Hanford Nuclear tunnel collapases.

They could be empty and still highly radioactive, possibly used to transport nuclear waste in for processing.

Cars were used to transport the material from the reactors to the plants that separated the plutonium. These might be stored.

a reply to: intrptr

That energy was focused on tumors, not random tissues

False. My entire torso was irradiated. Shoulders to hips. Lost all my hair, shoulders to hips. Hard to "focus" on lymphatic cancer.

and was turned off, not ongoing exposure from internal contamination.

That's not what was being discussed. It was this statement:

And while the older tunnel is reinforced with timber, Alvarez said, “according to a 1997 DOE report, inspection of the tunnels ‘is not feasible because of radiation levels in excess of five roentgens per hour.’ ”

a reply to: Phage

Lucky you.

These x-rays can destroy the cancer cells and careful treatment planning allows the surrounding normal tissues to be spared.

12:34 PM --

This video (www.youtube.com...) shows workers filling the hole in the roof of one of the PUREX tunnels, which are used to store rail cars containing contaminated equipment. The excavator places the dirt in the hole while the misting machine to the right of the excavator is used to control dust.

9:52 AM --

Workers have begun to fill the hole in the tunnel, located near the PUREX Plant in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site, with soil. Approximately 50 truckloads of soil will be used to fill the hole. There is a misting machine on the right side of the photo that is being used to control dust. The operator in the cab of the excavator is wearing a protective suit and a filtered air mask.

Link

a reply to: roadgravel

That Hanford site has more than just a caved in tunnel that they are dealing with, their tanks are also leaking radioactive liquid waste. This is high level radioactive waste, right next to the Columbia River...

Link

A leak in a massive nuclear waste storage tank at the Hanford Site has expanded significantly, KING 5 learned this weekend.

After leak detector alarms sounded early Sunday morning, crews at Hanford lowered a camera into the two-foot-wide space between the tank's inner and outer walls. They discovered 8.4 inches of radioactive and chemically toxic waste has seeped into the annulus.
Until now, the leak found by Geffre was very slow. The liquid would almost immediately dry up, leaving a salt-like substance on the floor of the two-foot space between the tank's walls, called the annulus.

Approximately three weeks ago, work began to pump out the contents of AY-102, which has the capacity to hold one million gallons of the deadly waste. The state of Washington has been pressuring the federal government, which owns Hanford, to pump out AY-102 for three-and-a-half years because of the cracking and slow leaking discovered by Geffre in 2011. Sources told KING the disturbance caused by the pumping must have exacerbated the leak: essentially blowing a hole in the aging tank allowing the material to leak more quickly into the outer shell.

Tank AY-102 is one of 28 double-shell tanks at Hanford (there are 177 underground tanks total) holding nuclear byproducts from nearly four decades of plutonium production on the Hanford Nuclear Site, located near Richland. Initially the plutonium was used to fuel the bombed dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II.

I read there is large ground water plume from the 200 East area to the river.

In the gallery at the Hanford site there is a pic of the inside of one of the tanks. Huge things.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrptr

That energy was focused on tumors, not random tissues

False. My entire torso was irradiated. Shoulders to hips. Lost all my hair, shoulders to hips. Hard to "focus" on lymphatic cancer.

and was turned off, not ongoing exposure from internal contamination.

That's not what was being discussed. It was this statement:

And while the older tunnel is reinforced with timber, Alvarez said, “according to a 1997 DOE report, inspection of the tunnels ‘is not feasible because of radiation levels in excess of five roentgens per hour.’ ”

We need to get off the nasty version of nuclear reactions and radiation.

I hope you are ok Phage. I have always had a hard time thinking radiation therapy was actually good for us overall. After all it is designed to kill live cells. I have some reason to believe we can choose diets that include anti-carcinogens but that whole field is not very trustworthy. Dr. Lorraine Day, a physician who had cancer and found a way to cure her's holistically, has information on her cancer that is on her site . She found that we are doing things to decrease our body's ability to take in water. Clean water is a good idea and not chlorinated/ Fluoridated water. That is to be avoided by her estimation and they do put poison labels on the gaseous versions. Hope you are well now. I like to get your opinion, even if we disagree somewhat.

a reply to: Justoneman

Disinfecting public water systems with chlorine saves lives.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

Disinfecting public water systems with chlorine saves lives.

Sure, but drinking it is certainly an issue.

ETA,

Ozone is pretty good bubbled through water. But fresh out of college I worked doing bio assays where we checked the small aquatic life verses specific pollutants. Later, I worked a job that improve water quality. Now I am involved in monitoring air pollution as I have stated on here few times. Sewage that gets into our drinking water is why we chlorinate.

a reply to: Justoneman
The use of chlorine in the treatment of drinking water has virtually eliminated waterborne diseases.

Benefit far outweighs the risk.

It's not just about sewage getting into the drinking water, it's any waterborne pathogen.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman
The use of chlorine in the treatment of drinking water has virtually eliminated waterborne diseases.

Benefit far outweighs the risk.

It's not just about sewage getting into the drinking water, it's any waterborne pathogen.

Oh sure but still there is no way you should not "scrub out" Chlorine. A lot of filters you can put on the faucet do that.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman
The use of chlorine in the treatment of drinking water has virtually eliminated waterborne diseases.

Benefit far outweighs the risk.

It's not just about sewage getting into the drinking water, it's any waterborne pathogen.

Oh sure but still there is no way you should not "scrub out" Chlorine. A lot of filters you can put on the faucet do that.

I wouldn't rely upon a faucet filter for much of anything.

Personally i drink bottled water.

Washington Dept of Ecology taking legal action after Hanford collapse

RICHLAND, Wash. - The state of Washington is taking swift legal action against the U.S. government after a tunnel full of mixed radioactive and chemical waste collapsed Tuesday at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

“This alarming emergency compels us to take immediate action – to hold the federal government accountable to its obligation to clean up the largest nuclear waste site in the country,” said Washington Department of Ecology Director Maia Bellon in a release Wednesday.

Source
From the state's Dept. of Ecology release - see here

Here's a new video that came out today re. the accident. Has anyone else heard the info he is giving?

Edit: For some reason I cannot get the YouTube video to work. Here's the link:

Hanford video 5/11/17

Also, I'm listening to Pastor Paul Begley's live broadcast and he was talking about a text that was sent to his wife from someone who lives near Hanford. She said that some of the workers there are still quarantined and there was a release of radioactivity into the air.

I went to flightradar24.com and can't find any traffic over this area. Does it have a no-fly zone?

Is this much worse than we are being told?

a reply to: dianajune

Most nuclear sites have restrictions over them up to about 18,000 feet . Right now they have a 5nm, 5,000 foot restriction added to it. Hanford is one of several that is harder to restrict because there's an airport nearby. I'm looking for the NOTAM about the normal airspace now and will post it if I find it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok. Thanks!

a reply to: dianajune

Is this much worse than we are being told?

As far as the site as a whole, yes, it's far worse than is being told.

This is going to cost in the 100's of billions and take decades to clean up.

a reply to: D8Tee

100's of billions? Nah, it can't be that much...

originally posted by: andrewjerol91
a reply to: D8Tee

100's of billions? Nah, it can't be that much...

Citing the 2014 Hanford Lifecycle Scope Schedule and Cost report, the 2014 estimated cost of the remaining Hanford clean up is $113.6 billion – more than $3 billion per year for the next six years, with a lower cost projection of approximately $2 billion per year until 2046.
Source

Fukishima is going to cost 188 billion
Source

Remember, these are both estimates, expect them to do nothing but go up.

$40 billion has already been spent.