Underground fire near nuclear waste dump has residents worried

Apparently this fire has been burning for 5 years and residents are only now learning of the emergency plan for the "shtf" scenario. You would think after 5 years the fire would be put out or the waste could have been moved.

This is the exact reason we need a hole to store the waste. We need to cut the yucca mountain red tape.

Here is a snippet from the article.

"ST. LOUIS -- Beneath the surface of a St. Louis-area landfill lurk two things that should never meet: a slow-burning fire and a cache of Cold War-era nuclear waste, separated by no more than 1,200 feet.

Government officials have quietly adopted an emergency plan in case the smoldering embers ever reach the waste, a potentially "catastrophic event" that could send up a plume of radioactive smoke over a densely populated area near the city's main airport.

Although the fire at Bridgeton Landfill has been burning since at least 2010, the plan for a worst-case scenario was developed only a year ago and never publicized until this week, when St. Louis radio station KMOX first obtained a copy."

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Bluntone22

THAT is scary!
The things that TPTB keep secret just infuriate me to no end...

Reminds me of that place in PA...centralia I think...
They didn't have the fear of the nuclear waste element though...

In PA I think they had to buy the citizens out for millions and a few stayed as the result of a lawsuit...

Maybe the town folk should sue...sometimes the only way to make a point, teach a lesson, somewhat rectify things...?

a reply to: TNMockingbird

The situation was known several years ago, but the disaster plan was just "discovered"

a reply to: Bluntone22

1200 feet separates the two "dumps"? How'd they determine that? How do we know the rad waste didn't start the fire?

a reply to: intrptr


Probably because the nuclear waste is not on fire. Spontaneous combustion in landfills is not all that uncommon.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr


Probably because the nuclear waste is not on fire. Spontaneous combustion in landfills is not all that uncommon.

Neither is spontaneous combustion "all that uncommon" in nuclear waste.

Search

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, all the more reason to green light yucca mountain.
But in this case the nuclear waste is not burning. Yet...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, all the more reason to green light yucca mountain.
But in this case the nuclear waste is not burning. Yet...

Turns out, Yucca mountain isn't as "stable" as they thought. Other reasons, like the danger in transporting waste by road and rail across country to a repository aren't lost on the communities they have to bring it through.

Wiki

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, all the more reason to green light yucca mountain.
But in this case the nuclear waste is not burning. Yet...

Turns out, Yucca mountain isn't as "stable" as they thought. Other reasons, like the danger in transporting waste by road and rail across country to a repository aren't lost on the communities they have to bring it through.

Wiki

Yes, that is the reason we haven't attempted to consolidate, the transportation dangers which are legion.

I tend to prefer non-centralized solutions anyway and I think gaseous fuel cycles will allow us to start to consume a lot of the most volatile waste as well as provide a peaceful usage for weapons grade materials.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, all the more reason to green light yucca mountain.
But in this case the nuclear waste is not burning. Yet...

Turns out, Yucca mountain isn't as "stable" as they thought. Other reasons, like the danger in transporting waste by road and rail across country to a repository aren't lost on the communities they have to bring it through.

Wiki

Yes, that is the reason we haven't attempted to consolidate, the transportation dangers which are legion.

I tend to prefer non-centralized solutions anyway and I think gaseous fuel cycles will allow us to start to consume a lot of the most volatile waste as well as provide a peaceful usage for weapons grade materials.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, all the more reason to green light yucca mountain.
But in this case the nuclear waste is not burning. Yet...

Turns out, Yucca mountain isn't as "stable" as they thought. Other reasons, like the danger in transporting waste by road and rail across country to a repository aren't lost on the communities they have to bring it through.

Wiki

I don't buy this transportation problem through cities....c'mon, that shipment would be treated with kid gloves, and watched like a hawk...who thinks a truck driver, or an railroad engineer is somehow going to be "careless" carrying that load. that will be one of the few times that person is going to be totally focused on his job....and the word "stable" is relative...will it be stable at Yucca for another 100 years, hell yeah....by that time, someone will have a much better idea of how to deal with it. right now it's sitting in a more "unstable" environment for the next 100 years than Yucca mountain.....geez, get it done

a reply to: jimmyx


No matter what solution we end up with, the material will have to be transported. Just put a 20mph speed limit on the railroads and get the crap moving already.
People would probably need a change of underwear if the knew what the military had been transporting on the highways for decades.

If I recall federal law has to change for it to be transported . Something Carted did.

a reply to: jimmyx

Nothing safe about nuclear waste, no matter where it is. Bottom line, its safer to keep it where its currently stored. Moving it adds risk, no matter how careful people are.

As far as rail accidents, this poster was funny when I was a kid.

link to image

a reply to: greencmp

All the spent fuel in Fukushima was still on site when the impossible happened. Simply because they had no solution for it other than to keep it there.

When they built these things they passed the solution and Murphys law on to us.

The waste was illegally dumped in 1973 and includes material that dates back to the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bomb in the 1940s.

The Environmental Protection Agency is still deciding how to clean up the waste. The landfill was designated a Superfund site in 1990.

---Map of Superfund sites. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of October 2013.--Superfund

Let's keep kicking the radioactive waste can down the road, I'm sure it will take care of itself.

As St Louis is my home town...

I guess what they say is true...

You never can go home again.

Why don't they just send all of this crap to space

It's worth spending all that money.

Oh wait, this would lead to a perfect false flag scenario where the rocket explodes at launch.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So,what are we paying the EPA for again??? They had this as a "superfunds" site since 1990, which would seem to indicate that they knew there was cleanup needed, and nothing is done? This company "managig"" these landfills sounds quite inept.

How many homeowners were told they could be bombarded by nuclear material when they bought their homes, I wonder? This is seriously messed up.