If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Washington Governor announces leaking radioactive waste at nuclear site poses no immediate risk to public safety or environment...because it will need a while to reach groundwater. Former Iraqi Information Minister nods approvingly   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 58
    More: Scary, Natural Resources Committee, weapons-grade plutonium, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Jay Inslee  
•       •       •

2458 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 08:28:17 AM  
It's not all bad news. At least I will be able to see my water glass in the dark now.
 
2013-02-23 08:31:12 AM  
If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...
 
2013-02-23 08:34:43 AM  
Yet nuclear is still killing fewer people per watt-hour than wind farms.
 
2013-02-23 08:36:38 AM  

Copper Spork: Yet nuclear is still killing fewer people per watt-hour than wind farms.


??
 
2013-02-23 08:38:07 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

In the meantime, if we could get some of you to go roll around in it a bit, the boys in the lab feel there is perhaps as high as a 5% chance one of you would develop a non-lethal, beneficial form of cancer. Such a cancer would be unheard of to science and could potentially...What's that? OK, I'm being told that it wouldn't be "non-lethal", it would be "super-lethal". Apparently your extremities would start falling off within minutes. Still, that would be fascinating too, wouldn't it?
 
2013-02-23 08:39:41 AM  
And quietly the zombie apocalypse begins, not with a bang but with the leaking of radioactive chemicals.
 
2013-02-23 08:41:41 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Copper Spork: Yet nuclear is still killing fewer people per watt-hour than wind farms.

??


I think he's proposing killing more people with nuclear power plants. Perhaps by dropping them on people. I don't agree with this idea.
 
2013-02-23 08:42:55 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-23 08:45:50 AM  

Notabunny: Hobodeluxe: Copper Spork: Yet nuclear is still killing fewer people per watt-hour than wind farms.

??

I think he's proposing killing more people with nuclear power plants. Perhaps by dropping them on people. I don't agree with this idea.


Dont forget the cost of storing that radioactive wind.
 
2013-02-23 08:46:35 AM  
The deli at the Pasco airport (the closest air carrier airport to Hanford) is named after Blinky...
theness.com
 
2013-02-23 08:49:37 AM  
The guy is 62. In three years he'll be down in Arizona. I think we can determine that "a while" is not less than 3 years.

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...


We can't drill for oil in the middle of nowhere either. The middle of nowhere is strictly off limits.
 
2013-02-23 08:54:06 AM  
No rich people at risk? No problem!
 
2013-02-23 08:54:14 AM  

edmo: The guy is 62. In three years he'll be down in Arizona. I think we can determine that "a while" is not less than 3 years.

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

We can't drill for oil in the middle of nowhere either. The middle of nowhere is strictly off limits.


The Gulf of Mexico? Nothing ever spilled there.
 
2013-02-23 08:57:29 AM  

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...


but.....but....but.....  Sometime in the next ten million years there could be a magnitude 2 or 3 earthquake there, which could possibly shift the nearly indestructible transport casks literally dozens of millimeters from the location where they were orinally placed.  That would be far, far worse than radioactive water leaching into the ground water in an inhabited area.
 
2013-02-23 09:00:25 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

but.....but....but.....  Sometime in the next ten million years there could be a magnitude 2 or 3 earthquake there, which could possibly shift the nearly indestructible transport casks literally dozens of millimeters from the location where they were orinally placed.  That would be far, far worse than radioactive water leaching into the ground water in an inhabited area.


Nation of Japan, Nation of Japan. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.
 
2013-02-23 09:11:21 AM  

johnryan51: HK-MP5-SD: bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

but.....but....but.....  Sometime in the next ten million years there could be a magnitude 2 or 3 earthquake there, which could possibly shift the nearly indestructible transport casks literally dozens of millimeters from the location where they were orinally placed.  That would be far, far worse than radioactive water leaching into the ground water in an inhabited area.

Nation of Japan, Nation of Japan. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.


Yes, please, go on. I'd like to learn more about the tsunami risk at Yucca mountain.
 
2013-02-23 09:13:18 AM  

johnryan51: HK-MP5-SD: bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

but.....but....but.....  Sometime in the next ten million years there could be a magnitude 2 or 3 earthquake there, which could possibly shift the nearly indestructible transport casks literally dozens of millimeters from the location where they were orinally placed.  That would be far, far worse than radioactive water leaching into the ground water in an inhabited area.

Nation of Japan, Nation of Japan. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.


Yeah, now that you mention it, if a kilometer wide asteroid struck in the pacific ocean and the resulting 4,000 foot tall tidal wave went over the sierra nevada mountains and struck the yucca mountain facility that could also shift the transport casks and that would really suck...... unless of course the blast from the impact exterminated 99.99% of life on earth long before the tidal wave hit.
 
2013-02-23 09:30:32 AM  
"they're holding two-thirds of the nation's high-level nuclear waste."

"An estimated 1 million gallons of radioactive liquid has already leaked there."



Nice. Morons.

Cant believe they canceled the Yucca mountain project.
 
2013-02-23 09:33:13 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: johnryan51: HK-MP5-SD: bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

but.....but....but.....  Sometime in the next ten million years there could be a magnitude 2 or 3 earthquake there, which could possibly shift the nearly indestructible transport casks literally dozens of millimeters from the location where they were orinally placed.  That would be far, far worse than radioactive water leaching into the ground water in an inhabited area.

Nation of Japan, Nation of Japan. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Yeah, now that you mention it, if a kilometer wide asteroid struck in the pacific ocean and the resulting 4,000 foot tall tidal wave went over the sierra nevada mountains and struck the yucca mountain facility that could also shift the transport casks and that would really suck...... unless of course the blast from the impact exterminated 99.99% of life on earth long before the tidal wave hit.


And we'd never see the asteroid coming because everybody with a telescope would be too busy staring at  the UFOs that came to watch the show.
 
2013-02-23 09:54:36 AM  
I have complete faith in our ruling-class elite.

*twitch*
 
2013-02-23 09:59:58 AM  
"Quite a while..."

How long is that in dog years?
 
2013-02-23 10:11:51 AM  
Washington people don't care about Spokane anyway.

Stupid place to put a city.
 
2013-02-23 10:21:08 AM  
Do you believe in societal intelligence? Ever see a mob after a victory. Mob mentality, right? Many individuals have the intelligence to manage nuclear. I see their rantings on Fark about how modern nuclear is safe. But individuals don't manage the industry. Society and government does. And as a society, we are still morons. Thats why people with wisdom in government should be outlawing this technology. Would you give a 5 year old a gun, even though they insist that they will handle it with care? Thats the same as giving our society nuclear energy.  Its just an accident waiting to happen.
 
2013-02-23 10:22:32 AM  
A few years to enter the water table ....

How many centuries to exit the water table??
 
2013-02-23 10:37:22 AM  
There's an old Heinlein rant, in Extended Universe I think, where he came up with a solution for nuclear waste.  I've never been able to find out how practical it was, although I thought it made sense.

Basically, rather than storing it in something that could/would eventually leak out, mix it in concrete or some other inert material, and then bake it into bricks.  Then go store the bricks somewhere.  Obviously make them giant bricks so someone can't easily steal them.

The reasoning behind it was something along the lines of, the byproducts might be waste to us, but our descendents might want/need it.  Even if that weren't the case, I'd rather have a 50 ton block of concrete that was as "hot" as a smoke detector buried somewhere or stored in a cave or even kept in a warehouse somewhere than these types of situations that can effectively make parts of the world unlivable.
 
2013-02-23 10:40:09 AM  

Alonjar: "they're holding two-thirds of the nation's high-level nuclear waste."

"An estimated 1 million gallons of radioactive liquid has already leaked there."

Nice. Morons.

Cant believe they canceled the Yucca mountain project.


I'm usually the first one to point out the flaws and dangers involved with nuclear power, but 99% of the waste at Hanford is a legacy of our nation's nuclear weapons program. Even if Yucca Mountain was open today, it wouldn't accept Hanford's waste for another few centuries. That's because the waste isn't something simple like spent fuel rods. It instead is millions of gallons of instantly lethal, corrosive radioactive sludge, with the consistency of peanut butter.

The only potential solution we have is to move the sludge over to slightly better reinforced double walled tanks (out of their currently single walled storage tanks). Step two is to finish the vitrification plant, which is supposed to turn that sludge into a more stable and less radioactive glass-like bricks.

The problem is that the 'vit' plant is decades behind in construction, already many billions over budget, and there seems to be a constant stream of whistleblowers involved who say it's being halfassed in both engineering and construction.

There is already a sizable radioactive plume of material underground that is very close to the Columbia River, with more material being added daily. Once it hits the second largest waterway in the USA (and major metropolitan areas down river) just wait for the shiat to hit the fan.

/former news reporter on the Hanford area
 
2013-02-23 10:41:38 AM  
Doh! Decades, not centuries.
 
2013-02-23 10:55:39 AM  
Well there is a better way to dispose of nuclear waste...just load it into extra rocket tanks and shoot it into the sun...it might even delay the supernova.that's supposed to happen in a few million years
 
2013-02-23 11:13:21 AM  
I liked Hanford better when their reactors were directly cooled by Columbia river water. Good times!


/just dump the waste into a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean
 
2013-02-23 11:22:53 AM  
A few hundred gallons compared to the millions they intentionally dumped for decades is not a problem.
 
2013-02-23 11:31:17 AM  

Gleeman: just dump the waste into a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean


Subduction is too slow.

Try ... um ... dammit can't think of one
 
2013-02-23 11:54:51 AM  
www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

/oblig
 
2013-02-23 11:55:16 AM  

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...


Portland metro area is down river.

So you're right, nothing of value will be contaminated.
 
2013-02-23 12:00:47 PM  

SpdrJay: Washington people don't care about Spokane anyway.

Stupid place to put a city.


Spokane's really not in the crosshairs.

Tri-Cities (Richland / Pasco / Kennewick) are right next door, and probably could be impacted by the leak if it got bad enough.

I'm guessing it would dilute by the time it got down river to Portland, but anything that freaks out the hippies could have some comedic unintended consequences.
 
2013-02-23 12:10:15 PM  
www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com


I miss Baghdad Bob. He was always good for a laugh.

 
2013-02-23 12:11:53 PM  

GiantPeon: Do you believe in societal intelligence? Ever see a mob after a victory. Mob mentality, right? Many individuals have the intelligence to manage nuclear. I see their rantings on Fark about how modern nuclear is safe. But individuals don't manage the industry. Society and government does. And as a society, we are still morons. Thats why people with wisdom in government should be outlawing this technology. Would you give a 5 year old a gun, even though they insist that they will handle it with care? Thats the same as giving our society nuclear energy.  Its just an accident waiting to happen.


Isn't there another article about kids survivalist training on the front page?

Just saying.

Idiocracy is becoming more and more real with each passing moment. I don't think it will take quite as long for that eventuality to come to fruition...
 
2013-02-23 12:18:07 PM  

Generation_D: SpdrJay: Washington people don't care about Spokane anyway.

Stupid place to put a city.

Spokane's really not in the crosshairs.

Tri-Cities (Richland / Pasco / Kennewick) are right next door, and probably could be impacted by the leak if it got bad enough.

I'm guessing it would dilute by the time it got down river to Portland, but anything that freaks out the hippiessters could have some comedic unintended consequences.


FTFY
 
2013-02-23 12:25:24 PM  

jamspoon: Gleeman: just dump the waste into a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean

Subduction is too slow.

Try ... um ... dammit can't think of one


No send it to the moon.  What could happen...
www.cultbritannia.co.uk


Martin Landau and Barbara Bain...the saddest thing is wasted talent.
 
2013-02-23 12:53:23 PM  
As a OR/WA resident all of my life, I completely understand that this will never be resolved in my lifetime.

Or at least until they stop spending 5 BILLION DOLLARS a year on the damned thing.
 
2013-02-23 01:14:19 PM  

johnryan51: edmo: The guy is 62. In three years he'll be down in Arizona. I think we can determine that "a while" is not less than 3 years.

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

We can't drill for oil in the middle of nowhere either. The middle of nowhere is strictly off limits.

The Gulf of Mexico? Nothing ever spilled there.


I was thinking Chernobyl area myself.  It's already a no-living zone for the most part.  Setup a international nuclear waster management site there.
 
2013-02-23 01:58:08 PM  

Slam1263: As a OR/WA resident all of my life, I completely understand that this will never be resolved in my lifetime.

Or at least until they stop spending 5 BILLION DOLLARS a year on the damned thing.


I actually worked on the design for the medium level waste separation operation at Hanford.  Any time you have to deal with radioactive waste this hot, the cost skyrockets.  Ten years ago, you would just multiple anything by around 1050 to get the actual cost of construction.
 
2013-02-23 02:22:59 PM  

nickerj1: johnryan51: edmo: The guy is 62. In three years he'll be down in Arizona. I think we can determine that "a while" is not less than 3 years.

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...

We can't drill for oil in the middle of nowhere either. The middle of nowhere is strictly off limits.

The Gulf of Mexico? Nothing ever spilled there.

I was thinking Chernobyl area myself.  It's already a no-living zone for the most part.  Setup a international nuclear waster management site there.


Do you really want those dirty commie pinko Russkies to be the ones standing between nuclear material and terrorist bomb-making geniuses?

/'Merica, fark yeah!
 
2013-02-23 02:57:48 PM  

bborchar: If only there were some site in the middle of nowhere that nuclear waste could be stored safely and without any fear of contaminating anything...


Kansas has too much political clout.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:50 PM  
Washington Governor announces leaking radioactive waste at nuclear site poses no immediate risk to public safety or environment because it will need a while to reach groundwater.

The Governor continued: "Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year! They oughta have 'em, too."

The Governor then proceeded to get into a brown 1964 Chevrolet Malibu with a New Mexico license plate and drove off.
 
2013-02-23 04:02:25 PM  
I am not an expert but why can't they dig around the tanks and then fill it all in with concrete?
 
2013-02-23 04:51:08 PM  

JakeStone: There's an old Heinlein rant, in Extended Universe I think, where he came up with a solution for nuclear waste.  I've never been able to find out how practical it was, although I thought it made sense.

Basically, rather than storing it in something that could/would eventually leak out, mix it in concrete or some other inert material, and then bake it into bricks.  Then go store the bricks somewhere.  Obviously make them giant bricks so someone can't easily steal them.

The reasoning behind it was something along the lines of, the byproducts might be waste to us, but our descendents might want/need it.  Even if that weren't the case, I'd rather have a 50 ton block of concrete that was as "hot" as a smoke detector buried somewhere or stored in a cave or even kept in a warehouse somewhere than these types of situations that can effectively make parts of the world unlivable.


They could park it next to this.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-23 04:57:39 PM  
So far, nearby monitoring wells haven't detected higher radioactivity levels.

Higher? Some was measured? That is scary right there.
 
2013-02-23 05:00:54 PM  

saturn badger: So far, nearby monitoring wells haven't detected higher radioactivity levels.

Higher? Some was measured? That is scary right there.


They dumped many millions of gallons of waste into the ground on purpose.  They used to use bottomless tanks and unlined trenches to dump the waste into.
 
2013-02-23 05:09:58 PM  

bratface: I am not an expert but why can't they dig around the tanks and then fill it all in with concrete?


I would assume it's because they then have a whole bunch of toxic dirt to store somewhere.
 
2013-02-23 05:47:14 PM  

bratface: I am not an expert but why can't they dig around the tanks and then fill it all in with concrete?


money. lots and lots of money.

that nobody wants to spend until Tri-Cities is glowing green at night. More green.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report