollution.

    20. Re:There real reason ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So, it's come to this. The best way to promote nuclear is to present the false dichotomy that it's nuclear or coal and there is no other alternative. I think this means you lost the argument.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC Shill is LAME

    22. Re:There real reason ... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Madministration? Really? That is more useless and stomach-turning than Obummer!

    23. Re:There real reason ... by simonreid · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the media is motivated... to make money. You don't think all those adverts for Coal power on TV, or 'brand' ads about what a great company GE is are just for fun do you? The conversation goes like this 'well... we could spend money to investigate a story slamming a company that spent $50m advertising with us last quarter - or we could not, just re-print their press release about, and still be profitable and employed'. Sure, one or two reports might try to write it, but they would never get on air. You should try listening to the No Agenda show (just google it) for a great description of how it really works

    24. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!

    25. Re:There real reason ... by EthanBernard · · Score: 1

      > Even if those estimates are 10 time actual, it is hard to beat coal pollution as the top killer for industrial activity.

      Cigarette manufacturing. :)

    26. Re:There real reason ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      We used to refer to Ronnie Raygun's merry band of morons as the Reagan Badministration, because they really were bad. Shrub took in the worst of Reagan's 'True Believers' and added a bunch of even worse zealots and loonies, including people who were torture enthusiasts well before the World Trade Center attacks, royalists, free marketeers, zionists, and security state fanatics. I never imagined that I would see a worst presidency than Reagan, but Bush's was by every measure the worst presidency in the history of the Union.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    27. Re:There real reason ... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      I think you may have inadvertently found out why Reagan was so bad and Bush was worse. What could both administrations have in common besides just being Republican? Dick Fucking Cheney. Says it all I think...

    28. Re:There real reason ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Cheney, Pearle, Armitrage, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rumsfeld, Gates, there were more.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    29. Re:There real reason ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I never imagined that I would see a worst presidency than Reagan, but Bush's was by every measure the worst presidency in the history of the Union.

      Hardly! Maybe the worst presidency in a hundred years, but there were some fucking awful presidents in the first half of the 19th century.

    30. Re:There real reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could call him Barack the Obamanable. That would even be somewhat defenestrable.

  4. A coin-operated congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't act to protect the middle and lower classes because they can't pay the same bribes as people like the Kochs. And to actually regulate the banks or any large industry is to cut off major sources of funds. Fortunately, people are getting wise to this despicable relationship ... but they remain fearful because as individuals they are very susceptable to retaliation in many ways. Also, any approach that has any chance of effectively returning our "system" to the peoples control is now illegal for one reason or another. Even so, someone has put forth a viable plan to address this issue, Google "A plan to establish democracy in the United States" if you are interested.

  5. Where have I heard about spills like this before? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  6. Molasses Molasses, sticky sticky goo by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't forget the Great Molasses Disaster(s) which release tons of toxic sulfur into the rivers. These are an on-going problem over the years and we have learned "Nothin".

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  7. Bhopal? by Unicorn+Setu · · Score: 0

    What about Bhopal? Thousands of people dead from an accident at a Union Carbide plant?

    --
    Unicorn Setu. "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines".
    1. Re:Bhopal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't a "US" disaster.

    2. Re:Bhopal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Bhopal? Thousands of people dead from an accident at a Union Carbide plant?

      Perhaps, if you consider India an American State. That might actually be a good thing but wouldn't be necessary if it would man-up to reality and eliminate the cesspool they refuse to admit exists due to the sin of pride. The first step needs to taken by the management caste.

  8. What did we learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WE LEARNED NOTHIN!

    1. Re:What did we learn? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, certainly not proper spelling and punctuation. Its not nothin, its nuthin'.

      These dang Slashdot editors don't know a dang thing about proper English. Sheeit!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  9. We've learned nothing? by mendax · · Score: 2

    Oh, we've learned something. We've learned that this is something the government doesn't want to deal with. How much sludge does a company have to pour into a river before the government not only takes notice but does something about it?

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:We've learned nothing? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a matter of "how much" it's a matter of "Who lives down river"

      I'm going to hazard a guess that in this case it was poor people.

    2. Re:We've learned nothing? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      We also learned that the CEO of BP felt really, really bad about it... not bad enough to, you know, fix the problem, or make right with the tens of thousands of people his company harmed, but really, really bad nonetheless...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:We've learned nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to the multi-billionaires who own everything, everyone downriver is poor. They have theirs and no one is going to get in the way of them getting even more! They have enough money to move to the moon or wherever else they might like so none of this really affects them, does it?

    4. Re:We've learned nothing? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      And hippies complain about nuclear waste. Last time I checked, no nuclear waste ever caused an accident worthy of a single-paragraph story, much less something like this...

    5. Re:We've learned nothing? by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Informative

      How much sludge does a company have to pour into a river before the government not only takes notice but does something about it?

      TVA is wholly owned by the federal government. The federally owned earthen embankments were known to be leaking by the federally funded TVA employees for years before the slurry that the federal government was responsible for containing broke lose.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    6. Re:We've learned nothing? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We've learned that this is something the voters don't want to deal with.

      Fixed that for you. US is a democratic republic; it's government does what its citizens want.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:We've learned nothing? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked

      If you had checked anytime since about 1976 you might have discovered this.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    8. Re:We've learned nothing? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected then. Still, disregarding the soviet general disregard for safety, my point stands.

    9. Re:We've learned nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we get to vote on the candidates that raised enough money to make it that far. Plus, the candidates pick their votes via gerrymandering rather than us picking them.

      The US government represents its constituents extremely well. Unfortunately, we voters aren't the constituents, the companies that pay the freight for campaigning are. There's a reason why corporations contribute to both sides of the political aisle unless they're run by ideologues. Heads they win, tails we lose.

    10. Re:We've learned nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to hazard a guess that in this case it was poor people.

      I don't see poor people. I see solidly Republican voters getting exactly what they asked for.

    11. Re:We've learned nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those companies better be careful when pouring sludge containing heavy metals like lead over poor, easily irritated people. Those people might send back the lead in a more refined form.

    12. Re:We've learned nothing? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      A lot of the comments about the issue hitting Charleston, W.VA's water is pretty much this - rich white folks in Charleston are getting affected, not just poor (mostly white) folks. Some of these rich white folks in Charleston are lawyers with connections.

      One podcast I listen to (forgot which one, can't properly attribute) had a couple families rent an apartment just outside of the affected area. They'd go, shower, get a bunch of tapwater in bottles, and rotate the other family in after a few days. Obviously a poor family can't do this.

    13. Re:We've learned nothing? by mendax · · Score: 1

      Those companies better be careful when pouring sludge containing heavy metals like lead over poor, easily irritated people. Those people might send back the lead in a more refined form.

      Oh yes. Such as being asked to give someone a gun and the person complies, starting with the bullets.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    14. Re:We've learned nothing? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      My counter to this, is how many people say Government Is The Problem. How many times did Obama say that we need to cut coal, and then everyone in Appalachia, rich and poor alike, say "get your regulatin' hands out of here". The issues will continue until people have other choices besides laying in bed with a corporation that has shown it doesn't care about health.

      My bigger issue is with the corporation who decided that profits here are more important than lives there. For everyone who jumps up in arms any time there's a shooter and says "those 3 people died because of music/videogames/sunspots" do they jump up 1000x as hard when a toxic spill kills 3000? The CEO is just as much as a sociopath, caring not about lives, but bottom line.

      People who say "corporations are people" should allow them to be categorized as mass murderers in certain cases, and they should be allowed to be put on death row.

    15. Re:We've learned nothing? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      I don't see poor people. I see solidly Republican voters getting exactly what they asked for.

      But did they have a choice in asking? What industry is there besides coal? Obama takes that away you got nothing.

      The Hunger Games needed a bleak locale with people with no hope... Appalachia was chosen for a reason.

    16. Re:We've learned nothing? by Shempster · · Score: 1

      The last thing this earth needs from humanity is a growing mass of entombed radioactive wastes with half-lives ranging from 30 years to 4.5 billion years. Industry will not conduct itself ethically when it's overseen by governments full of cronies cherry picked by industry itself. Corners will be cut, and hazardous events will occur. Human civilization has proven itself to lack the wisdom and moral courage to be responsible enough for the well-being of this planet's biosphere. Total energy consumption of human civilization must be brought down to sustainable levels. If humanity does not find a way to cut consumption, then human civilization and most of the remaining life on this planet (that humanity is supposed to be sharing with), will crash far sooner than anyone is publicly predicting.

    17. Re:We've learned nothing? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, no nuclear waste ever caused an accident worthy of a single-paragraph story, much less something like this...

      Yea, if it doesn't affect white people the media don't do much coverage. The Church Rock spill was an order of magnitude smaller then this one but it was much more radioactive, flowed much further and in many ways was a bigger disaster, with some considering it releasing more radioactivity then any other accident in US history. Affecting mostly poor Navajo people it wasn't considered important enough to declare it a federal disaster.
      Disasters like this along with all the Navajo people who worked in the Uranium mines and then died of cancer aren't ever mentioned by the pro-nuke people even though coal is still worse.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    18. Re:We've learned nothing? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Obviously disregarding the things that contradict your point confirms your point. I think you just admitted to everyone you don't have a point at all.

    19. Re:We've learned nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, market forces will take care of it. Down with big government etc.

  10. Sort of makes sense it happened in 2008 by Burz · · Score: 1

    Its a good reflection of Finance sector dealings and the "controversy" about global warming trumpeted by the media (it was a large component of the media's product-output at the time, needlessly fuelling a pattern of denial and argument for its own sake).

  11. Don't forget Duke Energy by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their recent coal ash spill coated 70 MILES of the Dan River, but thanks to them buying off the legislature and a Governor who happened to have worked for Duke Energy, they may escape any liability for the cleanup, leaving it up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I am long on the energy sector stocks. These guys are bribing anyone who gets in their way and discredits anyone else. I am up ~1000 in the past year. There will be a minor bump in price when the hammer falls (if it ever does) and then it will be business as usual.

      Scummy? Sure is. But know what I am going to make some money off these bastards...

    2. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      last I checked everyone there benefits from the electriicty Duke makes, of course utilities get special treatment. any financial punishment of Duke would just raise your electric bill, they are called "Utilities" for a reason

    3. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      leaving it up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

      In November, those taxpayers will overwhelmingly vote to reelect the same legislators and Governor- because the alternative would be voting for a Democrat and their Socialist job-killing environmental regulations.

    4. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      last I checked everyone there benefits from the electriicty Duke makes, of course utilities get special treatment. any financial punishment of Duke would just raise your electric bill, they are called "Utilities" for a reason

      So why financially punish any company ever, since they'll just pass the costs on to the customers?

    5. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Utilities often have a local monopoly, so customers can't do a thing if costs are passed to them. Happy or angry customers make no difference to them.

      Other companies have some degree of competition, so putting up prices makes them less attractive to their customers, who will shop elsewhere.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      True. Half the damages should be divided between the boards of directors and upper management.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah. Seventy miles. Seventy miles of nothing. Monitoring of the water has shown that it does NOT pose a danger. How can that be??? Well, coal ash is NOT ALL POLLUTION! In this case, it's no worse than extra mud. Sure, it has harmful stuff in it, but not enough for it to cause an environmental disaster.

      And all this stuff about buying off the legislature and the governor -- this old saw comes up all the time and it's just not true. You may think it is, but let's see your evidence -- the kind that stands up in a court room, not a bar room. Take a deep breath and move on to the next topic. (Like how the news media hype a story to sell their papers and air time.)

    8. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      It's a bullshit argument regardless. If there is enough elasticity in the price that costs can be passed on, then a rational actor would have raised prices already.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    9. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      most other companies have competitors, that's why

    10. Re:Don't forget Duke Energy by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. The complaints and hugely embarrassing (too obvious?) political fixes have finally drawn in a Federal grand jury .. for what that's worth.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      I'm in Nawth Ca'lina; hope something works out. I wonder if anyone has a clue as to how to clean a river once it's been polluted by sludge like this? Vacuum the bottom?

  12. TVA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TVA knew the earthen embankments were leaking. They'd known about it for years. TVA is a federally owned corporation created by Congress.

  13. mercury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you mean the liquid found in thermometer that is poisonous? wow.

  14. Simple answer to all of this: Energy Policy by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    America should not just be pushing Alternative Energy, but should also push for Nukes and Coal to be converted to Methane( sell that overseas).
    All of this should be via a TOTAL ENERGY POLICY.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. It's Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    how when these "accidents" occur in the southern US, nothing really is ever done. If they happen in the NE or NW, it's do or die to render aid and cleanup. As someone who, unfortunately, lives in the south, I notice this. No one gave a hoot in hell about Katrina, no one really batted an eye with the BP oil spill and nothing is ever really done about the various other hurricanes, tornados.

    When I get my financial situation more or less right, it's the NE for me again.

  16. Nope by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The worst industrial disaster in US history occurred in 1947 when a series of explosions killed 581 people, including all but one member of the Texas City fire department.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    The initial blast was also one of the largest non-nuclear explosion in US history.

    1. Re:Nope by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      indeed, and even if we confined ourselves to worst coal slurry accidents in 1972 there were 125 killed, over 1000 injured and 4000 left homeless in the so-called Buffalo Creek Flood in Logan County, West Virginia

    2. Re:Nope by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yay! Texas wins again!

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Nope by operagost · · Score: 1

      Everything's bigger there!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proving once and for all that Texans are morons. :)

  17. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how the headline claims that the spill is still a problem, but then the article itself states that the only concern is above-regulation aluminum levels that are also found upstream of the spill.

    As for the Slashdot story? Clicked the link, and regretted it. Horrible layout, bad artistic choices, I can't even read it to decide whether I should take the headline seriously. At first it looked like it was designed to work on a touch screen, but the 'front page' styling was repeated for every flippin' paragraph!

  18. Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by BobMcD · · Score: 1, Troll

    In fact, the event that woke Sarah McCoin that nightâ"the deluge that moved houses and ripped trees from the groundâ"was even bigger than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010, which spewed approximately 1 million cubic yards of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

    The oil that 'spilled' into the gulf in 2010 was a naturally occurring substance, as evidenced by how easily the environment dealt with it. And it genuinely makes sense to imagine that sub-surface events are exposing oil to the ocean on a regular basis, but we don't know about it because it's all very normal.

    No, a better comparison would be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... which spews ash everywhere on a somewhat regular basis. Ash = ash.

    Unless of course you're trying to make less of an environmental argument and more of an anti-fossil fuels one. The latter is the only thing Deepwater and these coal ash events have in common.

    1. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      The oil that 'spilled' into the gulf in 2010 was a naturally occurring substance, as evidenced by how easily the environment dealt with it.

      I think a lot of Gulf folks in the seafood industry would have something to say about "how easily the environment dealt with it".

      They're still digging oil out of the beaches in Alaska and the Exxon-Valdez incident was a long time ago now.

    2. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      In fact, the event that woke Sarah McCoin that nightâ"the deluge that moved houses and ripped trees from the groundâ"was even bigger than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010, which spewed approximately 1 million cubic yards of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

      The oil that 'spilled' into the gulf in 2010 was a naturally occurring substance, as evidenced by how easily the environment dealt with it.

      Mercury is a naturally occurring substance - are you really trying to argue that dumping 100,000,000 cubic yards of mercury into the Gulf would have no negative environmental effect?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ash = ash.
      Coal ash is different from volcanic ash.

      I used to do ash analysis on coal samples - coal ash is pushing 95% silica and alumina. The rest of the elemental analysis are trace elements, which can be made to sound super-scary when you scale up the quantities to thousands of tons. OMG! There's 100,000 pounds of this KILLER element released! Yes, but it's spread out evenly though 10 million tons of slurry over 100 square miles. You could probably strip-mine the top 5 feet of the same area in a city and find higher concentrations.

      The biggest problem is not all the toxic waste, it's all the bloody inert sludge that's everywhere.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem in the Gulf was use of dispersants. When Exxon-Valdez happened, we refused to use dispersants because of the long-term damage it would do to the fisheries. Also, Alaska is way colder than the Gulf of Mexico, and the spill in Prince William Sound occurred much closer to shore, allowing more oil to collect on the beaches. And while I don't know anything about the ecology of Price William Sound, I do know that more oil naturally seeps into Gulf waters every year than the spill released, so there was an establish microbial community ready and waiting to metabolize the oil.

      I'm not trying to downplay the Gulf spill. It was a tragedy. But we made it worse after the fact because dispersants prevented it from evaporating and also reduced its bioavailability. And the economic effects weren't nearly as dire as once feared. A handful of journalists have done follow-ups and the consensus is that environmental and economic recovery has happened much faster than expected, in the face of our bumbling cleanup attempts.

      Also, oil doesn't have all the heavy metals that coal ash does.

    5. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      There's 100,000 pounds of this KILLER element released! Yes, but it's spread out evenly though 10 million tons of slurry over 100 square miles. You could probably strip-mine the top 5 feet of the same area in a city and find higher concentrations.

      Yes, but the difference is that isn't not all in a highly soluble form with a high surface area. This is why mine tailings are such a huge source of acid and metal contamination. What would take millions of years to expose to streams and waters via natural erosion is ground up and dumped straight into waterways by industry. The resulting contamination is much higher than you would find by running water over the top of the material before processing.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    6. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      OMG! There's 100,000 pounds of this KILLER element released! Yes, but it's spread out evenly though 10 million tons of slurry over 100 square miles.

      Perhaps we can apply this sort of logic to nuclear waste? Instead of keeping it in storage, we could simply blow it out the smokestacks in trace amounts, much like what we do with the radioactive contaminants in coal?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    7. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by hey! · · Score: 1

      The oil that 'spilled' into the gulf in 2010 was a naturally occurring substance, as evidenced by how easily the environment dealt with it.

      OK, let's kill this "naturally occurring substances cannot be pollutants" meme.

      Arguably *every* substance is a naturally occurring substance. But even substances that are normally found in a habitat can be a pollutant if they enter that habitat in amounts that disrupt it. The classic example of CO2, which is a normal and necessary part of the atmosphere, but is toxic to humans at a rate of as low as 1000 ppm. What's more, moderately elevated levels of CO2 that humans would not notice change the behavior of insects and benefit some plants over others. In a moderately elevated CO2 world, poison ivy wins big but soybeans lose. This is a *natural* response to an *unnatural* situation. The unnatural mix of species is the result of *natural* biological processes, *because that's the only kind of biological process there is*.

      Likewise nitrogen and phosphorous are elements that are crucial to life and ubiquitous in the marine environment, but fertilizer runoff can cause dead zones where algae blooms deplete the water of oxygen. The algae and nutrients are a natural feature of the environment; were they not already ubiquitous in the environment then the environment couldn't respond in this unnatural way.

      You do raise an interesting point in that crude oil is something that occurs naturally in the habitat of the DWH spill, albeit not in such quantity. Arguably the dispersants used to reduce the impact of the spill may have been as bad as the spill itself. One reasonable definition of a "disaster" is a situation in which every alternative action or inaction seems bad.

      As for the environment "easily" dealing with the DWH spill and its aftermath, it's true that there is no longer an oil slick covering the Gulf that is visible from space. But there are many, many documented anomalies in marine mammals, crustaceans, corals and fish. The evidence connecting these anomalies to the DWH spill and cleanup efforts is circumstantial, but the parsimonious explanation is that the aftermath of DWH is causing many of these anomalies (e.g. unusual mutations). At the very least oil is still being found in wetlands around the gulf. The most recent article I could find about ongoing DWH oil problems was dated sixteen minutes ago.

      Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The Exxon-Valdez wasn't hauling the same thing that leaked from the hole they made in the ground...

    9. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I used to do ash analysis on coal samples - coal ash is pushing 95% silica and alumina.

      Says here it's as much as 30% alumina, depending on what's being burned. That sounds like a practically free feedstock for refining aluminum, though apparently something would have to be done besides the Bayer process. Oddly, that possibility is absent from the list of uses of coal ash. The alternative to the Bayer process must be difficult.

    10. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, let's kill this "naturally occurring substances cannot be pollutants" meme.

      Let's first start by killing the horrid misuse of the word "meme".

      "Pollution" is a relative term. A very long time ago, the atmosphere became HEAVILY polluted with oxygen, which ended up being a Good Thing for us Humans, along with a lot of other forms of life.

      Arguably *every* substance is a naturally occurring substance

      No, there are plenty of substances which we've never observed as having naturally occurred. You can only argue that it's "naturally occurring" if you've either observed it occurring naturally, or have some pretty damn good evidence that it could be.

    11. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You, sir, deserve a +5 Insightful for that comment.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    12. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Of course it was the same thing. There are no refineries in Valdez. After they extracted the heavy crude from the oil fields in the north slope, it traveled 800 miles through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the terminal in Valdez, where it was put in Exxon's tanker to be shipped south to WHERE THE REFINERIES ARE!

      I know this was more than 20 years ago, but the facts are not that hard to find.

    13. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dilution is the solution.

      If you have 50 grams of highly radioactive material, instead of paying to get of that, mix it with 55 gallons of water and now you have 55 gallons of low radiative material. It's much easier to and cheaper to get rid of.

      That works, that is why no one seems to care about burning coal but NIMBY with the thought of a nuclear plant near by.

    14. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen naturally occurring plastic bottles and very few herbicides.

    15. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why hasn't industry found a way to turn the ash into something useful? My brother-in-law works for a power plant and the employees can get free truckloads of the stuff they scrape out of the bottom of the furnaces. It apparently makes great driveways once it is spread out and gets wet.

    16. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read the sentence you quoted again, and please pay more attention to 'naturally occurring substance' this time...

    17. Re:Deepwater Horizon non sequitur by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Dispersants are designed to make the heavier oils in spills more available to microorganisms by turning large blobs of oil into small droplets and thus increasing the surface area exposed. The light fractions like kerosene in crude oil spills evaporate quite quickly, the heavier fractions can polymerise in sunlight to form tarry blobs with a lifetime of years or even decades if not dispersed promptly.

      There are different formulations of dispersant nowadays. The version of Corexit available twenty years ago at the time of the Exxon-Valdez incident is now not recommended for inshore use especially in rocky places as it can adversely affect the ability of shellfish to cling to rocks. Alternatives are now available after those lessons were learned.

  19. what "company"? It's a government operated plant by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    What are you talking about? It was a government operated power plant, run by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

  20. Hardly the worst by any measure by selectspec · · Score: 1

    Nobody died you fool.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  21. Johnstown? by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about Johnstown, when a dam built by a railroad company collapsed, killing well over 2000 people. Yes, at the time the dam belonged to a club run by industrialists as a hunting and fishing preserve, but it was still an industrial accident.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  22. Net negative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen articles that the net energy output of nuclear power is negative. That is, by the time you add in all the costs of mining, refining, transporting, storing the fuel, you have spent more energy than you got from the fuel.

    1. Re:Net negative? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      I have read that successively diluting a solution by 100 times will make the medical effects stronger. I've read that a perpetual motion machine has been verified but is kept under wraps by big oil. But fortunately I have more than two brain cells and can spot the bullshit.

  23. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by Megane · · Score: 1

    The only good thing I have to say about the formatting on medium.com is that it isn't the popular yet horrible "85/85", where the body text is set to 85% size / 85% gray. Many sites I have to zoom the text at least one step to be readable, but this site I have to zoom down at least three steps.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  24. er whoops I mean nationalized by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    er whoops I mean nationalized

    You know, the opposite of what I wrote.

    More coffee please

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:er whoops I mean nationalized by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      More coffee please

      Or less. Much much less.

    2. Re:er whoops I mean nationalized by dryeo · · Score: 1

      My power comes from a government owned utility. Rates are rapidly increasing as we have a right wing government who believes in low taxes so they're taking billions from the power company as well as other government owned businesses to make up for the budget shortfalls. Does the job though of pushing the government funding down to the lower classes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:er whoops I mean nationalized by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My power comes from a government owned utility.

      I'm sorry to hear that. What you want is a variety of private utilities competing to sell you power over national infrastructure, though, so that doesn't really detract from my anecdote.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's smaller. What's more annoying(as a local...ish) is that the state department of environmental regulation has been gutted by a governor who actually owns a lot of stock in Duke Energy. And even after the big news about this, it turns out that Duke actually still has pumps designed to pump coal ash directly from their pools into the cape fear river "for maintenance", in direct violation of the clean water act.

    They excused it by saying "we didn't get any recommendation against it by the state environmental agency".

  26. Oh shuit up you just hate frreedom by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You just hate freedom. You want to take away my right to pollute the atmosphere so badly that it causes massive socio-political upheaval s around the world completely re-ordering the geopolitical landscape , uniting our enemies and making new ones under a unified belief that THIS is what America did to us, unleashing waves of suicide terrorism both abroad and domestically, all fueled by the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people, and unified by the theme that "this (desertification, devastating ocean rise unsurvivable heat waves, crop failures and finally, the death of large ocean life as the acidification takes out the lowest levels of the oceanic food pyramid, causing all above to collapse - THIS is what America did to us".

    You just hate America and you're against freedom. That's all.

    1. Re:Oh shuit up you just hate frreedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
      America, FUCK YEAH!

    2. Re:Oh shuit up you just hate frreedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your money where your mouth is. Please stop excreting your "polluting" carbon dioxide by putting a bullet in your head. You can get lead free bullets, so don't let that be an excuse.

    3. Re:Oh shuit up you just hate frreedom by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      You're so fucking stupid and disengaged that you don't know the difference between the carbon cycle of living animals and plants and the mega tons of carbon that we're exhuming and igniting into the atmosphere, carbon which has been buried for millions of years . You don't know this because you could give a shit about even the most basic facts about which you boldly (AC) hold forth and in which hangs the balance of mere survival for all future generations and civilization itself. And I'm a troll.

    4. Re: Oh shuit up you just hate frreedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And YOU TOO can hire this whack-a-doodle to paint your deck or clean your septic tank. Call us. 907-555-OU812.

  27. 71 years, Hanford is still a radiactive cesspool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DOE's cleanup job is a joke here. I refuse to support any new nuclear power plant in the U.S. until it can be proven that the mess that results can be cleaned up.

  28. Unreadable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an obnoxious article layout. I can't even be bothered to read it.

  29. Individual events vs. entire industries by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Is the biggest event really important, or is it more important to look at entire industries? Has coal in Appalachia been better or worse than gold mining in California? The gold mining contaminated many bodies of water with mercury, and fish are still unsafe because of it. How many streams and lakes in Tennessee have warnings like, "pregnant women should eat no more than one of these fish per month"?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Individual events vs. entire industries by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The Raritan River in central New Jersey has signs like that. Except that the warning is addressed to all people, not just pregnant women. You don't need coal or gold to fuck up a waterway.

      What's even funnier is that, according to Wikipedia, this river "is an important source of drinking water for the central portion of New Jersey". Well, that explains why my tap water has a delicious flavor (I'm not joking).

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    2. Re:Individual events vs. entire industries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Healthy individuals can eat fish from the Raritan, e.g: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/fishadvisories/advisory-sheets-2012/raritan-millstone.pdf. It may be the case that you're near some CSO outfall, or the sign is outdated (iirc after Sandy they were saying to not eat any fish for some period)

    3. Re:Individual events vs. entire industries by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm further downstream than the Raritan-Millstone confluence, past the end of the Delaware&Raritan Canal. Additionally, the signs do look quite old.

      Offtopic: I'm planning a weekend bike ride down the full length of the D&R Canal this summer. New Brunswick to New Hope on Saturday, return trip on Sunday. ~70 miles each way. Any takers?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  30. Fingers In Ears, Eyes Closed by turgid · · Score: 1

    And just like Global Warming, if you ignore it, there are no consequences!

    Hooray for human greed and hubris.

    1. Re:Fingers In Ears, Eyes Closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will one of those really important science organisations or at least the ones who think they are important and whose principals claim to represent the whole gamut of science and scientists of every discipline please tell me;

      1/ What is the ideal temperature of the planet that we should doing everything possible to achieve.?

      2 / As it appears that the major science organisations fear a catastrophic global warming, how much colder should be the global temperatures we should be trying to achieve ?

      3 / What are the ideal atmospheric CO2 levels?

      4 / What is the ideal sea level?

      5 / What is the ideal amount of Arctic ice?

      6 / What is the the ideal amount of Antarctic ice?

      7 / What proven methods that are within in our technological capabilities should we use to achieve those ideals of temperature and CO2, global sea levels and Arctic / Antarctic ice amounts?

      8 / What are the plans and the proven technologies that can be used to both achieve and stabilise and sustain the temperatures, CO2 levels, sea levels and ice amounts as outlined by the science organisations in the answers to questions 1, 2 , 3 , 4, 5 and 6.

      9 / Who and what will take full responsibility if the unforeseen consequences of any actions taken to reduce global temperatures and global CO2 as dictated by the science organisations and their principals creates a drastic and / or deadly back lash leading the the destruction of untold numbers of human lives and immense amounts of property

      10 / What will be the back up positions or what should we do if after doing everything according to the dictates of the global warming alarmist industry and the major science organisations such as the AAAS to reduce global temperatures and CO2 levels there are no detectable results or outcomes in either or both the global temperatures and / or the atmospheric CO2 levels for all the sacrifices imposed on the populace to achieve the goals of the science organisations ?

      11 / Will the principals of those major science organisations take full total and personal responsibility and be prepared to suffer the undoubted consequences for any major reduction in the living standards for global citizens as a direct result of the effect of their proposed solutions to the supposed catastrophic climate situation that they claim to able to foresee?
      Particularly if there are no effects arising from their proposed solutions to the problems they claim are a threat to our’s and the planet’s existence .

      12 / Will the principals of the major science organisations who are demanding this action on the climate take the full and total personal responsibility and be prepared to personally suffer the no doubt drastic consequences for the deaths of millions if their solutions to the so far unobserved catastrophic warming of the planet entails the deliberately caused deaths of many millions in the attempts to apply the solutions proposed by those same advocating science organisations and their principals ?

    2. Re:Fingers In Ears, Eyes Closed by turgid · · Score: 1

      What are the ideal atmospheric CO2 levels?

      I'd hazard a guess that pre-Industrial Revolution levels would be a good first approximation.

      However, if I could, I'd reply to your post with a picture of my big, fat, hairy, spotty bottom.

    3. Re:Fingers In Ears, Eyes Closed by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Regarding point 12, how is reducing carbon dioxide emissions going to deliberately cause deaths of many millions?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    4. Re:Fingers In Ears, Eyes Closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what I'll tell you: nobody reads AC posts that are longer than a couple of sentences. You're welcome.

  31. Libertarianism is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Never worry. Market forces will fix this problem... somehow...

  32. Alternate energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about we lock all you green nuts up in pods and use you to generate energy?

    We could make you a virtual paradise full of idiots and call it ... on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah.. California.

  33. Good Thing They Linked Wikipedia by TangoMargarine · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    1. Re:Good Thing They Linked Wikipedia by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Although residents feared water contamination, early tests of water six miles (10 km) upstream of the ash flow showed that the public water supply met drinking water standards.

      The fuck? How does testing the water upstream prove anything whatsoever?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Good Thing They Linked Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checking to see if aquifers were contaminated.

  34. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are all doomed, DOOOOOOMED!

  35. One Word Thorium! by bufo333 · · Score: 1

    It is a shame that we are falling behind in IP related to safe thorium reactors that can never go critical, produce only commercially viable byproducts used in industry, and can be made small enough that every house could have a sealed thorium reactor powering them. The outdated thorium laws are also causing the US to cede rare earth metal production to china, when a change in laws would allow us to use plenty of rare earth metals mined in the US. Search for the documentary "The Thorium Problem". The US made a prototype thorium reactor in the early 50's that was slated to be used to keep our nuke bomber force in the air 24/7, it was test run for 50k plus hours before shutting down. Also thorium in its natural state is so mildly radioactive it sits in piles all around the US outside of rare earth metal mines. You can walk next to it sit on them. Thorium reactors do not need to be pressurized to run, they have to be artificially heated to over 800c to become fissile, so in the event it runs away a wax plug can be put in the bottom of the reactor that will melt and the thorium will drain out into a room temperature container and become non fissile. Also because of the temperatures required to keep them running they can be used to power chemical reactions in chemical plants directly without the need to turn steam into electricity. Another words we could harness the heat directly.

    1. Re:One Word Thorium! by bufo333 · · Score: 1

      It is a shame that we are falling behind in IP related to safe thorium reactors that can never go critical, produce only commercially viable byproducts used in industry, and can be made small enough that every house could have a sealed thorium reactor powering them. The outdated thorium laws are also causing the US to cede rare earth metal production to china, when a change in laws would allow us to use plenty of rare earth metals mined in the US.

      Search for the documentary "The Thorium Problem". The US made a prototype thorium reactor in the early 50's that was slated to be used to keep our nuke bomber force in the air 24/7, it was test run for 50k plus hours before shutting down. Also thorium in its natural state is so mildly radioactive it sits in piles all around the US outside of rare earth metal mines. You can walk next to it sit on them.

      Thorium reactors do not need to be pressurized to run, they have to be artificially heated to over 800c to become fissile, so in the event it runs away a wax plug can be put in the bottom of the reactor that will melt and the thorium will drain out into a room temperature container and become non fissile. Also because of the temperatures required to keep them running they can be used to power chemical reactions in chemical plants directly without the need to turn steam into electricity. Another words we could harness the heat directly.

  36. Don't Care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't Care. Find someone else.

  37. Coal sludge is bad, hyping it doesn't help by alispguru · · Score: 1

    One billion gallons is about 10 billion pounds.

    There was 140,000 pounds arsenic in 10 billion pounds of sludge.

    Concentration of arsenic in sludge is 1.4 * 10e5 / 1e10 = 1.4 * 10e-5

    Or about 1 part in 100,000.

    This is why they got away with it. Coal ash sludge is nasty, but not quite nasty enough to be a hazardous substance per se. Hell, one of the best ways to get rid of it is to add it to concrete, which is then poured where people live.

    The figure you should worry about is the change in the arsenic level in the river after the spill. I didn't see that figure in the article.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  38. Re:71 years, Hanford is still a radiactive cesspoo by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    The DOE's cleanup job is a joke here. I refuse to support any new nuclear power plant in the U.S. until it can be proven that the mess that results can be cleaned up.

    Now, that's a bit too far. Hanford was contaminated long before we had any good understanding of how to properly contain radioactive waste, had any solid idea of what kind of harm it could do, and had any kind of national environmental regulation that established standards for proper handling. Oh, and it was a military site which meant that it would have likely been handled incredibly irresponsibly due to the lack of accountability that secrecy provides them.

    You should consider whether or not in the current framework with a civilian project forced to obey modern standards whether or not such a mess is likely to occur again and whether it's likely to occur in a manner that creates such a nightmare in the first place. It may still be reasonable to conclude, "No," but you really should hold up Hanford as the measuring stick for what can be done over 50 years (and an entire environmental movement) later.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  39. Think about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now there's plenty of CO2 for plants to breathe you dummy. Do you hate trees?
    I am the Lorax, speaker for the trees

  40. Republicans enjoy this sort of filth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so expect them to just keep dumping more and more of this stuff in streams. If the latest proposals pass here in NC, the state is going to start paying Duke Power (err, they whine like children when you call them that, but they sell power but the idiot Republicans that own them aren't smart enough to understand that so they demand you to lie and call them Energy) to increase pollution because in the mind of a conservatives, companies are dumping enough pollution in rivers yet. Those people are disgusting.

  41. Carbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carbon based life forms have no use for coal?
    We ARE coal.
    On a serious note, you can use coal to whiten your teeth.

  42. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to ask, as a foreigner, but...

    What are you going to do about it?

  43. It is not "coal sludge." It's coal ash slurry. by kriston · · Score: 1

    It is not "coal sludge." It's coal ash slurry.

    Did the OP even read the article? Even TFA refers to the flood as consisting of coal ash slurry.

    There is no such thing as "coal sludge," but there is "coal slurry" which is something entirely different from coal ash slurry that allows transport of coal through pipelines in a very expensive process.

    --

    Kriston

  44. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's smaller. What's more annoying(as a local...ish) is that the state department of environmental regulation has been gutted by a governor who actually owns a lot of stock in Duke Energy. And even after the big news about this, it turns out that Duke actually still has pumps designed to pump coal ash directly from their pools into the cape fear river "for maintenance", in direct violation of the clean water act.

    They excused it by saying "we didn't get any recommendation against it by the state environmental agency".

    Well the state environmental agency did not recommend against me bashing his head in with a bat either.

  45. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

    Submit to soylentnews.org Bring the better commenters with you.

  46. Re:Where have I heard about spills like this befor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    medium.com is like the windows 8 of websites. It looks like they tried so hard they made it bad.

  47. cubic yards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It is ordained that 3 grains of barley dry and round do make an inch, 12 inches make 1 foot, 3 feet make 1 yard, 5 yards and a half make a perch, and 40 perches in length and 4 in breadth make an acre."

    Remarkable that some people still use imperial measures.

  48. I'll give you that, yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not at all in favor of nuclear power, I think it's an inefficient, obsolete technology that we haven't got the organizational and ethical capacity to run safely.

    But hell, yeah! It's a shitload better than coal! And the costs of fracking are increasing even as the yields are falling.

    Even greenies like me can see that fossil fuels are poisoning us.

    But I'd rather skip fission and move on to something less than 30 years out of date, technologically. Nuclear fission isn't really sustainable either.

  49. Does not compare to Texas City Disaster by TheSync · · Score: 1

    How is this the worse industrial disaster in US history, compared with the Texas City Disaster that killed 581 people, injured more than 5,000 people, and destroyed 500 homes, 1100 vehicles, and 362 rail cars due to an explosion of 2.9 kilotons TNT equivalent energy?

  50. how do you define "worst"? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Cost?
    Then the inflated values of today will win.
    Deaths?
    Long term medical effects?
    Gigatons of waste produced?

    "Worst" is a worthlessly subjective word without context.

    --
    -Styopa
  51. Actually, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The downstream areas are owned mostly by the local elite; There are multimillion-dollar homes on Watts bar lake. :) Several of my bosses live there. :D

    I live just above the spill area, on the Emory river.

    All this spill did was cover the vast amounts of radioactive sludge that was dumped for the last 50 years from the Oak Ridge Reservation, just upstream.

    We have All the radioactives here; there's even a lake with radiation signs around it. (White Oak Lake, WO Creek drains the ORNL area.)

    This was a drop in the bucket, as far as pollution is concerned. :)

  52. Pay All Effected by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    If the quality of life of the local people has been effected then financial compensation is in order. Can kids play in the creeks or eat fish caught locally? Are people worried about health issues fro the spill? Each and every one effected should be paid for the negatives put upon the area. I should have said paid large!

  53. Re:what "company"? It's a government operated plan by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Did the government actually run it or was it subcontracted out to private industry?

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  54. owned and operated by tva.gov by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It was owned and operated by Tennessee Valley Authority, http://www.tva.gov/

    Until the early 1960s, there was plenty of private coal activity in the area. The problem happened after the government tried to do something other than govern. (Government does the best job of governing, running courts, etc. Their track record in industry isn't good.)

  55. Side (Metric) Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Americans gotta get your shit together with your Imperial system. Gallons? Pounds? Cubic yards? WTF?!

    I'm kinda surprised that you use a decimal base for counting! Every time I read a number "10" in such a text as above, I have to mentally calm myself down and assure myself that it's not in base 17 so something.

  56. Re:71 years, Hanford is still a radiactive cesspoo by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Church Rock would be a better example? Shame they didn't do hardly any follow up studies on the effects on the people, being poor native Americans why bother.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  57. see you later by skoony · · Score: 0

    this is an unmitigated disaster.all those poisons released into environment. people are falling dead all around me.i feel faint er,ach,choke, good bye.

  58. That Does It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm never buying RAM from them again!

  59. Re:71 years, Hanford is still a radiactive cesspoo by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Church Rock would be a better example? Shame they didn't do hardly any follow up studies on the effects on the people, being poor native Americans why bother.

    That was more of a mining disaster than a nuclear power disaster and would have had similar cleanup issues if the heavy metal contamination was non-radioactive.

    Mining disasters are frequently rife with issues of irresponsibility and expenses dumped on taxpayers, poor government oversight due to local corruption, and issues of environmental justice (i.e. the fact that polluting industries tend to seek out poor communities to avoid NIMBYism and to get locals to look the other way when a "job creator" is coming to town). The potential issues of racism and state & federal governments taking any opportunity to shaft Native Americans are just a cherry on top in this case -- but largely irrelevant to the question of the safety of nuclear power.

    While he whitewashes the morality of the issue, Jared Diamond's "Collapse" has a pretty good introduction to all the horrors the mining industry creates and why.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  60. we learned plenty by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    we learned that if we don't live in mining states, we can close our eyes, or at most go "tsk tsk" and turn the page, and nothing will happen to us.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  61. Re: There real reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear power is so expensive because of the anti-nuke people. If the construction of a new nuke plant were not opposed with lawsuits that cost millions to overcome, and every other rediculous tactic used to prevent them being constructed or even stopped once they have begun construction the cost of nuke based power would be a fraction of that of coal.

    What nukes need is a PR campaign to counteract the misinformation and confusion that the anti-nukers spread. Of course developing a new design that is not based on WWII weapons breeding tech would go a long way to helping as well. Modern designs breed less weapons grade material, burn more and produce vastly less "waste".

  62. This is a quote from Dr. Strangelove. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Watch the movie; it's good. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani