U.S. Nuclear Cleanup Carries Major Risks 522
Roland Piquepaille writes "New Scientist reports in this pretty alarming article that there is a 50-50 chance of a major radiation or chemical accident during the cleanup of the dirtiest nuclear site in the U.S. There are indeed lots of things to clean at the Hanford complex in Washington state: 67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks. A third of them, dating from the Cold War, have already leaked 4 million liters in the environment, contaminating the groundwater and a river. Meanwhile, officials at the DOE, who'll spend $50 billion between now and 2035 on this cleanup, seem less worried than the different specialists interviewed by New Scientist. Please read this overview for selected quotes from the article and from the Hanford site. You'll also find a slide from the DOE showing the timeframe for the cleanup."
Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:3, Informative)
It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
While most clouds you see coming from stacks are simply water vapor, a coal fired boiler emits a lot of particulate matter, which is harsh on the lungs, especially to those with asthma or other respiratory problems. The EPA has been focusing more on PM in the past few years. Facilities are now required to report PM emissions at 3 levels: Total PM, PM10 (PM 10 microns or smaller), and PM2.5 (PM 2.5 microns or smaller). PM2.5 emission reporting was added just this year, as it has been learned over the past 5-10 years that PM2.5 is much more harmful than less fine particulates. Current control measures for PM are in the 99% removal range, assuming the equipment is properly maintained.
Also, coal emits a lot more crap than oil or natural gas. By crap I mean trace amounts of nasty chemicals. Hydrochloric acid, hydroflouric acid, arsenic, mercury, lead, dioxins, etc. EPA's emission manual for coal combustion can be found here [epa.gov].
"Clean coal" may be a temporary measure as we begin to run out of natural gas and oil, but it is by no means a solution, as the CO2 problem is not solved.
It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.
Yes, but the real problem is our reluctance to fund new energy initiatives and promote smart usage of energy. We waste outrageous amounts of energy in the USA. Research must not only be focused on new energy sources, but improved efficency in the transmission and use of that energy.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.
Er, no. Especially if you think global warming is an issue. From the article you cite:
Also:
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see... filtered coal dust... water vapor... filtered coal dust... water vapor... which one would you rather inhale?
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do agree with you, though.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2)
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Interesting)
Plutonium is far more toxic than radioactive (as far as hazards go). What I mean by that is that it takes fall less PU to kill you by poisioning than required to cook you with radiation.
-nB
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2)
Not really correct: Alpha particles are stopped by a sheet of paper. But if you ingest plutonium or inhale it, then it's one of the most dangerous substances around.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:5, Informative)
The key here is that Plutonium is rather hard to get into your system. In order to get it into your lungs, it has to be powderized AND airborne. Both are very difficult as Plutonium is hard and heavy. Ingestion is another possibility, but it seems that the Pu is generally passed through without ill effects. Again, it's very hard to disintegrate, so your body often fails to digest it. This makes Plutonium very dangerous on one hand, yet very, very safe on another. You could keep a piece of it in your pocket, and in general there will never be any ill effects.
Coal-fired plants release radiation.... (Score:5, Informative)
This is because coal contains trace amounts of these elements, which are not in the form of particles, but are more likely distributed as individual atoms in individual molecules, maybe combined with carbon, certainly oxygen, and other elements. No known technology can take individual molecules of, say, uranium oxide, out of a chimney.
Now this release of radionucleides has been going on since serious use of coal began around 1600-1700.
Interestingly enough, in the UK there is often controversy over so-called leukaemia clusters, now these cases are tragic, but it is alleged that they are due to the nuclear industry, however close inspection shows that every single such cluster, with one exception, is in an area close to or downwind of a large coal-burning plant which either still exists, or was in use relatively recently. Some of these plants were lead smelters, which adds more uranium and other toxic elements. The one exception that I know of, where no industrial presence can be seen, is in Cornwall, around the village of Tintagel, and it is hardly surprising, because the local children no doubt play on their nice beach, and behind the beach are sea caves, with uranium compounds leaching out of the rocks. There will also be a high concentration of radon gas in such places, it mainly causes lung cancer by depositing daughter products in the lungs, but some of the daughter products may indeed cause leukaemia, and may be ingested in other ways.
At a guess, I would say that similar conditions of radiation release due to coal burning, and the extraction of certain other minerals, will be found worldwide, as presumably volcanic activity had released lots of radionucleides into the atmosphere during the carbiniferous era, which would eventually have found their way into the vegetation, and hence the coal.
In one particular part of the UK, when germanium transistors were in fashion, soot from factory chimneys was collected because it was rich in germanium, I think you will find that other elements (certainly selenium, which is toxic and carcinogenic, and also cadmium) can be found in significant quantities in some geographic regions.
So, coal burning will release radioactive, toxic and carcinogenic substances, fortunately not plutonium of course, although in theory an occasional atom might be formed by natural processes. After all, there are these odd atoms of uranium embedded in the moderator, coal instead of pure graphite, so there is the remote chance that a neutron from a fissioning uranium atom might be slowed by the coal, and captured by another uranium atom. But the yield would be incredibly low.
Russia? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what happens if this stuff does leak out? Would that be considered a Superfund site? Funding for ecological disaster recovery was slashed by the current administration.
Our world looks better and better ever
Curses! Fooled Again! (Score:4, Informative)
Is there any way I can configure my slash options to ignore his stories altogether?
Re:Curses! Fooled Again! (Score:5, Informative)
Let's Ask Google Calculator [google.com]. Oh. 50m gallons is 190m litres.
John.
River (Score:5, Informative)
I do not usually comment but I would like to remind everyone that the river mentioned would be the Columbia River since Hanford is within sight of the river and a large number of fish spawn there every year.
Re:River (Score:5, Informative)
Hanford PR people claimed for years that it would take decades for their waste to filter into the Columbia, until some scientists pointed out that the waste had already been flowing into the Columbia for years.
Re:River (Score:4, Informative)
That means you have dioxins, coal tar pitch, PCBs, and arsenic in the water that NEVER came from Hanford.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
67 tons of Pu... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:67 tons of Pu... (Score:5, Funny)
DO the submitters actually read the articles? (Score:5, Informative)
There are indeed lots of things to clean at the Hanford complex in Washington state: 67 tons of plutonium
Actually, from the article, the 67 tons of Plutonium were the product of the Handford site, not a side-effect left littering the place.
Note, before anyone starts whining about nuclear power not being clean, that Hanford isn't about nuclear power, but about nuclear weapons.
Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles? (Score:5, Insightful)
But its the same players. The consultants, contractors, etc, who gave the US the radioactive disaster that is Hanford are the same ones who are running reactors all over the US and the world.
I used to be pro nuclear power but after witnessing the amaturish and dishonest reaction during a crisis at the nuke plant near Rochester NY (with 1 million in the greater metropolitan area), and having a very disturbing cocktail party conversation with the head of safety for a nuke plant in Louisiana, I started to investigate more. Whatever the benefits of the technology, the culture of nuclear power is one of lies, coverup and other forms of deceit.
It's a shame, because judged only on technology nukes come out ahead.
Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles? (Score:3, Interesting)
Lying bastards are not unique to the nuclear power
War Emergency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War Emergency (Score:3, Insightful)
If we didn't produce enough nuclear weapons to counter Soviet aggression and expansionism, pollution was going to be the least of our problems.
Yah, we'd only be able to destroy the Soviet Union 4 times over instead of 8 times over. I'm sure the extra destructive capability was such a greater deterrant than what we already had.
Do you honestly think the Soviets would attack us, knowing they'd still have their country destroyed? An H-bomb going off in each of your major cities will destroy your civilizat
Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles? (Score:4, Interesting)
His blog posts are usually quite uninformative and rather poorly written too. An overview with selected quotes from the article? So now he's summarizing for
I live downstream... (Score:3, Funny)
I live downstream. Would you like to shake any of my three hands?
Decommisioning (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Decommisioning (Score:3)
Cheap vacation! (Score:2, Funny)
Plus glow in the dark showers!!
Book me now!
Re:Cheap vacation! (Score:2)
Cheap houses (Score:2)
Re:Cheap houses (Score:2, Informative)
My high school mascot was a mushroom cloud.
Necessary evil (Score:4, Informative)
DOE is more than capable of doing this and have done so for many years. Admittedly there have been a few problems but it never started a real situation of calamatious proportions.
I almost signed up to work for DOE in this team capacity after i got out of the Army as a RANGER and i was very impressed with the security, armament and professionalism these folks have at hand. I just did not like the hours.
+++Warning to any fool that thinks it's easy to steal radioactive material from one of these teams. You'll die twice before you get to pull your trigger once!+++
Cyberzephyr
Unnecessarily evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, the DoE ran the Pantex nuclear weapons plant [dnfsb.gov]. The same site with some obscene safety issues [theregister.co.uk]. Accidentally drilling into the core of a nuclear device resulted in the evacuation of the entire plant. Securing a warhead with duct tape increased the chances of a flat out nuclear explosion. And that's ignoring the clichéd "OMG THREE MILE ISLAND" commentary.
+++Warning to any fool that thinks it's easy to steal radioactive material from one of these teams. You'll die twice before you get to pull your trigger once!+++
Perhaps you reached this conclusion because the security teams were cheating during their security drills [wired.com] ? Cheating. for twenty years. It's not too hard to look impenetrable when you know the exact building and wall [doe.gov] where an attack will take place. A DoE whistleblower admitted to a 50% success rate [washingtonpost.com] for security tests. Special forces teams were able to penetrate Los Alamos [pogo.org] and wander off with enough material to create a nuclear bomb. Even an freakin' journalist was able to sneak into Los Alamos [defensetech.org]. There are plenty of other issues raised [pogo.org] over at the Project On Governmental Oversight [pogo.org]. Again, that's ignoring all the major security issues with CREM's going on over the last month.
Now, you're absolutely right in the fact that we need to get that waste cleaned up. But thinking that the DoE, NNSA, or the US government on the whole is "more than capable" is bullshit. We're flirting with disaster. If we take the outlook that everything is fine and dandy, we're going to quickly hit the point where someone will cause a situation of calamatious proportions.
--LordPixie
So, clean it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
And a 100% chance of a major radiation or chemical accident if they don't. So this really looks to be a non-issue.
Tough job (Score:2, Interesting)
Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'm getting at is, how much of this waste is comparable (in terms of which specific materials, and in what volumes) to what a nuclear powerplant would produce?
I'm not trying to diminish the magnitude of the mess or the impact it has on the area, but I can already see people taking this and running in the wrong direction with it - namely, that every nuclear power plant will produce this sort of mess over time. I *believe* this is the exception rather than the rule, because this site was/is producing weapons material rather than electricity, but it'd be great if someone with hard data could confirm/invalidate that...
Xentax
Re:Question... (Score:3, Informative)
I did a short research paper [pdx.edu] on Hanford, so I think I might be able to answer this a bit.
The problems at Hanford are mainly due to one of two things: age (some of the reactors and processing plants date back to WWII, when the effects of radioactivity was still not well understood) and purpose (Hanford was designed to extract Plutonium (Pu); only one of its reactors ever produced electrical power, and that was a secondary purpose)
First off, age. Hanford was built in WWII with exceedingly great haste, and
Correct - nuclear power plants are very different. (Score:3, Informative)
why worry about it? (Score:3, Informative)
Despite being toxic both chemically and because of its ionising radiation, plutonium is far from being 'the most toxic substance on earth' or so hazardous that 'a speck can kill'.
On both counts there are substances in daily use that, per unit of mass, have equal or greater chemical toxicity (arsenic, cyanide, caffeine) and radiotoxicity (smoke detectors).
more: http://www.uic.com.au/nip18.htm [uic.com.au]
Re:why worry about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ingestion of plutonium
For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a letha
There is a silver lining. (Score:3, Funny)
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear waste leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll admit, I only know a little about the storage of nuclear waste, but can someone PLEASE explain how it could possibly be so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking?
It's not like these containers are sitting outside exposed to the elements. They're, AFAIK, stored underground in secure facilities.
People make it sound like the government spends millions of dollars to develop these high-tech facilities and then just haphazardly sprays the stuff into old, rusty oil-drums. Surely this isn't the case.... right...?
-Grym
why so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking (Score:4, Interesting)
Radioactive materials are sometimes called "hot"; they can be warm to the touch; this comes from the fact that as decay occurs particles come shooting out of the nucleus. These particles can hit other nuclei and jostle molecules around.
IIRC, the most recent containment technology is based on storing the "waste" in crystals, eg Zircon. The upswing of crystal storage is that the "hot" material in the center of the crystal degrades the inner part of the crystal, which reacts by forming a "wall" instead of cracking or oozing. Kind of like when you crumple a piece of paper, and there's a limit to how much smaller you can make it by squeezing. Okay, maybe that's a poor analogy, since the "squeezing" comes from the inside, but you get the idea.
Here's a link. [bbc.co.uk]
FWIW, if we had a space elevator, would anyone object to putting nuclear plants on it? It's not in anyone's backyard, and it's well placed to sling the crud into space... if we can find a target. I say Mercury.
Nuclear is one option we should pursue. We should also keep working on bio-fuelcells and wind/wave. It all comes from the sun (well, A sun...) anyway. This is all going to be moot once we bootstrap a stellar economy.. there's more methane and natural gas to be had than well, even humans could waste (okay, maybe not, but there's a lot).
What if something went wrong at 100 miles (Score:3)
In addition, just getting it into space isn't solely the answer to the waste problem. How much would it suck to try to colonize say, the moon 150 years from now, only to find it's logistically impossible because the surface is covered in radioactive sludge? So I'm saying, let's fire that stuff at Mercury. It's not really habitable near term, so no loss there. An even better way
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:3, Informative)
Both uranium and plutonium extraction are very messy processes from a chemical engineering standpoint. They involve highly corrosive materials, including fluorine and acids. During the chemical processing, the corrosives become mixed with radioactive byproducts. So you get liquid mixtures which are both corrosive and radioact
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a weapons site, so they were going as quickly as possible to beat the soviets. There was no time (so it is said) to handle this properly, so they just extracted the plutonium and put the rest of the liquid waste in large tanks underground. This went on for decades. Surprise, surprise, several decades later it was found that some of the waste spilled here, a little leak there, etc....
It's not hard to properly handle if the site was setup to handle it properly in the beginning. Unfortunately, haste m
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:5, Informative)
The uinderground environment is a hostile one. There water continually percolating through the ground. This water may or may not be acidic, and may or may not be under perssure. Almost no rock is impervious. It may only leak a little but over 100s or 1000s or yeah a little becomes a lot.
Anything will leak. The questions are:
-At what rate
-And where will the leakage go
-What happens when some idiot archeaologist 500 years from now opens it up?
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Having an Uncle who for some years was in charge of the cleanup at Hanford and noting that he lives in Kelso I would tend to discount the FUD a lot. (About 99.999999999% or more.) Having two other Uncles who were reactor operations officers for US Nuke Subs makes me have a bit of family based info on the topic. I just am not as worried as most people are because I know generally what the problem is and how big it is.
To be sure the mess at Hanford is a serious mess. It involves largely the chemicals used to refine the various elemements after reactor actions. The reason they liked plutonium for bombs is that it could be bred out of lesser stuff and was easily chemically isolated. This gave rise to a lot of radioactive chemical wastes which bluntly were pretty reactive stuff.
The problem was storage was at best using technology we had at the time rather than trying to deal perminanently. The problem is that many of these chemical wastes are liquid and they are stored in containers that are failing or have started to fail.
The containers in many cases were about equal to swimming pools or to 55 gallon drums. Another problem is some of these elements migrate quite easily through barriers. They form all sorts of funny deposits which if struck are prone to catch fire.
With all of this said, the whole problem is one more of time and effort than danger. The location is really pretty unlikely to see a lot of migration outside Hanford and if it does go into the Columbia River it will be diluted well below any level of concern. The river is not small. At nearly 100,000 CFS flow and shortly diluted to 200,000 CFS average flow, this stuff is gone... gone... gone.
To explain a bit more, the problem here is largely one of timing and events. Most of this waste developed right during and shortly after WW2. Shall I say that priorities and for that matter knowlege have changed in the intervening years.
Actually the biggest problem in the cleanup owes to the need not to actually create more contaminated waste than absolutely necessary while doing the clean up.
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:3, Interesting)
-1, Paranoid Scare Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived next to Hanford since I was 3 years old, and work a couple of miles from the nuke plant. I've toured the site many times. I've followed local news, which reports on every boring little detail since they have nothing better to do, my entire life.
Are there problems? Sure. I remember when the single walled tanks started leaking, and they pumped everything into new double-wall tanks. Will there be problems in the future? Sure. Will those problems affect me? No. The accidents that take place may be major to the people working on that particular project, but are not catastrophic in the grand scheme of things.
Look: The Hanford site has been operational for decades. The number of serious accidents is tiny, and said accidents have only affected the workers directly involved with that given project, not the rest of us. Yes, there are environmental concerns. No, they aren't as horrible as this article makes them out to be. We swim in and eat fish from the river. Our water comes from the river and local groundwater. None is contaminated enough to be detectible, let alone harm somebody. And I'm right here, a fraction of a mile downstream from the site.
Even if the clean-up goes according to plan, Boldt claims there will still be 260 square kilometres of groundwater exceeding drinking water safety limits for over 10,000 years.
He's full of himself. This is nothing more than paranoid scare tactics.
I can't see any constructive comments (Score:2, Insightful)
However, he doesn't say what he wants. Does he want to delay the process, and why does he think that will lead to a better risk management than the current plant? Has he got any suggestions for how the risks can be mitigated?
IMHO, Alvarez comes across as a person that does not want this cleanup to take place at all because that may lead to nuclear power not becoming mainstream if an accident occurs during the cleanup.
Half Right (Score:5, Informative)
You heard it right, folks - $7B.
As for the groundwater contamination, that is nothing new. A tritium plume extending from the 200 Areas (where plutonium separation was performed) to the Columbia River has been in place since production started. It has fluctuated in size according to the politics of weapons production. The facilities have been shut down since the early 90's and are in various stages of decommissioning.
The issue of iodine-129 is a sticky point. It has a long half-life and had been dumped to the soil column without too much worry about the transport properties of the nuclide. It travels at the same rate through the vadose and groundwater as nitrate. It is very mobile. The toxicity of the isotope is in come dispute. I can get a higher radiation dose from a urniary test than I can get from consuming contaminated Hanford groundwater. I can also dispose of the contamination through my municipal water treatment facility, a practice prohibited for Hanford contractors.
As for the cesium-137 and strontium-90, those isotopes bind to soils high in the vadose and rarely reach groundwater. The are confined to zones near the surface, far from the river, and will be left in place to decay to background beneath low permeability covers. This is not a practice that the USDOE is forcing on the local community, but is a treatment alternative that is accepted by the USEPA and Washington Deparment of Ecology.
"a" river? (Score:5, Informative)
But then I'm a local, so I'm biased.
Thankfully, the large flow means that the contamination is pretty dilute. The bad news, of course, is that said contamination flows through quite a few populated areas (including Portland), the river is used to irrigate and transport zillions of tons of wheat and other edibles, and lots of fish get pulled from the river and eaten.
Do something now, and something better later (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti Nuke groups actually love this situation because it insures to keep the crisis mounting, and discourages any future nuclear development. Then if and when a nuclear waste incident occurs they can point and say "I told you so."
Why not go for better storage now, and keep looking for storage/disposal/reprocessing solutions to use later?
Cleanup by Reclassification (Score:3, Insightful)
rocky flats cleanup somewhat working (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:rocky flats cleanup somewhat working (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stop grandfathering in old power plants of all types, step up, pay some of the up-front costs, and get some good power generation going.
For the NIMBY folks, I'll volunteer to host a PBR in my backyard.
Contrary to what a lot of places would have you believe, if we'd actually shell out some cash and stop only focusing on the very bottom line for hte first year, we've got affordable, safe, and clean nuke power available to us... and it's a shame we've not made use of it.
to grandparent poster: don't be sad you live in WA, I left 11 years ago now, and I go back every chance I get... it only goes downhill from there.
Facts about the Hanford clean-up: (Score:5, Interesting)
It is important to realize some facts about the Hanford clean-up:
First, the problems they are talking about happened very early in nuclear power plant research, in the 50s and earlier. They are not so sloppy now in the storage of nuclear waste. Back then, they made extremely severe problems for themselves, which are very difficult to correct.
Second, there is a huge amount of government fraud, apparently. My uncle was the head of one of the groups at Battelle studying the problems. The way they talk now about the cleanup is exactly the way they were talking in the 70s. Apparently nothing has been done, but they continue to milk the issue for money.
There are tanks at the Hanford site that constantly boil, and have boiled for more than 40 years, because of the heat from radioactivity. They have made devices to examine the boiling. Back in the late 60s they decided they would try to stabilize the tanks by "glassifying" them. The wanted to turn the entire radioactive mass inside a tank into a solid mass of glass.
They are talking about this now, too, and they are giving the same completion date, "15 to 30 years from now". That's why I say that apparently nothing has been done, even though they have spent many, many billions.
What is apparently happening in this story is that they are trying to scare the public so that they can get even more money.
Here's more about U.S. government corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
Re:Facts about the Hanford clean-up: (Score:4, Informative)
The glassification plant is being built right now. Construction started about a year ago.
I was told exactly the same thing in the early 70s (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I was told exactly the same thing in the early (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, the records are horrible. Nobody really knows what was put in those tanks.
Second - some of the waste is fairly dilute, making it much more economical to try to concentrate it before treating it (low-level waste might be stored onsite for a decade to decay it and then just dumped safely in the river or otherwise treated as non-radioactive chemical waste).
Third
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of scary sh1t out at Hanford (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what was my favourite. Was it the nuclear waste that was being stored in what amounted to two coffee cans? The containment tubes rated to last 10-20 years that had been holding waste for 50?
I'm thinking I'll have to go with the underground spillover tanks. There'd be a bunch of series of 5 tanks. When tank 1 fills up, waste spills over into tank 2. Tank 2 fills up, spills into tank 3. So on and so forth until you get to tank 5 where when it fills up, the waste apparently just spills out into the ground. Naturally, they weren't meant to last this long either.
So in addition to the nuclear waste, you have to deal with all the contaminated soil and whatnot too. US Gov't really clusterfucked the area. Fortunately, the state gov't(led by AG Gregoire) nailed their balls to an agreement to clean up all this shit.
That being said, it's a neat facility and everyone was friendly and eager to show what they were doing. There are a lot of interesting plume diagrams showing how the contamination is making its way to the Columbia River.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Informative)
The link in one of the parents was trying to relate the activities at Hanford (creation of nuclear materials for weapons and research) vs those of a commercial power-generating nuclear reactor.
The parent article to yours was dismissing this link, and then you try to casually deconstruct it and say, essentially, that any nuclear reactor is a nuclear plant.
FWIW, Cobalt-60 is probably even m
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Informative)
A study by Abt Associates estimated that coal power plants *in the US alone* kill 24,000 people *per year*. That's just the deaths; there were also 38,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 554,000 asthma attacks, and 3 million lost workdays. On the other hand, deaths due to nuclear power plant radiation *in the whole world* (almost exclusively from Chernobyl, which was a patently stupid event from a horribly archaic design) range from the low thousands to the low tens of thousands, and between the upper tens of thousands to the low millions of related diseases - in the 50 years since the world's first nuclear power plant. In the US, nuclear power plant-related casualties are hard to estimate because they're so low. Yes, we use more coal power than nuclear - but nowhere close to the scale of health and environmental damage coal causes compared to nuclear.
At the very least, nuclear power is *as safe* as coal power. At best, it puts coal power to shame. And then there's the national security interests of nuclear: some of the most concentrated uranium deposits in the world are in our neighbor to the north, Canada. The world's largest deposits are in another ally, Australia.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says this waste is from nuclear power plants? It could be leftovers from nuclear weapons/research.
Also, nuclear power plant technology has vastly improved since this particlar waste repository was first opened up.
Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror. (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, most of our power isn't hydroelectric. It's coal. How often do people die of coal pollution? On average, once every 22 minutes (24k/yr).
Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take California [ca.gov]. Look at the number of hydroelectric. Look at the number of wind. How many nuclear? Hard to tell on that map. Just two. Two. Two nuclear plants supply about 20% of all electricity to the state. Two nuclear plants have had less impact on the environment than all other forms of mass electricity production in the state.
And for the record, it is possible to reduce waste dramatically. This can be done with breeder-burner reactors. My personal favorites are IFR/AFR designs. Breeder-burners process the long-lived waste into shorter-lived isotopes while producing electricity.
Now then, on to your other points one by one:
No, not all residents. There are many who aren't in opposition to the internment of the waste.
Questions for you: Do you believe that the current storage pools are safer than Yucca Mountain? Do you have an answer for the existing waste that doesn't involve Yucca? If a method could be found to greatly reduce the volume and threat of existing nuclear waste, wouldn't you be in favor of it?
Breeder-burners can use the spent fuel currently sitting idle in storage pools as well as weapons material that awaits decommissioning. I am against using Yucca for long-term storage but not for the same reasons as you I think. I think Yucca should be a short-term waystation to get the material out of storage pools until breeder-burners are online. My personal favorite is the IRF/AFR model [nationalcenter.org].
And how many accidents have there been? In France where the vast majority of the electricity comes from nuclear power, how many terrorist attacks have succeeded against the rail and trucks that have criss-crossed that nation for decades? What terrorist opportunities? Please enumerate them.
You mentioned hydroelectric. Look back at that energy map of California. What do you think would happen if terrorists attacked those dams, flooding the valleys in front of them, drowning the residents, and washing away homes, businesses, and communities? Or did you think hydroelectric was warm and fuzzy since you can't get thyroid cancer from it?
Yes, it's a loose definition. That's what large-scale electricity generation entails. No form, not green, not nuclear, not fossil fuel-based is 100% safe when producing large amounts of energy on a municipal level.
You're right. It's hard to be safer than an alternative that can't run at the same capacity. 104 nuclear facilities are licensed in the US -- many of them share a physical location. Only 102 of them are actually running. 20% of all US electricity comes from nuclear. How many nuclear accidents have occurred in US history? Now look at the number of injuries and fatalities both of workers and people in
Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting to see the California power industry held up as something other than a global laughing stock. That 20% from nuclear, are those numbers from Enron or a more trustworthy source?
I think we'll wait until it is discounted enough to return more than is put in by the taxpayer.
That information isn't available at our current clearance level. Military secrecy shouldn
Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror. (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is the nuclear power industry has been pushing the same "clean" line since its inception, environment groups have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nuclear power was first presented as the peaceful side of the bomb, so its enonomic disadvantages were forgiven. Fifty years have passed, and it's still an expensive way to boil water with extreme care. The new plants are all in Indonesia, Pakistan, North Korea etc where it is still heavily linked with
Re:To the sun! (Score:5, Interesting)
67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks
So, at $1000 or so a pound... well, you do the math.
Sun Launch: Dirty and Expensive (Score:2)
But what would be the problem with doing so? Is it a matter of dangers of rocket failure (e.g. huge atmospheric dirty-bomb), or is it also quantity of waste to be disposed of and the cost?
Yes, and yes.
-kgj
Re:To the sun! (Score:3, Insightful)
Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?
Yes, it *IS* a good idea, if we can guarantee 100% safety of the launch.
Re:To the sun! (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a Space Elevator? It would still need an engine of some sort to get out of orbit, but that could be shipped up seperately.
If the space elevator fails, it would be unlikely to explode. Add a "recovery system" to the capsule that carries the radioactive material (think parachute), and potential problems would be very small.
Price could also be greatly decreased using a Space Elevator.
Re:To the sun! (Score:2)
Re:To the sun! (Score:3, Interesting)
Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?
So don't powder the stuff - armored radioisotope generators are a solved problem.
Re:To the sun! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:To the sun! (Score:2)
I'd hate to be slapping my forehead in a hundred years when some new industry comes along finds such waste a valuable resource...
No the moon! (Score:2)
No - let's bury it on the moon, and then when it all explodes - Space 1999, just a few years late!
Electromagnetic Rail Gun (Score:2)
Will it be considered ironic when energy from nuclear plants is used to propel their own waste into space?
Re:To the sun! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To the sun! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To the sun! (Score:3, Informative)
And of course there's the issue of launch failure. Current failure rates are around 5% to 20% for expen
Re:Told ya so! (Score:3, Informative)
The contamination isn't from nuclear power. It's from producing nuclear weapons, and general experiments. You must remember, a large amount of our nation's nuclear research was done at Hanford, including the world's first man-made, sustained nuclear reaction. The mess is from this activity, conducted decades ago when we didn't know as much as we do now.
This has nothing to do with nuclear power generation.
Re:Told ya so! (Score:2)
Re:LIES about nuclear waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So don't drink the water (Score:3, Funny)
Really! You asked"What could be better for wildlife and the environment?"
I'm not really anit-nuke but I thought the answer was pretty obvious;)
Re:you have to do something about them (Score:5, Informative)