Slashdot Mirror
Report Says Radioactive Monitors Failed at Nuclear Plant (apnews.com)
A new report says mistakes and mismanagement are to blame for the exposure of workers to radioactive particles at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state. From the report: Contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation on Thursday released its evaluation of what went wrong in December during demolition of the nuclear reservation's highly contaminated Plutonium Finishing Plant. The Tri-City Herald reports the study said primary radioactive air monitors used at a highly hazardous Hanford project failed to detect contamination. Then, when the spread of contamination was detected, the report said steps taken to contain it didn't fully work.
At least 11 Hanford workers checked since mid-December inhaled or ingested small amounts of radioactive particles. Private and government vehicles were contaminated with radioactive particles. The sprawling site in southeastern Washington contains more than 50 million gallons of radioactive and toxic wastes in underground storage tanks. It's owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, which hires private contractors to manage the cleanup work. Hanford was established during World War II and made the plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. The 560-square mile site also made most of the plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
At least 11 Hanford workers checked since mid-December inhaled or ingested small amounts of radioactive particles. Private and government vehicles were contaminated with radioactive particles. The sprawling site in southeastern Washington contains more than 50 million gallons of radioactive and toxic wastes in underground storage tanks. It's owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, which hires private contractors to manage the cleanup work. Hanford was established during World War II and made the plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. The 560-square mile site also made most of the plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
EDIT: There is actually a commercial nuclear oower plant on the Hanford site, but that isn't the problem.
>If an old tank full of 50 year old radwaste (which is often nitrate-based, and thus also explosive) fails, it will be nasty.
The tanks are already leaking. There are 177 tanks, 28 of which are double-shell and several of the double-shell detected leaks. The remaining single-shell tanks are undoubtedly leaking as they are of a similar design, but without the extra layer. You couldn't pay me enough to live down wind of Hanford, or to swim in the Columbia near it.
http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/hanford/another-hanford-emergency-signs-of-another-leaking-tank/281-441263419
The kind of radioactive waste you're talking about isn't really "waste", since it can be processed to remove the elements that poison fission reactions and then turned back into perfectly functional fuel rods.
And never mind the possibilities inherent in breeder reactors, which can turn U-238 (for which read: most of the uranium in a civilian reactor) and turn it into a useful fissionable.
Alas, the anti-nuke hysterics have pretty much eliminated the possibility of reprocessing spent fuel rods, so we dump a metric-fuckton of usable uranium into cooling tanks, let it sit for decades (or forever, since the anti-nukes have fought tooth and nail to prevent the building of reprocessing facilities), then throw it away
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Don't equate the failure of a plant processing nuclear weapons waste with a plant that is processing nuclear power waste. Anyone that can think should be justifiably suspicious of people that need to use the failure of a military weapon producing plant to prevent contamination to argue against civilian nuclear power.
Nuclear power is in fact very safe. I'll see opinion articles mention the deaths caused by mining uranium and such as a case against nuclear power but make no mention of how many deaths there are from wind and solar power. This is lying by omission. If people want to make the case against nuclear power then they need to make an honest assessment of how dangerous the alternatives would be by comparison.
Go ahead, show me how dangerous nuclear power is compared to wind, solar, natural gas, or whatever else you believe should replace it. I already know the numbers. I saw them here:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
We should be moving to nuclear power based on lives saved alone. It's ability to compete on price with solar is another reason to use it. My source:
https://www.lazard.com/perspec...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You do realize this is not nuclear power plant waste, but rather cold war era waste that was never properly stored to start with? Commercial nuclear fuel waste is much much easier to deal with.
while nasty, it's also relatively short-lived in comparison to unprocessed waste (hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands) and very small volume in comparison to unprocessed waste. You're removing the 1-2% of really nasty shit that prevents the other 98% of fuel from being used.
That 2% of really nasty shit can then be vitrified to make it easier to handle and store for the orders of magnitude less time until it becomes essentially inert.
Now only if we were actually doing that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.