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."

31 of 290 comments (clear)

  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 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."
    2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

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

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

    6. 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!
    7. 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?
    8. 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"

    9. 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!
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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!

    14. 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.
  2. Re:There real reason ... by BullInChina · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Where have I heard about spills like this before? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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).,

  12. 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".

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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