Slashdot Mirror


Tunnel Collapses At Nuclear Facility Once Called 'An Underground Chernobyl Waiting To Happen' (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Managers at the Hanford Site in Washington State told workers to "take cover" Tuesday morning after a tunnel leading to a massive plutonium finishing plant collapsed. The emergency is especially worrisome, since Hanford is commonly known as "the most toxic place in America," with one former governor calling it "an underground Chernobyl waiting to happen." Worrisome might actually be an understatement. An emergency has been declared. The accident occurred near the 200 East Area, the home of several solid waste sites. More specifically, the tunnel that collapsed was one filled with highly radioactive train cars that once carried spent fuel rods containing deeply dangerous plutonium and uranium from a reactor on the Columbia River to the processing facility. Those reactors once produced plutonium for America's nuclear arsenal, though production ended in 1980. The cleanup process that followed has gone on for nearly 30 years. Back to the poor workers, though. They've been instructed to stay indoors, and one manager reportedly sent out a message telling workers to "secure ventilation in your building" and "refrain from eating or drinking." When you can't even have a glass of water, you know the nuclear emergency is bad. The U.S. Department of Energy sent out a press release around 1pm EST that said "facility personnel have been evacuated," while workers at nearby sites have been instructed to stay indoors. A spokesperson also told the press that "there was no evidence to suggest that radioactive materials had been released and that all of the workers in the area were accounted for."

188 comments

  1. Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People like you are the reason why its so dangerous, because any attempt at improving nuclear power is opposed by ignorant mouth breathers like you who would rather let our existing nuclear facilities age and decay, who will lobby and rally against any upgrades or improvements, because the only solution you can possibly comprehend is 'nuclear bad make go away"

    2. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      You mean carbon?

    3. Re:Here's an idea by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no more lithium batteries???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Here's an idea by klingens · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is no nuclear facility you can "improve", which you can make better in any way: it's a waste dump of highly toxic, highly volatile materials. These exist and transmutation of them is a bullshit theory of people too stupid for physics (meaning it is damn expensive in research and then energy to transmute, so expensive it's a pipedream one stop below a perpetuum mobile).

      This is one of many waste dumps around Hanford that you have to watch over for a few tens of thousands of years. Now think what happens in 12.000 AD: does anyone then even know that there might be a radioactive waste dump in the area when such a hole opens?

    5. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is a bullshit theory of people too stupid for physics

      Except it's not bullshit, it was called the IFR. Which was shitcanned because oh my god a russian/terrorist might wade into a running reactor and use a pair of tweezers to pull out the fissionable uranium atoms from the glowing stew before they got consumed too, and use them to make a bomb.

    6. Re:Here's an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      The waste at Hanford is from producing weapons, not energy. This has nothing to do with nuclear power.

    7. Re:Here's an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now think what happens in 12.000 AD

      Sure, there is a 0.0001% chance that 10000 years from now a handful of people might be harmed. If we evaluate all technology by the same standard, we would never do anything. The harm caused by global warming is far greater, far more imminent, and much more certain.

    8. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boron, moron.

    9. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    10. Re:Here's an idea by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Hopefully by 12,000 AD we'll have come up with a better disposal and recovery solution than "bury it and look the other way." Either that or we'll all be dead there won't be anyone left to care. The critters that happen to be on top of the hole will die and the rest of whatever's left of the environment will carry on as usual. We're the only species that gives a crap about life on an individual level.

    11. Re:Here's an idea by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      Because Hanford was a WEAPONS plant. It has nothing to do with commercial application of nuclear energy. But climate engineering does, if you people sincerely believe in it.

    12. Re:Here's an idea by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, you're still producing energy. Just... a lot faster.

    13. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe people ought to stop doing things that they cannot handle right now. Creating dangerous materials and simply wishing that people of the future will be able to handle the mess of the aftermath is incredibly shortsighted and irresponsible.

      By C.E. 12.000, there is a good chance that humans won't even exist to deal with these problems.

    14. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that explosives are sometimes (somewhat euphemistically) called "high energy materials". And the whole nuclear-weapons-fall-under-DoE's-purview thingy...

    15. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no nuclear facility you can "improve",

      Impossible to improve, can't handle waste any better than we're handling it, this cave in was inevitable and no amount of money or research or planning could have made it any better. Nope, this waste is handled in the most perfect way possible. That tunnel, was the best tunnel, made by the best people obviously.

    16. Re:Here's an idea by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's got both military and civilian waste, and there is still very interesting ongoing work on reprocessing at the place which is described on their website.
      It's a very large site and a lot of activities have occurred there in different buildings over many years.
      The rolling stock that's mentioned in the summary is not exactly Chernobyl material - just something radioactive enough to be too dangerous to stand next to for a while. It's a good example of the vast amount of low level radioactive waste existing that the "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people try to pretend does not exist for some bizzare reason (I don't know why they do this since the low level stuff is not so difficult to store).

    17. Re:Here's an idea by doom · · Score: 1

      This is no nuclear facility you can 'improve', which you can make better in any way ...

      But what if they switch to a gluten-free diet?

    18. Re:Here's an idea by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Umm, you do realize almost all life on earth is carbon based, including humans.

    19. Re:Here's an idea by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I came seriously close to visiting the site this weekend. I was making plans with some friends but it was such a nice day we wound up going to Rainier at the last minute.

    20. Re:Here's an idea by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      This is slashdot. People who love science but are mostly ignorant of it.

    21. Re:Here's an idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      I agree, but we're talking about nuclear here and not the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered.

    22. Re:Here's an idea by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      Life is controlled fire and fire is the combination of energy sources. Any energy source is inherently going to be dangerous to life (even the ones we depend on to survive like the sun or a few logs burning in a fireplace.) The more potential use an energy source has the more dangerous it is, get over it.

    23. Re:Here's an idea by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      They should have built an LFTR https://www.google.co.uk/url?s...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    24. Re:Here's an idea by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Now think what happens in 12.000 AD:

      I think I should finally be eligible for retirement. I'm going to be out on my boat not worrying about nuclear waste.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    25. Re:Here's an idea by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Well, you're still producing energy. Just... a lot faster.

      First Law of Thermodynamics disagrees. You're never producing energy.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    26. Re:Here's an idea by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Hopefully by 12,000 AD we'll have figure out to use the energy from the sun without producing toxic waste - or mining toxic materials - or paying for those mined materials. At best, Nuclear should be a stopgap on the way there. And short term, converting coal plants to natural gas seems to provide more bang for the buck more safely.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    27. Re:Here's an idea by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Define "cannot handle."

      We seem to be pretty bad at handling basically every sort of pollution -- we've got the great garbage patch in the Pacific and smaller ones in basically all of the other oceans because we can't handle plastics. We've got CO2 and other greenhouse gases because we can't handle fossil fuels. We've got Superfund sites all over the US (and many similar, frequently even worse sites, around the world) because we can't handle any number of chemical processes.

      Hell, go back a couple hundred years (and even in modern times in some places) and we have all sorts of diseases running rampant due to being unable to handle our own literal shit.

      And of course in basically all of those cases, its not so much "we cannot handle it" as "we don't want to handle it." The real problem is that there's no significant deterrent to just walking away from a disaster you caused. Sure your company can be sued but oh well you just pay yourself a huge severance package and leave whoever takes over the company to declare bankruptcy and oops.. now there's nobody left to do the clean up. The Superfund was built to handle this of course, but regardless of the superlative name they've only got so many resources and for the most part nobody really cares unless one of those sites happens to be in their own back yard, so funding isn't usually a big priority in any political process. Never mind all of the disasters in other countries that don't have a Superfund equivalent.

    28. Re:Here's an idea by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      is a bullshit theory of people too stupid for physics

      Except it's not bullshit, it was called the IFR. Which was shitcanned because

      It was shitcanned because it threatened the oil and coal industries.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    29. Re:Here's an idea by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That again?
      That thing keeps on resurfacing so much that it's making people look like Tesla broadcast power fanatics.
      It was a good idea in it's time but the research has been built on and improved a great deal since then, most recently in India. Perhaps you should take a look at what India has been doing with Thorium and that will cure your desire to bring back an impractical devils brew of radioactive and highly reactive liquid metals that the world had moved on from.

      Are you one of those "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people? A liquid flourine thorium reactor is not going to be able to do anything with the low level waste at Harford, it's for used fuel rods, weapon materials and other highly active things can already be dealt with by other technologies (including a MOX process at Harford).

    30. Re:Here's an idea by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      A liquid flourine thorium reactor

      ... would be an interesting thing to see. From a distance. Several AU would be a good start, I think.

      I think you mean "liquid fluoride". A bit of a difference.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    31. Re:Here's an idea by torkus · · Score: 1

      And we continue to learn and improve.

      Any modern (and even most 3rd world) countries have learned basic hygiene ... so we handle our literal shit pretty well these days.

      We handle chemical processes much better than 75 years ago when WW2 factories were dumping waste into municipal sewers or just open dirt pits.

      Nuclear anything has been a boogie man for so long ... we don't handle it at all. We put it on the shelf and argue about what we should do with it because someone might do Bad Things with it.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  2. EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by jhoegl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    De-funded at the worst time.

    1. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by DavesError · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Rick Perry will save the day. /s

    2. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      While the EPA may declare this an environmental disaster. The DOE needs to reclassify plutonium as a mineral. The FDA can come up with an RDA for plutonium. The workers and nearby population can be told there is nothing to worry about. Go about your business as normal. Move along. Move along.

      RDA = Recommended Daily Allowance, like the vitamins listed on your breakfast cereal boxes.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is it you think the EPA was going to do about a tunnel collapse exactly?

    4. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      RDA = Recommended Daily Allowance, like the vitamins listed on your breakfast cereal boxes.

      It is easy to see if you have met your RDA for plutonium:

      Turn off the lights.

      If you glow in the dark, you've had too much.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by denzacar · · Score: 2

      Just think of all the money we'd save on electricity if everyone just glowed in the dark.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US RDA for Pu is 1 atom, directly in the lungs.

      That will solve the health insurance crisis, and a bunch of other things.

    7. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EPA isn't there to prevent tunnels from collapsing. The EPA is there to help minimize the subsequent impact on the environment. In part by doing that horrible fake thing called "science".

    8. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by sit1963nz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well nothing now, they are too busy trying to figure out how coal can be portrayed as "safe clean energy"

      Now that all those pesky scientists have gone they can be replaced with Marketing Experts from Industry, hell they may be able to put such a huge spin on this we may have to reconsider if perpetual motion is real or not.

    9. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Thank God for Coal /s

    10. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But the EPA for the last 8 years under Obama was what was keeping this tunnel from collapsing? Gotcha.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Backfill the tunnel with concrete. Immobilize the problem so it doesn't wash into the water table, then cover with dirt and call it a national park. Yes seriously, this crazy plan is better than what they've been doing.

    12. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That is, when the EPA isn't actually causing natural disasters by dumping mine sludge into rivers, or bankrupting farmers who do Eeeeeevil things like dig in a small stock pond to hold water in one of their cattle pens.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by geek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well nothing now, they are too busy trying to figure out how coal can be portrayed as "safe clean energy"

      Now that all those pesky scientists have gone they can be replaced with Marketing Experts from Industry, hell they may be able to put such a huge spin on this we may have to reconsider if perpetual motion is real or not.

      Is this what flies as an intelligent argument from leftists?

    14. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Hanford comes under DoD, I believe. As such, the EPA has never had any input into the conditions of the place.

      Note a difference between Hanford and Chernobyl (other than the fact that we don't test nuclear power plants to destruction the way they did) - Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant. Hanford isn't about producing power, it's about producing Pu239....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Seems a fairly astute observation. Left to his own, and to Bannon, I'm sure Trump would have killed the EPA entire.

      Of course, things aren't that simple, and if the rumors are true, the delay in Trump's grand commitment to exiting the Paris agreement is because Kushner, Tillerson, and dare I even say it, no less than Rick Perry himself think the US should stay in it, with Bannon and Pruitt fighting to pull the US out. I find it fascinating that every hot button issue now has Kushner on one side, and Bannon on the other.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
      The EPA is directly involved with the Hanford cleanup operation. The work is being done under the direct management of the DOE, but their results are reviewed by the EPA.

      CERCLA 121(c) requires five-year reviews on remedial actions when hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on site above levels that allow for “unlimited use and unrestricted exposure”. A general overview of the review process can be found in this presentation. The first Five-Year Review was completed in 2001 by EPA staff. The Department of Energy (DOE) chose to conduct the second Five-Year Review which had draft 0 completed in 2006. When DOE performs the review, as in 2006, EPA is still required to review the report and provide comments/concurrence in a letter of review.

      Given how poorly the Hanford cleanup has gone under the leadership of the DOE, more involvment by the EPA might lead to a better result. If you carefully read the preceding paragraph, you will note that the DOE took over the review process from the EPA after the first report. Having a department review it'sown work is not exactly the best way to insure that they are doing a good job. After this latest failure, it is obvious that the DOE is not doing a very good job.

      There is a cosmic irony in the juxtaposition of this problem at Hanford and the shutdown of scientific advisory panels at the EPA and the Department of the Interior. Inevitably some of these efforts involve the Hanford site. It is a stark reminder that ignoring science is always a bad idea.

      By the way, why are you picking on the EPA in the first place? I detect the stench of a right wing troll.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    17. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      RBMK - the reactor type that was used in Chernobyl - is based on a military reactor because the lead designer was too lazy to come up with something better than upscaling his previous work.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    18. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you're gonna try to make coal look clean and safe, a nuclear disaster is your best bet!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      This. It doesn't seem like a very difficult problem to solve.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is, when the EPA isn't actually causing natural disasters by dumping mine sludge into rivers,

      Gosh, let's see who is responsible. For the mine polluting the river for years. For refusing EPA cleanup money for years? What, you say, the local companies were afraid to lose the tourist dollars if they admitted there was a problem? Who stopped up the mine instead of treating it? The Colorado DRMS?

      Yeah, I blame the Colorado legislature for not reigning in their wayward counties and agencies.

      or bankrupting farmers who do Eeeeeevil things like dig in a small stock pond to hold water in one of their cattle pens.

      You mean the farmer who refused to stop all of the runoff from his badly sited cattle pen from polluting the city's water supply? Even after they and the EPA offered to loan him the money at below market rates.

      Oh derpatoroid didn't check the facts twice.

    21. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans need to get over their partisan bullshit. No it wasn't, but them having less resources now that it has collapsed isnt going to make solving the problem easier.

    22. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I'd say it's extremely obvious sarcasm but don't let that stop you doing some political cheerleading.

      I don't think this is about "left" or "right" anyway. Nixon had a lot to say about pollution. The Soviets had Lysenkoism and current trends seem to be going in that direction - reality being defined by what the State says it is and don't let those pesky facts get in the way.

    23. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're dead then you had too much.

      Plutonium is ferociously toxic, and that's actually a far bigger problem than any radiation it might emit.

    24. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Small stock ponds" take water from regular tributaries which have shit relying on them downstream. It's like claiming that taking all of the snow off of the top of the Rockies wouldn't cause problems in California.

      Do I think farmers are evil? No. But they are certainly (oftentimes) thoughtless of the people that they impact.

    25. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the EPA was fully funded for pretty much the whole time that this disaster was getting prepped, it's unlikely that the EPA is the solution to the disaster.

    26. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      I would not put Kushner in too good of a light. I'd rate him right up there with the Jewish money changers christ threw out of the temple. Except there was no one to throw him out of the white house when they were selling EB-5's in china for the family biz. At first I thought he was only complicit. Now I think he is all in.

    27. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember, its just like dumping untreated sewage into the Great Lakes every time it rains... When government does it, it is a calculated and proper decision made with the best experts understanding how negligible the impact will be.

      Unlike the farmer who has a break in his silt fence, that guy needs to learn a damned lesson!

    28. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope Trump doesn't let the NRC lose its quorum this summer like FERC already has. He needs to get a move on with nominating someone so they can be confirmed.

    29. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The DOE needs to reclassify plutonium. The FDA can come up with an RDA.

      But seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.

    30. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      There's a US nuclear physicist, can't remember his name at the moment, who has an standing offer open that he'll eat as much plutonium as someone else will eat caffeine. No-one has taken him up on it.

      The deadliness of plutonium is somewhat overrated.

    31. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Demena · · Score: 1

      There is actually a minimum amount of ionising radiation needed for optimum health and that amount is non-zero. So, yes there is a legitimate RDA for radiation even if no one publishes one. In most places in the world the background radiation is below the optimum amount. Flying, X-rays etc add to that from the background.

      This process (in general) is called 'hormesis' and applies in many other field.

    32. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Demena · · Score: 1

      No. Anything with intelligence would recognise that as sarcasm just as they recognise your response to it is butt hurt nastiness. From either side of the political fence.

    33. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Demena · · Score: 1

      Until you add in the C14

    34. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And yet he and Ivanka are basically Democrats. So if they beat out Bannon in influence, I'll take them, corrupt or not. Right now it's not about corruption, it's about sanity, and I think Bannon is well and truly insanely evil.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      RIP.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    36. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      I think Bannon is well and truly insanely evil

      I think you meant to say "chaotic evil".

    37. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the lead designer was too lazy to come up with something better than upscaling his previous work.

      More like the USSR was consistently spending 40% (yes, forty percent) of her GDP on military and related efforts, like railways, meaning very little resources remained for purely civilian projects.

      They re-used as much military tech and industry as possible. E.g. sometime soviet sewing machines had internally rifled main axle in them, since the factory was primarily about making light machine guns and only the excess went to civilian production off-season. Some years they had to purposefully manufacture completed gunbarrels and then secretly chop them up for use in sewing machine axles, since they's not receive a material use allowance for civilan products when the planned economy had some kind of hardship.

      It is bizarre you expect the USSR designed separate nuclear powerplants for civilian use from the ground up, spending mega bucks, considering they were almost always on the brink of bankruptcy, which eventually happened under Gorbachev.

    38. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Is this what flies as an intelligent argument from leftists?

      Radionuclides aren't energetic in the political spectrum.

      The true test will be if accurate and factual information will be released about exactly *which* radionuclides, and how much of them have been released. This will be essential to know as many of these will be bio-concentrating in the water table and food chain over time.

      That's the whole reason they are trying to clean up the site in the first place.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    39. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Thank God for Coal /s

      Russia will quake in their boots at the thoughts of our ICBMs with Coal Warheads.

      Return Crimea to Ukraine you commie dogs or we will fill your cities with smog by launching our coal warheads at you.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    40. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Just think of all the money we'd save on electricity if everyone just glowed in the dark.

      The movie industry would have a new scape goat for theatres not filling. It's too bright in the cinema with everyone glowing, no one can see the picture.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    41. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, like literally digging a 40-foot-wide hole in your field to collect rainwater.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      If you're dead, it may not be from consuming in excess of the RDA of plutonium, it may be from not consuming enough of another important mineral the FDA should recognize. Lead. The administration could help solve this problem by getting more municipal water projects to to add lead to the drinking water.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    43. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      They are DINO's. In the end, they could give a crap about the little people. They speak the platitudes and that is it. They both are in it for the money. She IS the money changer at the white house. She has an office there to run her biz out of. D's need to figure out how to stop this soon. We are on the way to a train wreck just like Turkey did with erdogan. And in Turkey's case it was also right at the 50% approval magic number.

    44. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bet. We could tell them it's good for childrens' teeth!

    45. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then letting the tainted runoff get into somebody else's water supply.

      That's a violation of other people's rights.

    46. Re: EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The same field, with the same rainfall, with the same cow scat exists either way. In a strong rain, the pond CATCHES what would normally flow over a saturated surface. You have it exactly backwards. There's a reason they call them "storm water management ponds" in suburban settings. Which you know, but you're willing to pretend you don't so you can stretch a little more trying to embrace the regulatory morass that is the EPA and expanding its reach ever more, into things like what sort of bird feeder you might hang up in your back yard. Please stop wishing for a Nanny State.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    47. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      USSR had a civilian reactor (VVER). Matter of fact, the first VVER went online at the same time as RBMK development started and the same guy lead the scientific management for both project. The difference is that VVER was also managed by Kurchatov, but he died in 1960 and the previously mentioned guy took his place as the director of the Institute of Atomic Energy.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  3. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A giant lizard like creature has been spotted in the river approaching Portland.

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this is a bad thing, Portland needs its hipsters cleansed.

    2. Re:In other news... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      He was heard shouting "A 15-minute call could save you 15 percent (or more) on car insurance."

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:In other news... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Was it speaking Danish or Japanese?

      (Trying to figure out if it was Reptilicus or Godzilla)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it speaking Danish or Japanese?

      (Trying to figure out if it was Reptilicus or Godzilla)

      Not to worry, we have our man on the satellite of love reviewing all of the footage as we speak!

  4. I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On a news site supposedly devoted to technology and science.

    It's not a "Chernobyl waiting to happen" because they're not running the reactor hard to test the safety systems.

    They're worried about a release of radiation into the air through the permeability of the tunnel collapse and that's presuming the train cars were damaged in the collapse as well - if there is leakage we're looking at another Three Mile Island (and all the hysteria that went along with that)

    The bigger story here is why don't we have a more secure disposal facility for nuclear waste... oh wait... we DID and Harry Reid shut it down so the waste had to stay in this "Chernobyl like" facility.

    1. Re:I love seeing technophobia by DickBreath · · Score: 0

      There is no science to see here. Move along. This is the Trump administration. Now move along before I re-accommodate you.

      Radiation poses no more long term danger than climate change.

      We cannot have this incident distracting DoE resources from work on Clean Coal and getting the coal miners back to work.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:I love seeing technophobia by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: the miners are made of the same material as coal itself!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:I love seeing technophobia by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      The left likes to bitch about nucs too. If you want to wean us off carbon, nuclear will be necessary.

    4. Re:I love seeing technophobia by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Does your comment make sense to you?

      This is the responsibility of the DoE and congress. What do we do with our nuclear facilities? Do we update them? Build new ones? Moth ball the existing?

      This is a question of science and politics.

      The Trump administration wants to increase US wealth by not sending jobs and money elsewhere. Whether that makes sense or not we'll see. Free market types tend to disagree. Socialists tend to agree. (However most socialist leaning types would never, never,never agree with that evil Trump dude.)

      I think that coal is not on the forefront of the Trump administration (or most of the coal workers). What is on the forefront are blue collar jobs whether it is fracking, building a pipeline, or installing and repairing windmills as opposed to sending our money to Saudi Arabia and their band of merry misfits.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    5. Re: I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't we just use tons of lenses on tons of sterling engines hooked up to alternators charging tons of batteries?

    6. Re:I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they weren't, without proper protective equipment, this would be increasingly true anyway.

    7. Re:I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This tunnel contained TRAINS. Train cars. That's it. These trains once carried radioactive material, and so became a little ticky themselves, but the tunnel did not contain any actual nuclear material, spent fuel rods, or anything like that.

      This is horrid overblown panic-mongering by the media and anti-science anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace. Tell 'em to shove it, and ignore this sensationalist blather.

    8. Re: I love seeing technophobia by doom · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe if they're organic sterling lenses.

    9. Re: I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe if they're vegan organic sterling lenses.

      FTFY

    10. Re:I love seeing technophobia by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      My comment was not intended to be taken any more seriously than the current US government should be taken seriously.

      I would think that if you want to increase domestic jobs, there could be plenty of jobs installing solar and wind power. Maybe try some wave power in areas where it might be workable. Trump's seems focused on coal, and even made sure to have a photo op with a coal miner. Coal is definitely NOT the future of energy, even if Trump tries to make it so. While I can accept that some fracking, pipelines, and/or even drilling might be necessary, they should be minimized, not maximized. We should be looking at how to avoid these things not encourage them. Once you sell off federal lands for drilling, you probably can never undo that. Environmental damage done by pipelines can probably not be undone. I would be happy to reduce the money we send to Saudi Arabia. It would seem that maybe the administration should be not only pushing the future of energy but should be pushing the future of how to power automobiles. Push electric car battery development -- and make it friggin' domestic!

      The lack of these actions signal backward thinking. That's just my opinion. I think we could come up with plenty of 21st century blue collar jobs instead of 20th century blue collar jobs.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    11. Re:I love seeing technophobia by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Respectfully,

      Trump and the coal workers DO NOT CARE particularly about coal. It's about respect for Blue Collar professions. Over the past few generations the love of tinkering with ones hands of building things has been denigrated; been considered a "dead-end" job for people without brains and ambition. These photo ops are NOT for coal - it's showing respect.

      There have been enough interviews with coal miners that show that they realize that coal mining is done for. What they rightfully object to is the contempt and ridicule that the is heaped upon them from self-righteous hipsters. (Now I'm what would be classified as espresso-sipping, craft-beer snob, NY foodie hipster. I just happen to have respect for physical work and don't think the solution is turning everyone into IT workers; attorneys and whatever other "retraining" fad comes into people's minds.

      I think we should frack and drill and use the tax revenue for energy production (tidal, wind, solar), storage (batteries, flywheels) etc... We are in an in between stage. Alternate (non-fossil fuel) energy is growing fast, incredibly fast, but not fast enough. The only way to continue this is by having an economy that can afford the transition. We will need fracking and the pipeline, and off-shore drilling for

      1. tax revenues to spend on new infrastructure (storage,etc..)
      2. and to stop sending money to religious fanatics.
      Islam had lots of sects that were not backward looking fanatics. Until recently the Saudi Wahabbi's were looked down upon. And now, billions of dollars later, they are dominant. Yeah!!! So drilling here makes sense.
      3.The environment is global. We'll do a better job looking after the environment here than the Saudi's and Kuwati's will be there.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  5. 30 yr gig by ghoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    30 year gig to "clean up" a site. Wish I had founded a company to snag this sweet gig. The profits would have enormous - funding the anti nuke nuts would have been a small portion of the profit margin.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:30 yr gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of slows things down when you have to remotely operate an excavator from 1000 ft away.

    2. Re:30 yr gig by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      and then the excavator becomes radioactive and you have to dispose of it too.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:30 yr gig by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It's a nuclear site from the 1940s when people didn't seem to exactly care about what they were doing. Might be another 4000 years or so of job security.

    4. Re:30 yr gig by doom · · Score: 1

      One of the things you might conclude from this business is that you shouldn't put the Army in charge when you want things done cleanly.

      Another thing you might conclude is that every slogan that draws a comparison to Chernobyl is grossly inflammatory and can be safely ignored.

      "... make Chernobyl look like picnic."

    5. Re:30 yr gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a nuclear site from the 1940s when people didn't seem to exactly care about what they were doing. Might be another 4000 years or so of job security.

      Errmmm not so much on the job security, basically when your badge changes color you are fired, not only from the job but from the industry because you have taken all the radiation you can take for your lifetime. The job security thing doesn't quite work the way you think it does.

    6. Re:30 yr gig by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its more a US version of the Kyshtym disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:30 yr gig by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      It's not that they didn't care, they didn't know. See Marie Curie for an early example of this.

    8. Re:30 yr gig by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The profits would have enormous

      And there in lies the problem.

    9. Re:30 yr gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Anti-Nuke nuts are nuts, but you don't have to be a nut to see this as obvious proof that nuclear energy has hazardous external costs. Costs so severe that make it economically, ethically, politically, and practically un-fit as a means of energy production.

  6. perhaps stay out of the area by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    Hanford. I remember friend and I drove to the road adjacent to this property to view the total eclipse in 1979 (wide open flat area). Looks like have to find another location to view total eclipse this August.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nuclear waste storage area and an eclipse viewing party on the high desert? Damn, you were just waiting for your story to be turned into a found footage sci-fi movie, weren't you?

    2. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that or a super hero origin story.

    3. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I plan on taking the LIGO tour out there this year. Back in 1980 I drove past Hanford about every week taking care of sister radio stations in Yakima and Richland.

      w7com, an old batlabs lurker. Need any old Jedi radios, Mike?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by elcor · · Score: 1

      It's close to most farms in Washington, feeding all of Washington and neighboring states. Radiations goes underground = the entire state's food supply contaminated.

    5. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by Nethead · · Score: 1

      That's not quite how it works. Now it leaching into the Columbia River.....

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    6. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This year's eclipse is supposed to be best viewed from central Kentucky anyway. Washington state is about 1500 miles off, making for a less-than-ideal vantage point.

    7. Re:perhaps stay out of the area by PSXer · · Score: 1

      Considering the path of totality doesn't pass through Hanford, that would probably be a good idea.

  7. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Fake News!

  8. News by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find the prose and opinion in these kinds of news stories to be annoying. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the bias of this particular story, the "Back to the poor workers, though" bit had me wondering if one of the worker's grandmothers wrote this news or what.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re: News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Poor workers" is fine. It's obvious too. If they weren't poor, they wouldn't cart dangerous material around all day would they?

    2. Re:News by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nope, just mdsolar under the guise of an Anonymous Coward.

  9. Didn't Stephen King... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I see a dome for Washington... unfortunately, it's for the wrong Washington.

  10. No worries, DoE is on the job! by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    he United States Department of Energy activated its emergency teams to the Hanford Site.

    Thankfully our POTUS appointed a highly qualified and intelligent person with n political agenda to lead the Department of Energy, so we know this will be handled in the safest and most intelligent manner possible.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The damage has already happened. The way to deal with this going forward is simple...... Tons and tons of pumped concrete. Keep pumping into the crater caused by collapse, until there is no longer a hole, then pump in more tons to create a 5ft slab over the top of the tunnel

    2. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is primarily funding. The funds necessary to clean it up aren't coming from the feds. The other issues which are also incredibly challenging, but without funding it's a moot point.

      I think the governor should refuse any more shipments until there's a real plan to deal with the clean up in place and funded.

    3. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The way to deal with this going forward is simple...... Tons and tons of pumped concrete. Keep pumping into the crater caused by collapse, until there is no longer a hole, then pump in more tons to create a 5ft slab over the top of the tunnel

      Can we at least pump in fracking fluid, instead of concrete? Then we could get some natural gas out of the deal.

      Although, instead of the neighbors' tap water just burning . . . it will come roaring out as a thermonuclear plasma reaction!

      That would be cool.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea that concrete can contain such waste is absurd, and Chernobyl demonstrates that. Concrete is not some sort of an impermeable layer. Apart from the fact that it's possible the decay of whatever is down in that tunnel will probably eat at the concrete over time, concrete is vulnerable to water damage, and more importantly to cracking. Ask anyone who has poured a concrete slab, if you don't have stable soil and fill beneath a slab, and if you don't put control joints into a slab, it will crack. That's not even talking about other potential issues like frost heave or the potential that such waste could still find its way out of its "tomb" and into the water table.

      Dumping tons of concrete into the hole is not a long term solution. I wouldn't even call it a medium term solution, and doing it will likely complicate future cleanup or containment.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      possible the decay of whatever is down in that tunnel will probably eat at the concrete over time

      Yeah...isn't that what caused this collapse?

    6. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me, though even normal erosion can take concrete out. Up here in Canada we've seen a lot of concrete bridges and overpasses undermined by the use of salt and brine sprays to keep roads and highways clear in winter.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Tons and tons of pumped concrete.

      Isn't that exactly what just failed?

    8. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. ALL concrete cracks. It's just a matter of how big the cracks are. Concrete is in no way impermeable, it just typically leaks at a rate well below that of evaporation of what it is containing. If you want impermeable, you're looking at welded metal which is what this stuff is currently stored in. Sadly welded metal is typically carbon steel which degrades over time and radioactive waste is particularly corrosive...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  11. "but back to the worker suffering" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like that's the only concern here. Also, they were evacuated with no apparent harm according to the summary. It's obvious what ideology gizmodo operates under.

  12. Was the summary written by a third grader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Reads like something from a British tabloid like "The Mirror" or "Daily Mail." BeauHD, why don't you finish secondary school before you pick a job like this?

    1. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not a nuclear power plant. It is a wast dump from cold war activities. How stupid to say it is another Chernobyl waiting to happen. That screams ignorance.

    2. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't actually my job....

    3. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also haven't made it to secondary school yet..

    4. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point, though. The insoluble problem with Nuclear Power isn't outdated reactor designs - it's the tons of highly radioactive waste products that need to be stored for decades in systems that are themselves complex and subject to failure.

      And those improved reactors we've yet to see in practice will still keep churning out the stuff.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point, though. The insoluble problem with Nuclear Power isn't outdated reactor designs - it's the tons of highly radioactive waste products that need to be stored for decades in systems that are themselves complex and subject to failure.

      And those improved reactors we've yet to see in practice will still keep churning out the stuff.

      More ignorance. The waste issues at Hanford are all the nasty stuff that was never properly handled to begin with. Liquids and chemical used for defense research and production. Spent fuel is nowhere near the problem, it is actually quite easy to manage. Unfortunately, most people can't differentiate between the two. That, coupled with ignorance about radiation risk, leads us to failure when it comes to real carbon reduction. No power source has come close to nuclear in reducing carbon contributions. But alas, ignorance and fear rule. We must do away with our most effective clean air power source.

    6. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The insoluble problem with Nuclear Power

      Not "insoluble", but "unsolved". With the arguable exception of Finland, no country I'm aware of has implemented a deliberately designed long-term strategy for handling and storing long-half-life high level waste. NIMBYism has shot down every other half-way serious attempt at building a long-term solution, from Yucca Mountain to Drigg.

      You've got me wondering what the French do now.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. Trump collapses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else misread the title as "TRUMP Collapses At Nuclear Facility Once Called 'An Underground Chernobyl Waiting To Happen'"?

  14. Site is an unholy mess by Bugler412 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've done engineering work on the site (new storage tanks). This site is a perfect example of how technical neglect or ignorance (the early days of nuclear) combined with entrenched bureaucracy and underfunding of the cleanup project can land you in a giant mess that's difficult (at best) to resolve. Hanford is and was an accident waiting to happen, and it could happen at literally any time, contaminating beyond any reasonable ability to cleanup the entire Columbia river basin when the big accident finally happens. And with current funding and environmental attitudes of the current regime, it's not going to get better.

    1. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason I got my ass out of Yakima as soon as I could!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a hurried wartime effort, and the science was just being discovered. The mess is a byproduct of weapons production, unrelated to nuclear energy. Armed with a better understanding, there is no need to repeat it.

      Thorium Research in the Manhattan Project Era provides a fascinating history of this time period. While thorium proved to be useless for weapons, it was recognized as the superior choice for sustainably generating power. Unfortunately, the scientists were sworn to secrecy, and the public remained ignorant. Politicians are responsible for the foolish choices that resulted in the stagnation of nuclear technology, and the eventual accidents which provided fodder for the anti-nuclear movement.

    3. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming the current administration has nothing to do with the cleanup of this site or the accident that has happened. This has been 30+ years in the making Stop fear mongering. We need money for lots of infrastructure which is what the current Administration campaigned on.

    4. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big government contracts = gigantic money nipple.

      If you can use panic to secure government funding then why the heck would you want to actually *solve* the problem?
      Keep the problem alive as long as possible to maximize funding.

    5. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technical neglect

      this is what you should worry about, 1000's of reactors in decay, due to maximizing profits. Big accidents WILL happen, maximizing profits will keep happening. with ANY type of reactor, also the newest ones.
      managers trying to pinch the last penny out of these things is a serious security concern.

    6. Re:Site is an unholy mess by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      only saying that the current administration isn't offering any prospects on improving the situation, that's all. The last administration didn't either.

  15. All the solar wind hydro working fine in WA OR by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Good thing we don't use nuclear fission here.

    Well, except for the old submarines and naval ships.

    Retrofitting them for fusion is only partially under way, mostly for the ones with laser defense systems.

    Reminder: if we had stored this radioactive mess under the White House, it wouldn't be an issue.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:All the solar wind hydro working fine in WA OR by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Isn't WHPPS 2 (whoops too!) still running?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:All the solar wind hydro working fine in WA OR by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Only in the movies

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:All the solar wind hydro working fine in WA OR by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Still running. Got a personal tour by the director back in the 80s, family friend.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  16. Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, what a fear-mongering summary.

    "When you can't even have a glass of water, you know the nuclear emergency is bad."

    No. Its called following a predefined set of safety protocols for a take cover event. Contrary to popular belief, its better to be safe than sorry until the actual severity and impact of an event is determined.

    The lawsuits from not acting vs overreacting are quite dichotomous.

  17. Scaremongering by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work a mile from the site border, and connect remotely to the government network there for my job, and have worked on site.

    There was no radiological release; no contamination was spread.

    Employees were instructed to shut off HVAC and to avoid eating and drinking for several hours; these moratoriums have been lifted.

    The site has essentially been evacuated. All non-essential employees have been released for the day. Swing shift cancelled (again, except non-essential personnel).

    Can we please stop with the scaremongering? The worst thing about Hanford is that no work ever gets done out there because safety is quite literally job number 1: they've extraordinarily happy that you don't get any work done as long as you're safe not doing it. Hanford's just a huge money sink.

    Hell, I didn't even hear about it until my mother in law halfway across the state texted me.

    1. Re:Scaremongering by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the non fear mongering version of events.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Scaremongering by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Scaremongering really is needed though. The only way anything's going to get done, not just at that site but with all of the old sites, is if people start worrying about their back yards.

      Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear regime has directed all of the scariness of nuclear in the wrong direction: We're petrified of new, safer nuclear options while we simultaneously ignore the old, decaying nuclear sites that already exist and are at moderate to extreme risk of disaster due to neglect and simply being well past their design spec age.

      So what we need is not to stop the scaremongering. What we need to do is redirect the scaremongering to the issues that are actually relevant now rather than theoretical future issues that may or may not ever come up.

    3. Re:Scaremongering by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean like that leaky thing in NY that they keep talking about? Or that yellowcake processing plant that was shut down in the 90s and they've been quibbling about where to bury the mess ever since? Or the 1970s reactors that melted down after the quake? Or how we are still using designs that were optimised more for weapons production than power. Or how the gov't promised to handle the nuclear waste but still today has has no where to put it. Or.... Well you get the idea.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Scaremongering by elcor · · Score: 1

      "Or how we are still using designs that were optimised more for weapons production than power" - I remember nuclear tech from the 80s in France were all generating plutonium which was presented as the only way to produce electricity from the atom: 235 -> 238 -> easy to enrich to 244 -> atom bomb -> international clouts. What are the other nuclear reactors that are safer?

    5. Re:Scaremongering by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 2
      +1 for this. I live in the area and don't work there (well, a couple trips to the vit plant 10 years ago as a contractor) but have plenty of friends that do and am familiar with the safety culture out there.

      Of course they are going to lock down and then evacuate until they determine the (non-)criticality of this event. Safety is so important out there they can't take the risk of being wrong (if for no other reason than the safety dude's job depends on it). Don't take it as an indication of the severity of the event.

      Also, there's no motive for any cover ups or conspiracies out there. When they say something about the problem, believe them. Failures like this just make their cleanup job harder (and might eventually get them more funding if this gets enough press). These aren't the guys who made the waste, it's not still being made, most of those people are retired or dead. They're just there to clean it up.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    6. Re:Scaremongering by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the sane report. Having grown up in Yakavegas I knew this wasn't as dire as reported.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    7. Re:Scaremongering by doom · · Score: 1

      And what about that zombie movie "Meltdown"? Any power source that can lead to movies like that is just too dangerous.

      Thankfully, no one ever does movies about solar-powered zombies.

    8. Re:Scaremongering by pakar · · Score: 2

      My guess is that thorium reactors are the closest to made commercially possible. Safe in terms of the nuclear reaction since they cannot melt down or have their pressure-vessel explode... Would produce less waste. Can be used to consume the existing spent fuel-rods reducing the amount of waste we have. Will produce things that are highly radioactive, but so radioactive that we only have to store it for a few hundred years. (The more radioactive something is the faster it decays) Does have some technical issues, but not unsolvable, before it could be widely deployed.

      Fore other types of reactors have a look at http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclear... under the section "The Fourth Generation Reactors".

      From the above link above:

      The Fourth Generation Reactors
      In 2002 the Gen iV Internation Forum (GIF) nations (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America) proposed a long term research and developement program to investigate 6 promising new reactor designs.
      The six design concepts are:
      The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
      Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
      Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
      Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
      Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
      Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

      These reactor concepts are designed to address the energy needs of the World into the far future (post 21st century).
      They efficiently utilize Uranium (many can employ depleted Uranium or "spent" fuel from current reactors).
      Destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via transmutation.
      Generate Hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy needs.
      Be inherently safe and easy to operate.
      Provide inherent resistance to Nuclear Weapons proliferation.
      Provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation.
      Carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy generation.

    9. Re:Scaremongering by geowar · · Score: 1

      I've been studying all the Gen IV designs and trying to separate the facts from the hype. One easy conclusion is that we just need to STOP building water cooler reactors. Period. The GFR's have pretty much the same problem: too much pressure to contain. The SFR, LFR & MSR are the superior designs. The easy "top of the heap" choice (IMHO) is the MSR. There's a U.K. design that basically takes one of todays water cooled designed and replace the water with molten salt (at atmosphere pressure) and the fuel rods have liquid Uranium Fluoride instead of solid fuel pellets. Burns 98% of what ever you put in it and what's left has a half life of 300 years Biggest obstacle? The NRC. Thorium would be nice. Someday. We need MSR's yesterday.

    10. Re:Scaremongering by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Yes. But "talking about it" is not the same as "scaremongering." If you ask just a random person on the street about nuclear power, they will either go off on a tirade about how its too dangerous and just look at Fukushima and we shouldn't build any more plants. Or you'll get that Fukushima was a rare event and nuclear is fine.

      Few of them will talk about the problems with disposal areas and other things you mentioned, or bring up the fact that Fukushima was 50 or 60 years old and a decade+ past its operating lifespan, or that TEPCO had already been warned that such a thing could happen and ignored it because they did their risk/reward calculations and decided to make a bad gamble in order to avoid costs.

      Sure people talk about those things, and most of the people on the ground are doing the best they can with the resources available. But its not the same as the "AMG NUCLEAR BAD" fear that's been generated about the prospect of new construction projects. Mostly it comes down to how much of the public knows/cares about it -- if the public has a strong opinion (even if its a stupid opinion) then politicians take notice and action (again, even if its stupid) gets taken. If its something that only a few thousand people in specific areas even know about, then it just becomes a line item in the budget that nobody pays attention to, whether its appropriately funded or not.

  18. Emergency -- yes. Catastrophe -- no. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been following this situation, and the shelter in place order and early worker release are just sensible precautionary measures. At present there is no reason to expect any release of contamination.

    Not that this is exactly a feather in the cap for the site's management; obviously it should never have happened. But the response at least is responsible: when the unexpected happens, you assume more unexpected events are in store until you're sure as sure can be.

    What some politician called the site in the past is totally irrelevant to the present situation. This should, however, remind us that we do have a pretty big nuclear waste problem slowly building; and because it's slow we've been kicking the ball down the road and hoping for the best. That isn't a good enough. Unexpected things happen, and even if this event proves to be harmless, as is likely, they don't always happen in harmless ways.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Emergency -- yes. Catastrophe -- no. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      FYI, "emergency" is not a recognized classification. Considering the press's slavish attention to detail during the last election, I'm amazed that not even a single news report that I've seen so far has got it right.

      According to the site's official website this is a Site Area Emergency, which is the higher of the two possible classifications. As shown on the NRC's website, both classifications are filled with weasel words. An event may occur that could lead to a significant release of radioactive materials, and the release, if any, could require off-site help to contain.

      Triggering an event classification, or upgrading an ongoing one, causes various agencies and offices to take action. The specifics for this type of event will be in countless binders and charts in dispatch centers and EOCs around the region. On site, the priorities are typically 1) lockdown, 2) deploy survey gear, 3) evacuate non-responder staff when/if safe to do so. Staff are told not to eat or drink during lockdown in case there is any radioactive dust around.

      Volunteers have probably been asked not to leave town in case they need to open an evacuee reception center. Local first responders with counterterrorism and radiological training probably picked up their DRDs. HAMs and nerds in the area probably turned on the public access feeds on the Geiger counters they keep in their attics.

      From the sounds of things, 8 feet of shielding got moved a bit closer to some waste containers. If someone had thought to put it on the calendar, no one would ever have heard about it, but because the earth decided to do it without asking what the plant management thought, it automatically turns into a shitshow.

      I'll raise a glass tonight to the guys in tyvek suits. I know exactly how unpleasant they are to wear, and I'll pray that everyone wearing one this week remains annoyed by them, and never thankful.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  19. mdsolar by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo:

    An anonymous reader named mdsolar ;-)

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    1. Re:mdsolar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is mdsolar the APK of nuclear power?

  20. No nukes by Nicolas+Cage · · Score: 0

    The Hanford site is a disaster. That is not hyperbole.

  21. an 'anonymous reader' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this stinks of mdsolar

  22. "Nuclear is the safest energy source" by addikt10 · · Score: 0

    Came here for the lectures on how Nuclear Energy is the safest and cleanest.
    How it is so much more reliable and green than solar, wind, or hydro
    Left disappointed, will check back later.

    1. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As pointed out, this is the result of weapons production, not power.

    2. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The biggest issues I have with nuclear, apart from safety concerns around handling spent fuel, is that it is extremely expensive way to produce energy, and it isn't in fact renewable. It is reliant, at least at the moment, on digging up radioactive minerals like pitchblende out of the ground, so in that respect you're still left finding sources of fuel, whether that be primary sources like mining it, or secondary sources like enriched uranium and plutonium originally meant for or made into nuclear weapons.

      So perhaps it solves a short-term solution, seeing as CO2 emissions-wise, it's clean, but in the long term it still leaves behind a pretty damned nasty form of waste, and is still using a finite resource.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nuclear fuel gets recycled and a significant chunk of the waste that comes out of a reactor goes back into a reactor eventually. We could use breeder reactors that wind up creating more fissile material than they actually use as input, but we don't, because that's also a great way to get material for nuclear warheads.

      If push really comes to shove, after all of the fossil fuels are spent and all the good solar spots are taken (and assuming fusion remains a dream), we really can power humanity on nuclear energy for at least a few thousand years. Assuming our species even lives that long and we don't get wiped out or wipe ourselves out first.

    4. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Came here for the lectures on how Nuclear Energy is the safest and cleanest.
      How it is so much more reliable and green than solar, wind, or hydro
      Left disappointed, will check back later.

      Nuclear to left of me, Hydros to the right, and Wind to the rear. Of the triad, Hdyo has been producing panic free all of my life - not a blight on the hemisphere and a place to take your family for a tour. It's the Salmon that will take those down.

    5. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      As pointed out, this is the result of weapons production, not power.

      I operated 100N at Hanford, we supplied surplus steam to an electrical company next door, They got 20% (on a very good day), we dumped the rest; it was all about Plutonium.

    6. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      This is the problem with nuclear power: people hate it so much they'll lump in everything with it, relevant or not. This is all about weapons production waste. You might as well blame solar energy for the majority of gun deaths because most shootings are done with the aid of sunlight to see.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  23. Here come the anti-nuclear retard squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they have a reactor there? What's the plated MW capacity of the operating reactors? Oh wait, they haven't operated a reactor in how long? Evironmental retards.

    1. Re: Here come the anti-nuclear retard squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus they are ignoring the fact that this stuff was buried over thirty years ago. By now, it will have mostly transmuted into gold.

  24. Not as bad as it would appear. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I live ~60 miles down wind of Hanford, alarms, TV's are all set to alert us of a problem; I read about it on Slashdot. There was no release (at least their story). Local news says to go to www.Hanford.gov

  25. "the most toxic place in America" by tattood · · Score: 1

    Hanford is commonly known as "the most toxic place in America,"

    I think Uber holds that title now.

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
    1. Re:"the most toxic place in America" by doom · · Score: 1

      It's got some competition in New York, Florida, and DC.

  26. Close them all! by jlgreer1 · · Score: 0

    All nuclear power station should be shut down, cleaned environmentally (probably not possible :( ), and closed. They should never have been built. In the late sixties and early seventies, I studied to become a nuclear engineer. The more I learned, the more I felt they should not be built. I went another direction rather than participate.

  27. EPA or DOE by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Does this fall under the purvue of the EPA, which has had it's funding slashed, and is currently being run by a guy who is suing his own agency, or does this fall under the DOE, run by Rick Perry, who doesn't even know what his agency does, and once theatened to kill the agency entirely?

    Well, with these rocket scientists at the helm, things are sure to get fixed up real quick, because our President only hires the best people -- the best!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  28. Ok, so what actually happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These structures were built in the 1940's or later.

    Building a tunnel that lasts indefinitely is not a technology that was hard then or now.

    So what actually collapsed and why?

  29. I feel sorry for Nuclear by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

    People tend to be scared of nuclear power. Really they're scared of the potential. But where I really feel bad for nuclear is, people look at the state of nuclear in our country and that's all they see it as. Dangerous, old, barely maintained, because we're scared in the first place. When you don't put a lot of money into something it's going to appear worse than it is. And so we'll spend less time maintaining. And so things will go wrong, people will go "I told you so" and we'll move on to open up more coal mining.

    1. Re:I feel sorry for Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm French and I feel cheated, there's been too much corruption and failure in the nuclear industry and the "generation III" reactor design is the Itanium of nuclear reactors.
      So, this is making me a former pro-nuclear person. No one should care about what's theoretically doable if after two decades dozens billions were wasted with nothing to show for it.

      Perhaps they could have kept maintaining the 70s tech i.e. building new 70s reactors every so often with very marginal improvement although the main problem might be how you dismantle them. Like is done with Soyouz and Scud rocket technology.
      But that wasn't the path taken and it's possible we regressed technologically or did useless or fruitless things and now it's fucked up.
      So we might have to do with solar or something and put our meaningless hope into battery storage and other energy storage tech instead.

  30. It was a typo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I think you mean "liquid fluoride". A bit of a difference.

    Don't let one little typo when I decided to quickly expand the acronym distract you.
    The research from that now ancient thing has been built on and improved so it can be filed with Tesla's broadcast power as what looked like a good idea at the time that we now know better than to try to use.