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

They should build a house right next to each nuclear waste site, and install the managers and their families in them rent free.

When these people and their families are living onsite and will be the first to be exposed upon any 'accident', you can be certain there will be fewer accidents and all equipment will be top notch condition.

More about Hanford.

An article from early April, 2013.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Underground tanks that hold a stew of toxic, radioactive waste at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site pose a possible risk of explosion, a nuclear safety board said in advance of confirmation hearings for the next leader of the Energy Department.

"All the double-shell tanks contain waste that continuously generates some flammable gas," the board said. "This gas will eventually reach flammable conditions if adequate ventilation is not provided."

Originally posted by proteus33
reply to post by MariaLida

 

my question on this happening is WHY IS AN OUTSIDE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION allowed to run waste farm and second question WHY WASN'T GOVERMENT INSPECTORS DOING INSPECTIONS EVERY 3 OR 4 MONTHS.

Because some Congressmen believe that as an axiom, government employees are always wrong and inefficient and corrupt and private organizations aren't.

Watch: government will get the blame for what the private corp did.

The nuclear power industry is a ticking time bomb. Sooner or later some mega tsunami or mega earthquake is gonna flatten several nuclear power stations and turn a survivable event ( in global terms ) into an extinction level event.
It's complete insanity, and not being able to dispose of the waste is even more deranged. Don't these people have any regard for their children and grandchildrens lives?
To put this technology into the hands of private companies, who will cut as many corners as possible in their mad lust for more and more profit, is endangering the future of the entire planet.

reply to post by doobydoll

Exactly.I'm glad this thread's getting a lot of attention,this is a very disturbing matter indeed.

Thanks for the link to the update MariaLida.

I've been bad about reading the paper and watching the news lately so I'd not heard about the double-tanks leaking, only the singles. I did hear some fear-mongering a few weeks ago about the risk of hydrogen gas build-up in the doubles and possible explosion but at the end of the radio report, the announcer finally mentioned that pressure was monitored and there was NO build up of hydrogen.

From reading the responses in the OP, I think some people are confusing the Hanford site (Manhattan project/cold war) with the Columbia Generating Station (nuclear power station). As far as I know, there are no issues at the power station. The Hanford site, though, is home to the largest environmental cleanup effort in the US and it isn't going well. War, war-mongering and the concept of MAD will leave its mark until the end of time.

And the list just keeps piling up. We are going to leave a world of dread and agony for our grandchildren and great grand children if we don't do something about this, NOW.

just a quick stupid thought...if we use the uranium to make heat to make steam,why can't the used fuel be used to boil water too?How doe's it wear out or be used up if it's still so hot?

lol, send this junk to space and let other planets and aliens worry about it ..come to think of it, would be a good idea to send it to Jupiter, somewhere far where it's already full of toxins!

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.

reply to post by live2beknown


only a few problems

1. What country is willing to have this stuff launched from there land? Remember Columbia?

2. What happens if the rocket carrying this explodes but at an altitude that would destroy anything underneath it in radioactive rain.

3. Why destroy another planet with our deadly waste.

in all honesty its time mankind find some other form of energy before we all become deformed mutant people. Lol

reply to post by timewarpedbrain7


Well, you can lay blame on the more current government for the privatization of the maintenance and storage of this stuff. That's a more current issue as in the last 10 or so years.

reply to post by timewarpedbrain7


lol, I tried..was sarcasm though..It's always like that, oh, we'll let our children worry about it..It always goes like that..they know something bad is going to happen so they set it aside and let the other generation deal with the mess or try to at least.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


you could but are these people going to these sites to check on them no. Were the companies they choose to maintain these chemicals probably lieing to them about leaks? Oh heck yes they were.. Honestly to me it just boils down to the whole attitude of it'll get fixed/taken care of later only these things seemed to never be dealt with.

reply to post by live2beknown


what you have said right here sums up the way our government has been running for decades' which is just b/s. I mean with this situation what can we do but it in another container and say oh are kids will figure out what to do with it. Seems like a very long and never ending cycle especially with a substance with a half life of over thousands of years.

on a side note has anyone heard about obummer signing something that would raise the radioactive levels in drinking water?

Originally posted by below
Such a huge story!

why aren't the major news network covering this threat?

Local media has really been hitting it hard...especially the Seattle stations. I believe it was one of their 'investigative' stories that broke it.

It would appear, however, that MSM in areas that feel they are not directly impacted, have not picked it up. Funny thing about nuclear waste and exposure; you don't usually know it's happening. It is a slow killer so is not glamorous enough to tell stories about.

The other reason, of course is the money. All sorts of reasons to keep this hush-hush and we know who owns the media.

This is all true OP. I currently live in WA state, in one of the cities neighboring Hanford nuclear plant. Many of my friends work there.

Hanford is a big deal here and many people think that heightened cancer rates, frequent gastrointestinal issues people in the area have and more, are all linked to Handford.

Just recently we were told that a few tanks holding toxic waste are indeed leaking and have been leaking for many years now. There is NO WAY for them to get to it and fix it or stop it. The other tanks are also decades over their life span and are expected to leak soon if they are not already.

However, here is what makes it all better -- they don't think the waste has reached the water bed yet.

reply to post by timewarpedbrain7


Oh definitely that the ultimate blame falls on the private contractor for the storage. Without a doubt. However, history has shown, time and time again, that when something is privatized, it also means that the bottom line will almost always take precedent. The government and the EPA has known about that sort of problem for a very long time. They sure as heck knew in the 70's that GE was dumping PCB's into the Hudson River. Or the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in 1969. Or Exxon-Valdez in 1989. They have had plenty of room for evidence that privatizing the storage of severely toxic contaminants was probably not the best idea.

reply to post by JakiusFogg

And so you just sit and do nothing when a clear violation and criminal negligence has been committed.

You act like I am the corporate police or something.

Yah, I'm game. Lets drag the bastards out of their 100th story office and string them up. I'll go get my tank and meet you in the square.

Uhhh. I'm a little short. Could you loan me a few million for the army we're going to need to conquer the police, guard and army we might encounter on the way down town?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Thank you for that reply. I bookmarked your links, they are very good. You are right about reprocessing fuel.

It's expensive, generates even more waste. When analyzing cost you know the feel good principle applies little to corporate ledgers. They will go with the cheaper option of burying it and making new fuel.

The other problem with reprocessing fuel is that fuel takes so long to cool. All the fuel in the reactors at Fukushima that had ever been used there was being stored in the fuel pools in the reactor buildings when the earthquake hit. They just simply have no better place to store it. And they weren't recycling it either.

Of course the waste leaking at nuclear facilities like Hanford and others isn't "spent fuel" It's the waste generated from making weapons.