It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jhn7537
Well, this wasn't a fun thread to read.......
More bad sh*t just on the horizon... I honestly wish we could go a year without a nuclear story with inconceivable consequences... If this true, which is must be, we have a very bleak future to look forward to.
Maybe I'm being a little extreme here, but I wouldn't mind our country rounding up the dipsh*ts who decided to use the cheapest builder to help their company save a little money and then show them what real pain feels like...
Bonus money trumps safety at Hanford, experts say
"Reporting leaks in high-level waste tanks has been frowned upon at this site for decades," said Bob Alvarez, a former presidential adviser on nuclear policy. “There’s this whole dynamic that is built up where people are totally discouraged from raising concerns, especially those that I call have a show-stopping nature to them, such as leaking high-level radioactive waste tanks.”
At :30 in
June 9, 1998
Gary Chittim, KING5 Reporter: They’ve already found cesium in the Columbia River. They’ve already found radioactive material in the Columbia River. So it’s not a question of when that will happen. It’s a question of now that it’s happened, what does that mean.
At 3:15 in
Chittim: If u go back and talk to a lot of the government leaders from this state they were all very frustrated […] Talking to [former Washington Governor] Gary Locke, he called it Chernobyl underground, waiting to happen.
At Hanford, the former plutonium production facility located in Eastern Washington, not much takes place without a carefully designed plan. With 56 million gallons of the most highly contaminated nuclear waste on the planet stored in underground tanks at the site, human and environmental health depend on the precise work of Hanford employees and their strict adherence to written procedures.
Once touted as a successor, or at least a competitor, to carbon-based power, the nuclear sector has taken a beating as the momentum behind new projects stalls and enthusiasm for domestic fossil fuel production grows.
Across the country, plans to build nuclear plants have hit roadblocks recently—a sharp turn for a sector that just a few years ago was looking forward to a renaissance. These developments come as energy policy becomes increasingly focused on oil and gas.
The change in nuclear's fortunes is staggering, given that the U.S. is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Association. The country's 104 reactors account for more than 30 percent of nuclear electricity generation worldwide.
"Starting about four years ago, the industry felt it was in the middle of a renaissance" with applications for many new plants pending with the NRC, said Peter Bradford, a law professor and a former member of the commission. "They've gone from that high-water mark to a point at which … we're actually seeing the closing of a few operating plants,which was unthinkable even a few years ago."
An underground landfill fire near tons of nuclear waste raises serious health and safety concerns – so why isn’t the government doing more to help?
[...] It’s invisible to area residents, buried deep beneath the ground in a North St. Louis County landfill. [...] “It smells like dead bodies,” observes another local.
[...] “Am I going to end up with cancer 20 years down the road?” [...]
The Bridgeton landfill fire is burning close to at least 8,700 tons of nuclear weapons wastes. [...]
About 1,200 feet south of the radioactive EPA site, the fire at Bridgeton Landfill spreads out like hot barbeque coals. No one knows for sure what happens when an underground inferno meets a pool of atomic waste, but residents aren’t eager to find out. [...]
At a March 15th press conference, Peter Anderson – an economist who has studied landfills for over 20 years – raised the worst-case scenario of a “dirty bomb,” meaning a non-detonated, mass release of floating radioactive particles in metro St. Louis. “Now, to be clear, a dirty bomb is not nuclear fission, it’s not an atomic bomb, it’s not a weapon of mass destruction,” Anderson assured meeting attendants in Bridgeton’s Machinists Union Hall. “But the dispersal of that radioactive material in air that could reach – depending upon weather conditions – as far as 10 miles from the site could make it impossible to have economic activity continue.” [...]
Robert Criss, a geochemist at Washington University in St. Louis who has studied the issue closely, says the EPA is grossly underplaying a host of risks surrounding West Lake – flooding, earthquakes, liquefaction, groundwater leaching – that could pave the way for a public health crisis. That’s not to mention the recent development of an underground fire nearby. Says Criss, “There is no geological site I can think of that is more absurd to place such waste.” [...]