When people debate about nuclear energy, the point that other countries like France have "successfully" harnessed nuclear power always arises BUT the pro-nuclear party NEVER mentions the nuclear waste crisis France has and will continue to face...
The nuclear waste crisis in France
briefing document May 30th 2006
Since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has been largely neglected. Even today, large quantities of waste remain in unconditioned and unstable form, inventories of historical dump sites are lacking or were lost and one of the largest dump sites in the world near the La Hague reprocessing plant is leaking into the underground water. Now evidence is emerging that a new nuclear dump site in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides.
The French nuclear waste authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. Even French government regulators are expressing their concerns over the conditions at both dump sites.
New nuclear projects threaten to make a crisis into an even greater nuclear catastrophe...
The nuclear power and reprocessing industry have created large volumes of waste, of which many are stored in an unstable condition. They have also illegally dumped tens of thousands of cubic meters of waste in France, without an option to ever take them back. The European liberalization of the electricity market and the partial privatization of EdF have raised the question of who is going to pay. In 2004, in a first case, EdF has reached an agreement to transfer the financial liabilities for the waste it generated at the Marcoule reprocessing plant, in return for a one-off payment likely to be more than a billion of euros lower than the real disposal cost.
A deal heavily criticized by the French Court of Auditors and currently under investigation by the European Commission for illegal state aid. For almost 20 years, Greenpeace has consistently and successfully challenged these dangerous practices. A major breakthrough has been to halt reprocessing contracts of foreign clients with Cogema-La Hague, thereby effectively reducing the discharges of liquid radioactive waste and the transports of highly radioactive waste.
Furthermore, in a landmark ruling, the French Supreme Court in December 2005 condemned Cogema for illegal storage of foreign reprocessing waste in France. But still the nuclear waste crisis in France is growing. The French parliament is currently debating a revision of the nuclear waste legislation. This risks maintaining current practices of EdF and foreign electricity companies to dump the liability of their nuclear waste on French citizens, while maximizing their privatized benefits. As no solution has been found for a sound management of nuclear waste, problems are meanwhile transferred to future generations. This is the real crisis of nuclear waste.
View the article in its entirety here.
Showing posts with label nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Radioactive Waste Leaks Into Aquifer In France
Radioactive waste leaks into aquifer
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 24, 2006
RADIOACTIVE waste from a storage site in Normandy, France, is leaking into groundwater used by dairy cattle, says a report by a French laboratory, ACRO.
The aquifers showed levels of radioactivity, on average, more than seven times the European safety limit, said the report, published yesterday. Scientists from ACRO and Greenpeace have surveyed the contamination leaking from the low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste disposal plant at La Hague.
In the aquifer near the site, radioactivity was 90 times above the safety limit during 2005, the report said.
Greenpeace said the report followed news that a proposed Electricite de France nuclear reactor was unable to withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft.
The nuclear waste contaminating the Normandy environment was produced by reactors operated by Electricite de France and overseas customers of the reprocessing company.
Greenpeace has criticised the French Government for not seriously dealing with what it says is France's nuclear waste crisis.
The director of ACRO, Dr David Boiley, said mismanagement was damaging the environment.
"Repeated incidents have led to a constant release and, as a consequence, the groundwater and many outlets are highly contaminated with tritium [a radioactive form of hydrogen]," Dr Boiley said.
"We must note that for a long time there has been a lack of information regarding this chronic pollution, and even now a precise assessment of its impacts still needs to be done," he said.
"As far as the future situation, it could worsen in the long run because there is no guarantee that the wrappings of the older wastes, which also contain more hazardous elements, will last for long periods of time."
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 24, 2006
RADIOACTIVE waste from a storage site in Normandy, France, is leaking into groundwater used by dairy cattle, says a report by a French laboratory, ACRO.
The aquifers showed levels of radioactivity, on average, more than seven times the European safety limit, said the report, published yesterday. Scientists from ACRO and Greenpeace have surveyed the contamination leaking from the low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste disposal plant at La Hague.
In the aquifer near the site, radioactivity was 90 times above the safety limit during 2005, the report said.
Greenpeace said the report followed news that a proposed Electricite de France nuclear reactor was unable to withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft.
The nuclear waste contaminating the Normandy environment was produced by reactors operated by Electricite de France and overseas customers of the reprocessing company.
Greenpeace has criticised the French Government for not seriously dealing with what it says is France's nuclear waste crisis.
The director of ACRO, Dr David Boiley, said mismanagement was damaging the environment.
"Repeated incidents have led to a constant release and, as a consequence, the groundwater and many outlets are highly contaminated with tritium [a radioactive form of hydrogen]," Dr Boiley said.
"We must note that for a long time there has been a lack of information regarding this chronic pollution, and even now a precise assessment of its impacts still needs to be done," he said.
"As far as the future situation, it could worsen in the long run because there is no guarantee that the wrappings of the older wastes, which also contain more hazardous elements, will last for long periods of time."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
You Have A Voice So Use It.
I'm on the late bus but I just found out that New Jersey Governor Corzine wants to build another nuclear power plant in New Jersey so like every concerned 20-something New Jerseyian (HA!) I just took the time to write the following email to Corzine:
Governor Corzine,
I'm writing to you because I do not think you understand the hazardous implications of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most unsafe, COSTLY form of power. As of 1995, the nuclear power plant in Toms River, NJ leaked 421 tons of radioactive waste. This plant continues to contaminate our water supply. Do you have plans or intentions of cleaning this hazardous site?
Nuclear waste never goes away nor is there any "safe" way to store the waste. Nuclear power plants contaminate our water supply and land, cause and give off radiation which is a known carcinogen. I know you think nuclear power is the answer to lower CO2 emissions but radiation as is FAR worse than carbon dioxide.
I urge you to research the dangers of nuclear power. It's not a coincidence that cancer, mercury poisoning and autoimmune disease rates are higher near nuclear power plants. Please help protect New Jersey's health.
Hopefully, one day the government will embrace CLEAN technology like solar and wind instead of adding to our arsenal of nuclear waste.
I hope this message did not fall on deaf ears,
Jena Ardell
If you are also concerned about the dangers of nuclear energy now is the time to allow decision makers to hear your voice. Please write a similar message to your governor, explaining the dangers of nuclear power. Be sure to let him or her know how much money your state WON'T be saving between the cost to build the plant, train and hire workers, mantain the plant and the costly cleanup that will be necessary after one or more of the reactors leak (and trust me, they all leak) radioactive waste into your water supply.
An email or letter takes only minutes to write and your opinion is important, especially if it has the power to make someone rethink their actions. Your health is at stake.
Governor Corzine,
I'm writing to you because I do not think you understand the hazardous implications of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most unsafe, COSTLY form of power. As of 1995, the nuclear power plant in Toms River, NJ leaked 421 tons of radioactive waste. This plant continues to contaminate our water supply. Do you have plans or intentions of cleaning this hazardous site?
Nuclear waste never goes away nor is there any "safe" way to store the waste. Nuclear power plants contaminate our water supply and land, cause and give off radiation which is a known carcinogen. I know you think nuclear power is the answer to lower CO2 emissions but radiation as is FAR worse than carbon dioxide.
I urge you to research the dangers of nuclear power. It's not a coincidence that cancer, mercury poisoning and autoimmune disease rates are higher near nuclear power plants. Please help protect New Jersey's health.
Hopefully, one day the government will embrace CLEAN technology like solar and wind instead of adding to our arsenal of nuclear waste.
I hope this message did not fall on deaf ears,
Jena Ardell
NOTE: You can also contact Governor Corzine by writing to the Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 001, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0001, or by calling (609) 777-2500.
If you are also concerned about the dangers of nuclear energy now is the time to allow decision makers to hear your voice. Please write a similar message to your governor, explaining the dangers of nuclear power. Be sure to let him or her know how much money your state WON'T be saving between the cost to build the plant, train and hire workers, mantain the plant and the costly cleanup that will be necessary after one or more of the reactors leak (and trust me, they all leak) radioactive waste into your water supply.
An email or letter takes only minutes to write and your opinion is important, especially if it has the power to make someone rethink their actions. Your health is at stake.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
McCain proposes 100 new plants in the U.S.
Published: June 23, 2008 12:00AM
Nearly three decades after the Three Mile Island disaster, Sen. John McCain is proposing an American nuclear renaissance.
As part of a weeklong focus on energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said Wednesday that he wants 45 new nuclear plants to be built in the United States by 2030 and another 55 in later years.
Currently, there are 104 reactors in this country, and they supply a fifth of the nation’s electricity; many of the new plants proposed by McCain would replace existing ones. That’s because no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s, and many of the facilities still operating are nearing the end of their useful lives.
As are a growing number of Americans, McCain embraces nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to traditional energy sources that emit greenhouse gases. It’s an unqualified enthusiasm that brings to mind Homer Simpson’s memorable prayer thanking God “for nuclear power: the cleanest, safest energy there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipe dream.”
If McCain is elected president, he will attempt to end a long-standing American aversion to nuclear generated power, which sets this country apart from the rest of the world.
In contrast with the United States, France gets nearly 80 percent of its power from nuclear plants and has a robust building program, as do Japan and Finland. Britain is encouraging companies to build new reactors, and Italy recently lifted the ban on nuclear plants it imposed after the Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union two decades ago. Across the world, more than 100 new plants are either in the planning or construction stages, roughly half of them in rapidly developing nations such as China and India.
The United States should be in no rush to join the parade. Despite McCain’s glowing assessment and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power still has serious shortcomings.
Modern nuclear plants are certainly safer than their Chernobyl-era predecessors, but accidents remain a problem. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently reported that 41 U.S. reactors have been shut down at least 51 times for more than a year because of safety problems.
While security has been improved since Sept. 11, nuclear plants remain worrisome targets for terrorists. They are also sources of waste that can be used to create weapons-grade plutonium.
Meanwhile, the question of how to dispose of the radioactive waste from existing U.S. reactors, much less the new facilities proposed by McCain, remains unanswered. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants can remain highly toxic for thousands of years, and no permanent storage facilities have been built in the United States — or anywhere else in the world. Congress long has struggled to build a U.S. disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but relentless opposition by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promises to delay its opening for another decade — and perhaps longer.
It’s also unclear that nuclear power can play a timely role in fighting climate change. Because many of the new nuclear plants proposed by McCain would replace existing ones, it would take many more than the 45 new plants that he proposes by 2030, or the 100 he proposes in the long term, to achieve major reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.
Nuclear plants also take large amounts of time and money to build. Current licensing and testing requirements would delay construction for at least five years, and new nuclear plants require investments of between $5 billion and $10 billion — investments that Wall Street is unlikely to make without huge federal taxpayer subsidies.
McCain’s Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, has a more realistic and safer view of nuclear power. While he acknowledges nuclear power may prove necessary to meet aggressive climate goals, he says it should not be expanded until the challenges of cost, safety, disposal and nuclear proliferation have been addressed.
Nearly three decades after the Three Mile Island disaster, Sen. John McCain is proposing an American nuclear renaissance.
As part of a weeklong focus on energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said Wednesday that he wants 45 new nuclear plants to be built in the United States by 2030 and another 55 in later years.
Currently, there are 104 reactors in this country, and they supply a fifth of the nation’s electricity; many of the new plants proposed by McCain would replace existing ones. That’s because no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s, and many of the facilities still operating are nearing the end of their useful lives.
As are a growing number of Americans, McCain embraces nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to traditional energy sources that emit greenhouse gases. It’s an unqualified enthusiasm that brings to mind Homer Simpson’s memorable prayer thanking God “for nuclear power: the cleanest, safest energy there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipe dream.”
If McCain is elected president, he will attempt to end a long-standing American aversion to nuclear generated power, which sets this country apart from the rest of the world.
In contrast with the United States, France gets nearly 80 percent of its power from nuclear plants and has a robust building program, as do Japan and Finland. Britain is encouraging companies to build new reactors, and Italy recently lifted the ban on nuclear plants it imposed after the Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union two decades ago. Across the world, more than 100 new plants are either in the planning or construction stages, roughly half of them in rapidly developing nations such as China and India.
The United States should be in no rush to join the parade. Despite McCain’s glowing assessment and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power still has serious shortcomings.
Modern nuclear plants are certainly safer than their Chernobyl-era predecessors, but accidents remain a problem. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently reported that 41 U.S. reactors have been shut down at least 51 times for more than a year because of safety problems.
While security has been improved since Sept. 11, nuclear plants remain worrisome targets for terrorists. They are also sources of waste that can be used to create weapons-grade plutonium.
Meanwhile, the question of how to dispose of the radioactive waste from existing U.S. reactors, much less the new facilities proposed by McCain, remains unanswered. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants can remain highly toxic for thousands of years, and no permanent storage facilities have been built in the United States — or anywhere else in the world. Congress long has struggled to build a U.S. disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but relentless opposition by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promises to delay its opening for another decade — and perhaps longer.
It’s also unclear that nuclear power can play a timely role in fighting climate change. Because many of the new nuclear plants proposed by McCain would replace existing ones, it would take many more than the 45 new plants that he proposes by 2030, or the 100 he proposes in the long term, to achieve major reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.
Nuclear plants also take large amounts of time and money to build. Current licensing and testing requirements would delay construction for at least five years, and new nuclear plants require investments of between $5 billion and $10 billion — investments that Wall Street is unlikely to make without huge federal taxpayer subsidies.
McCain’s Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, has a more realistic and safer view of nuclear power. While he acknowledges nuclear power may prove necessary to meet aggressive climate goals, he says it should not be expanded until the challenges of cost, safety, disposal and nuclear proliferation have been addressed.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
SCARY.
Florida Power & Light Co. shut down a nuclear unit at its Turkey Point plant near Miami Friday because of a small leak of reactor coolant.
It was turned off "to repair a connection between two small pipes that lead to a valve. The valve is used for equipment testing when the unit is offline for refueling," said FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana.
~view the original post here
a reply from a medical doctor:
Another example of the safety of nuclear power. The company monitors operations properly, As we all know there has never been an accident that has endangered human lives, including 3 mile island. Nuclear is the finest example of alternate energy sources that already supplies 20% of our electricity and solves the greenhouse gas process, since it doesn't give off any, and at the same time puts a stop to our rediculous money transfer relations with the oil producers.
Three cheers for the company!
my response:
Not to point fingers, but ARE YOU SERIOUS?! nuclear power is the most dangerous form of energy. Do some research and you will find an alarming amount of nuclear reactors that continue leak radioactive waste into our water supply... the contamination is NEVER FULLY CLEANED UP (thank your government) and the contamination CONTINUES to cause cancer many years after a plant is shut down.
I urge you to research the Hanford Site (The reactors have leaked so much radioactivity into the air, land and water that the contamination caused by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident seems trivial by comparison); Santa Susana; Three Mile Island and Cherynoble.
IF HARMFUL RADIOACTIVE WASTE LEAKING INTO OUR WATER SUPPLY ISN'T ENDANGERING HUMAN LIVES... YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FOOL. and your a doctor?! scary.
It was turned off "to repair a connection between two small pipes that lead to a valve. The valve is used for equipment testing when the unit is offline for refueling," said FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana.
~view the original post here
a reply from a medical doctor:
Another example of the safety of nuclear power. The company monitors operations properly, As we all know there has never been an accident that has endangered human lives, including 3 mile island. Nuclear is the finest example of alternate energy sources that already supplies 20% of our electricity and solves the greenhouse gas process, since it doesn't give off any, and at the same time puts a stop to our rediculous money transfer relations with the oil producers.
Three cheers for the company!
my response:
Not to point fingers, but ARE YOU SERIOUS?! nuclear power is the most dangerous form of energy. Do some research and you will find an alarming amount of nuclear reactors that continue leak radioactive waste into our water supply... the contamination is NEVER FULLY CLEANED UP (thank your government) and the contamination CONTINUES to cause cancer many years after a plant is shut down.
I urge you to research the Hanford Site (The reactors have leaked so much radioactivity into the air, land and water that the contamination caused by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident seems trivial by comparison); Santa Susana; Three Mile Island and Cherynoble.
IF HARMFUL RADIOACTIVE WASTE LEAKING INTO OUR WATER SUPPLY ISN'T ENDANGERING HUMAN LIVES... YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FOOL. and your a doctor?! scary.
Public Offender: Exelon Corporation
WASHINGTON, March 16, 2006:
Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells.
In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.
In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River.
Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release pathway."
Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix it."
This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.
Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in it, there's no way around it," she said.
Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about $50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was changing hands now because of the spill.
A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003.
Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built.
As the agency prepares to review license applications for the first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a chance at building new plants, experts say.
Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.
But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak.
And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down.
Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells.
In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.
In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River.
Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release pathway."
Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix it."
This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.
Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in it, there's no way around it," she said.
Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about $50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was changing hands now because of the spill.
A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003.
Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built.
As the agency prepares to review license applications for the first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a chance at building new plants, experts say.
Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.
But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak.
And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down.
Monday, August 25, 2008
One GIANT Step Backward
The world's first full-scale nuclear reactor, built in 13 months to produce plutonium for an atomic bomb during World War II, is now a National Historic Landmark, the federal government announced Monday.
"Building the B Reactor was a feat of engineering genius. So, too, was the construction a testament to the excellence of working Americans," said Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary of the Department of Interior. "There was no wiggle room for error."
-SO THEN WHY DID IT LEAK AND CONTAMINATE TRILLIONS OF GALLONS OF GROUNDWATER?!!!!-
History buffs, former weapons workers and local officials have been seeking recognition for the plant for six years to help save it from being dismantled or permanently cocooned as part of the cleanup of the highly contaminated complex in south-central Washington state.
-GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW NAIVE THE GENERAL POPULATION IS. IT'S A SHAME BUILDING A TOURIST ATTRACTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CLEANING UP NUCLEAR WASTE-
Hanford and B Reactor were the centerpiece of the Manhattan Project, a top-secret effort to build an atomic bomb in the 1940s. More than 50,000 workers moved to the Tri-Cities of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco for the massive project on the banks of the Columbia River.
-AND BECAUSE OF THIS SITE, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS HIGHLY POLLUTED-
Construction began on June 7, 1943, six months after physicist Enrico Fermi turned the theory of nuclear power into the reality of the Atomic Age. Eight more reactors were built at Hanford to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, leaving a legacy of pollution that has made Hanford the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to top $50 billion.
-CLEANUP HAS BEEN PUT OFF FOR DECADES AND THE SITE STILL CONTINUES TO CONTAMINATE THE AREA-
Five reactors have been dismantled and cocooned, a process in which buildings around the reactors are removed, all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor cores are leveled and the cores are sealed in concrete.
The B Reactor was shut down in 1968 and decommissioned. Under a cleanup schedule managed by the Department of Energy, dismantling could have begun as early as 2009. However, the department said it would maintain the reactor while the National Park Service decides whether it should be preserved and made available for public access.
Hank Kosmata, president of the B Reactor Museum Association in Richland, noted that achieving National Historic Landmark status for Reactor B took longer than building it.
-AND WAITING FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO CLEAN UP ITS "LANDMARK" CONTINUES TO TAKE EVEN LONGER!!-
About 2,000 people have visited the complex this year. Next year, Energy Department officials plan to expand the number of tours of the building without impeding cleanup, said Jeffrey Kupfer, acting deputy secretary.
-YES, THE BEST PLACE TO VISIT IS ALWAYS A CONTAMINATED NUCLEAR REACTOR. HURRY, BOOK YOUR TOUR NOW!!-
story from the AP.
comments from me.
I do not want to make this a political post... but if you're planning on voting for McCain this November, you better be prepared to lobby against his "alternative energy" plan which consists of embracing NUCLEAR POWER, the most unsafe energy. Research how many nuclear power plants or reactors have leaked. The amount of contamination produced by nuclear power is astonding. The most recent case was discovered and publicized earlier this month when The United States has admitted that a nuclear-powered submarine steadily leaked radiation at three Japanese ports, as well as the Pacific island of Guam and Pearl Harbor in Hawaii FOR OVER TWO YEARS. If you are wondering why cancer rates are rising, look no further.
"Building the B Reactor was a feat of engineering genius. So, too, was the construction a testament to the excellence of working Americans," said Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary of the Department of Interior. "There was no wiggle room for error."
-SO THEN WHY DID IT LEAK AND CONTAMINATE TRILLIONS OF GALLONS OF GROUNDWATER?!!!!-
History buffs, former weapons workers and local officials have been seeking recognition for the plant for six years to help save it from being dismantled or permanently cocooned as part of the cleanup of the highly contaminated complex in south-central Washington state.
-GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW NAIVE THE GENERAL POPULATION IS. IT'S A SHAME BUILDING A TOURIST ATTRACTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CLEANING UP NUCLEAR WASTE-
Hanford and B Reactor were the centerpiece of the Manhattan Project, a top-secret effort to build an atomic bomb in the 1940s. More than 50,000 workers moved to the Tri-Cities of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco for the massive project on the banks of the Columbia River.
-AND BECAUSE OF THIS SITE, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS HIGHLY POLLUTED-
Construction began on June 7, 1943, six months after physicist Enrico Fermi turned the theory of nuclear power into the reality of the Atomic Age. Eight more reactors were built at Hanford to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, leaving a legacy of pollution that has made Hanford the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to top $50 billion.
-CLEANUP HAS BEEN PUT OFF FOR DECADES AND THE SITE STILL CONTINUES TO CONTAMINATE THE AREA-
Five reactors have been dismantled and cocooned, a process in which buildings around the reactors are removed, all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor cores are leveled and the cores are sealed in concrete.
The B Reactor was shut down in 1968 and decommissioned. Under a cleanup schedule managed by the Department of Energy, dismantling could have begun as early as 2009. However, the department said it would maintain the reactor while the National Park Service decides whether it should be preserved and made available for public access.
Hank Kosmata, president of the B Reactor Museum Association in Richland, noted that achieving National Historic Landmark status for Reactor B took longer than building it.
-AND WAITING FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO CLEAN UP ITS "LANDMARK" CONTINUES TO TAKE EVEN LONGER!!-
About 2,000 people have visited the complex this year. Next year, Energy Department officials plan to expand the number of tours of the building without impeding cleanup, said Jeffrey Kupfer, acting deputy secretary.
-YES, THE BEST PLACE TO VISIT IS ALWAYS A CONTAMINATED NUCLEAR REACTOR. HURRY, BOOK YOUR TOUR NOW!!-
story from the AP.
comments from me.
I do not want to make this a political post... but if you're planning on voting for McCain this November, you better be prepared to lobby against his "alternative energy" plan which consists of embracing NUCLEAR POWER, the most unsafe energy. Research how many nuclear power plants or reactors have leaked. The amount of contamination produced by nuclear power is astonding. The most recent case was discovered and publicized earlier this month when The United States has admitted that a nuclear-powered submarine steadily leaked radiation at three Japanese ports, as well as the Pacific island of Guam and Pearl Harbor in Hawaii FOR OVER TWO YEARS. If you are wondering why cancer rates are rising, look no further.
Abandoned nuclear reactors generate new surge of tourism
By Hugo Martin Tribune Newspapers
11:25 PM CDT, August 23, 2008
HANFORD, Wash. — A platoon of double-crested cormorants took flight from the eastern shore of the Columbia River, skimming the sun-sparkled surface as two slender white egrets stood in the nearby shallows, hunting small fish hiding in the reeds.
Twenty kayakers, mostly tourists from the Pacific Northwest, paddled along, letting the steady current do most of the work. They coasted past mule deer grazing on the shore, coyotes stalking the sandy beaches and cliff swallows buzzing the nearby white bluffs.
But the main attraction was on the western shore: several bland, industrial-gray structures and towering smokestacks, a collection of buildings that gave birth to America's Atomic Age.
Welcome to the Hanford Reach, where one of the last free-flowing stretches of the Columbia River encounters America's most contaminated nuclear site.
Along this flat, mostly treeless scrubland, the U.S. government built nine reactors from 1943 to 1963, including the historic B Reactor that produced the world's first weapons-grade plutonium for the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II.
The reactors have leaked so much radioactivity into the air, land and water that the contamination caused by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident seems trivial by comparison.
Yet merchants and tourism directors here in southern Washington state see the river and the shuttered reactors as a growing tourist draw.
Imagine a theme park next to Chernobyl's nuclear power plant. As odd as it may sound, the idea seems to be working at Hanford.
The popular kayak tours are one example. Pat Welle, owner of Columbia Kayak Adventures, who leads two or three groups each month past the nuclear sites, said her business has more than doubled since she started it in 2004. A jet boat tour operator plans to add a second boat, and the river plays host to several bass fishing tournaments each year.
"I think the attraction is the unique combination of scenery — the white bluffs and the wildlife — and that odd collection of nuclear sites," Welle said.
The reactors have long been shut down, but the surrounding land rumbles with bulldozers, dump trucks and crews in radiation suits working on a $2 billion-a-year cleanup project — the most expensive such project in the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The irony is that although the reactors contaminated hundreds of acres, government restrictions on access left the surrounding lands largely undisturbed for more than 40 years, allowing wildlife to flourish.
The effort to make the Hanford Reach a tourist hot spot got a boost in 2000 when then- President Bill Clinton proclaimed 195,000 acres along the river and around the nuclear site a national monument. About 60,000 people now visit annually, including anglers, hikers, birders and history buffs.
That number is likely to grow under a plan by the National Park Service to upgrade boat launches and picnic sites and to open the B Reactor for regular public tours. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is also expected to approve a recommendation this month to declare the B Reactor a national historic landmark.
The story began in 1942 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began searching for a plutonium production site for the then-secret Manhattan Project. With large tracts of land and access to large volumes of water to cool the reactor, the Hanford area along the Columbia River seemed perfect.
America's first large-scale nuclear reactor was built in about a year. Most workers at the B Reactor were clueless about what they were developing until the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Later, a headline in the local paper announced: "Peace! Our Bomb Clinched It!"
During the next 20 years, the federal government built eight more reactors along the Columbia River in a 586-square-mile area known as the Hanford site.
In 1948 a dike at a reactor waste pond broke, dumping 28 pounds of uranium into the Columbia River.
Today, scientists and biologists extensively test almost every creature along the river, whether a tadpole or a deer.
11:25 PM CDT, August 23, 2008
HANFORD, Wash. — A platoon of double-crested cormorants took flight from the eastern shore of the Columbia River, skimming the sun-sparkled surface as two slender white egrets stood in the nearby shallows, hunting small fish hiding in the reeds.
Twenty kayakers, mostly tourists from the Pacific Northwest, paddled along, letting the steady current do most of the work. They coasted past mule deer grazing on the shore, coyotes stalking the sandy beaches and cliff swallows buzzing the nearby white bluffs.
But the main attraction was on the western shore: several bland, industrial-gray structures and towering smokestacks, a collection of buildings that gave birth to America's Atomic Age.
Welcome to the Hanford Reach, where one of the last free-flowing stretches of the Columbia River encounters America's most contaminated nuclear site.
Along this flat, mostly treeless scrubland, the U.S. government built nine reactors from 1943 to 1963, including the historic B Reactor that produced the world's first weapons-grade plutonium for the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II.
The reactors have leaked so much radioactivity into the air, land and water that the contamination caused by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident seems trivial by comparison.
Yet merchants and tourism directors here in southern Washington state see the river and the shuttered reactors as a growing tourist draw.
Imagine a theme park next to Chernobyl's nuclear power plant. As odd as it may sound, the idea seems to be working at Hanford.
The popular kayak tours are one example. Pat Welle, owner of Columbia Kayak Adventures, who leads two or three groups each month past the nuclear sites, said her business has more than doubled since she started it in 2004. A jet boat tour operator plans to add a second boat, and the river plays host to several bass fishing tournaments each year.
"I think the attraction is the unique combination of scenery — the white bluffs and the wildlife — and that odd collection of nuclear sites," Welle said.
The reactors have long been shut down, but the surrounding land rumbles with bulldozers, dump trucks and crews in radiation suits working on a $2 billion-a-year cleanup project — the most expensive such project in the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The irony is that although the reactors contaminated hundreds of acres, government restrictions on access left the surrounding lands largely undisturbed for more than 40 years, allowing wildlife to flourish.
The effort to make the Hanford Reach a tourist hot spot got a boost in 2000 when then- President Bill Clinton proclaimed 195,000 acres along the river and around the nuclear site a national monument. About 60,000 people now visit annually, including anglers, hikers, birders and history buffs.
That number is likely to grow under a plan by the National Park Service to upgrade boat launches and picnic sites and to open the B Reactor for regular public tours. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is also expected to approve a recommendation this month to declare the B Reactor a national historic landmark.
The story began in 1942 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began searching for a plutonium production site for the then-secret Manhattan Project. With large tracts of land and access to large volumes of water to cool the reactor, the Hanford area along the Columbia River seemed perfect.
America's first large-scale nuclear reactor was built in about a year. Most workers at the B Reactor were clueless about what they were developing until the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Later, a headline in the local paper announced: "Peace! Our Bomb Clinched It!"
During the next 20 years, the federal government built eight more reactors along the Columbia River in a 586-square-mile area known as the Hanford site.
In 1948 a dike at a reactor waste pond broke, dumping 28 pounds of uranium into the Columbia River.
Today, scientists and biologists extensively test almost every creature along the river, whether a tadpole or a deer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
