Most hazardous material on planet leaking at U.S. nuclear site, worker brought to tears over leaking

page: 6
144
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by timewarpedbrain7
 


You know what I don't blame our current government they had nothing to do with it. I will though lay the blame on older regimes in our government for having the attitude of it'll get fixed later. Thanks alot " greatest generation" for leaving us to deal with this nasty, deadly mess.

You can't really blame "the government", they were misled too. Its like the engineers know that production of nuclear fuel and bombs would generate waste, but their attitude is they can work it out. The corporate heads then say, our engineers are on top of it.

Then the government says, okay as long as its safe.

That was a long time ago. Nowadays they all say, thats not my department.




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


If true how is this not a national security issue requiring whatever resources are necessary to remediate the situation..?

It's mind boggling that such thing could be permitted to occur...



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
IF theres more THAN ONE LEAK,sorry to say, but by the time they realized the dangerous of the situation,the food chain is already doomed.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Aww.. FFS we get MUCH MORE nuclear radiation pummeling the Earth from the SUN then any of these things!
edit on 30/4/13 by fr33kSh0w2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
This kills me (figuratively and literally) but we are so on the anti gun band wagon whereas there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of poorly stored radioactive materials, not to mention nuclear power plants. The lack of care and safety is a far more concerning mega death scenario. This would not be a quick/kind death mind you, and destroy land and non human life for hundreds of thousands of years. Somehow/someway, the government are the gate keepers, I mean you don't have nuclear waste without the government being involved in the safety of the material. Where are all the officials talking down about this stuff and trying all they can to stop the manufacture of the crap?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Between this, Fukishima and the Corexit -- I'm still waiting for my mutant super powers. Sadly, I think it will just cause earlier death instead.


Would anyone with telekinetic power please raise my hand?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by timewarpedbrain7
 


You know what I don't blame our current government they had nothing to do with it. I will though lay the blame on older regimes in our government for having the attitude of it'll get fixed later. Thanks alot " greatest generation" for leaving us to deal with this nasty, deadly mess.

You can't really blame "the government", they were misled too. Its like the engineers know that production of nuclear fuel and bombs would generate waste, but their attitude is they can work it out. The corporate heads then say, our engineers are on top of it.

Then the government says, okay as long as its safe.

That was a long time ago. Nowadays they all say, thats not my department.


they may say that but I'm sure the government has tons of regulations and inspections that were lacking. I'm not trying to point the finger at just one group because there really are alot of people reasonable for this.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Thank you for the update on Hanford, OP. Kinda puts shootings, bombings and the economy in better perspective.

There are several of these sites in the US and any nuclear facility has the potential to turn into a toxic nightmare. The worst is that they are all near vast bodies of water, above and below ground, that will carry these chemical and radiological poisions far and wide.

Don't forget the Columbia empties into the Pacific which is taking a beating from Fu*kishima.

There is a site near where I live, I'm lucky and live above the watershed affected, that has poisoned an entire generation of people who live nearby wtih a variety of life-threatening and debilating conditions. Offically, the 'reasearch' site had nothing to do with it -- developer want to build hundreds of homes nearby. See "Santa Suzanna Field Laboratory" and "Runkle Canyon" for more about this particular mess that is being ignored.

How many of these places are there?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Actually, the EPA should've had some responsibility in oversight of Hanford as it is a superfund site. It also falls under the joint responsibility with the Department of Energy so there's two federal agencies that should have been watching it better.

yosemite.epa.gov...
yosemite.epa.gov...
www.oregonlive.com...

So yeah, our government failed as well.

edit on 30/4/13 by WhiteAlice because: not feeling well fail.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
Actually, the EPA should've had some responsibility in oversight of Hanford as it is a superfund site. It also falls under the joint responsibility with the Department of Energy so there's two federal agencies that should have been watching it better.

yosemite.epa.gov...
yosemite.epa.gov...
www.oregonlive.com...

So yeah, our government failed as well.

edit on 30/4/13 by WhiteAlice because: not feeling well fail.


thank you for that.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd


How many of these places are there?


q

numbers quite high if I recall correctly, another great question would be how many do we not know about?

also I've read of one in a mountain called the yucca mountain. Suggest looking into that!



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by timewarpedbrain7
 


they may say that but I'm sure the government has tons of regulations and inspections that were lacking. I'm not trying to point the finger at just one group because there really are alot of people reasonable for this.

Yah, I agree. Its an ongoing battle. The only thing I know to do on my level is reduce my use of resources as much as possible and thats a personal choice. Most people would find it difficult not owning a home, a car and stuff.

The money is in resource consumption, not resource conservation. So, I am always broke.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 
Of course the waste leaking at nuclear facilities like Hanford and others isn't "spent fuel" It's the waste generated from making weapons.

Absolutely but the conversation so far has been bouncing between Hanford (weapons grade waste) and nuclear power plants, hence why I chimed in with the reprocessing. Hanford has and always will be a damn mess. Then again, the Department of Defense also was behind going ahead and dropping a total of 11 atomic bombs in Nevada in 1953 so no great surprised that they trashed Hanford. My grandpa used to say that they would claim that they didn't know how bad any of it was but he always held the opinion that they did know and didn't care.

I'm actually for reprocessing spent fuel rods because it assists in eliminating more mining operations that risk exposure to uranium miners (also included in part of Radiation-Exposed Compensation Act--RECA) and makes it so that we're are minimizing our radioactive waste. I find that if we can re-use what would be more toxic waste, then we probably should instead of simply saying "well, we're screwed anyways so let's just make more". Personally, I'd like to see all the nuclear power plants scrapped and start seeing more stuff like this in the states. I mean, seriously...it'd make something good come out of what is a nasty waste of space


cleantechnica.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MariaLida
 


If true how is this not a national security issue requiring whatever resources are necessary to remediate the situation..?

It's mind boggling that such thing could be permitted to occur...


Interesting. Oregon Public Broadcasting chose to interview a...reporter?!...about the Hanford issues in this Q&A. Apparently, she points a finger at the sequester that hadn't hit yet. Anyways, ironic that the chief interview for OPB on what went wrong is with a radio show host and NOT somebody from the EPA or DOE. www.opb.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by timewarpedbrain7
 


they may say that but I'm sure the government has tons of regulations and inspections that were lacking. I'm not trying to point the finger at just one group because there really are alot of people reasonable for this.

Yah, I agree. Its an ongoing battle. The only thing I know to do on my level is reduce my use of resources as much as possible and thats a personal choice. Most people would find it difficult not owning a home, a car and stuff.

The money is in resource consumption, not resource conservation. So, I am always broke.


I agree its an ongoing battle, one that it seems we have no say in nor can we really do anything. Its already in a container leaking... I'm interested if anyone has any solutions besides siding it to space...?

the second part of your quote is 100% truth if only there was some way to change that.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by timewarpedbrain7
 


Its already in a container leaking... I'm interested if anyone has any solutions besides siding it to space...?

The problem is they already gave it the best storage containmnet they could. The life of these tanks is supposed to be 40-50 years and now they are leaking. So, how do you clean up atoms from the environment. The only way to do that is make bigger tanks to put all the older tanks and machinery used to clean up the spills and, etc. You see?

Launching stuff into space is expensive. I heard about 10,000 USD a pound. Imagine paying for millions of tons of this to go up there? What if it explodes on lift off? Now you got a bigger mess even. That is the worst thing about the nuclear industry. They sold it to the people as a clean safe, non toxic way of making electricity...

Now we hear the waste and by products are not as safe as we were led to believe. And they will remain hazardous in some cases for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, drip, drip, drip...

I'm mad too.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
But these tanks were made 30-40 years ago, I'm sure there is something better than what they used back than. I do like your idea of putting them in bigger tanks but they'd have to be separate, don't want all that junk in one big container for an even worse mess.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by fr33kSh0w2012
Aww.. FFS we get MUCH MORE nuclear radiation pummeling the Earth from the SUN then any of these things!

\Do you get paid to post here?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 

As long as your constituency is willing to pay higher utility bills...

Problem is even the nuclear giants don't know what to do with all the accumulating waste and aging plants. They are past their planned life cycle. Its not a matter of remaking the system that we use, its a matter of people curtailing their consumption cycle.

I hate saying that because its corny and I am guilty of it too.

This morning I walked my dog early over by the clubhouse. We were looking for squirrels and I kept hearing this whirring noise. I thought wheres that coming from. I realized that people were in the exercise room using the treadmills. They had the Tv and lights on and were walking in place at 7 am.

Now you go tell them to just go for a walk instead of using all that nuclear power.
edit on 30-4-2013 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fr33kSh0w2012
 


Aww.. FFS we get MUCH MORE nuclear radiation pummeling the Earth from the SUN then any of these things!

Actually you are talking about different "radiation". Ionizing radiation and non ionizing radiation are two different things. Most of the dangerous "nuclear radiation" (as you put it) is blocked by the earths magnetic field. It comes down at the poles and makes pretty colored lights.

Radioactive contamination from waste, bomb making and leaking reactors or waste tanks is down here on the ground with us generating radioactivity. Not up in the core of the sun where it belongs.





new topics
top topics
 
144
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join