True story: Back in the early 1990's, with a freshly minted Master's in Industrial Health and Safety in my back pocket, I interviewed for a safety job at Hanford. It was... eye-opening. The people...
Exemplary
True story:
Back in the early 1990's, with a freshly minted Master's in Industrial Health and Safety in my back pocket, I interviewed for a safety job at Hanford. It was... eye-opening. The people interviewing me were well aware of the leaking tanks 30 years ago. They were aware that workers routinely had to be taken off the job permanently because it was so easy to get a lifetime's permissible radiation dose (or more) in minutes. One of the duties of the position involved development of robotics and sensors that wouldn't quit in environments with radiation flux comparable to a core meltdown. The tanks contain a witches' brew of toxic, corrosive, flammable, radioactive materials in every form from concrete-like sediment to contaminated golf carts. Every single person interviewing me told me not to take the job, and why. They were desperately unhappy with the secrecy, paralyzing bureaucracy, and budgets far too small to deal with the scope of the problem in less than the 1000 years or so it would take for the hottest stuff to decay naturally.
It's been pretty demoralizing over the years to see that nothing has changed, and the problems are creeping out from under the rug in more and more noticeable ways. This is the long-term cost of "superpower" status - 40 years of blood and treasure to make 60,000 nuclear weapons, contaminating a large (and growing) area of the country to the point of uninhabitability. I haven't looked at how bad it is in other nuclear weapon-enabled nations, but let this be a lesson if your local pols are clamoring for nukes.
For an idea of the scope and scale of the problem, there are good explainers here (PDF warning) and here.
I'm a nuclear scientist. I got into the field to help train the next generation of workers who will help clean up these messes. These are a legacy of a past. They are the burden of the present and...
I'm a nuclear scientist. I got into the field to help train the next generation of workers who will help clean up these messes.
These are a legacy of a past. They are the burden of the present and future. We don't have any perfect knowledge of the tanks, nor do we have a panacea. All we have is a massive effort by thousands of talented people trying their best. This is the way it will get better - with starts and stops and uncertainty and experimentation. Some day, we will read about the success of Hanford, I just hope I live to see it.
In optimistic news, after nearly 40 years of preparation, over 1% of the tank waste at Hanford has been remediated from a tank farm! This occurred over the last few years, and it is a tremendous sign of what is to come. The challenges are not insurmountable, they are just hard.
It's never been a technically hopeless project, it's just that the political courage to budget for the necessary work and align all the interested parties was missing or dragging for so long. It's...
It's never been a technically hopeless project, it's just that the political courage to budget for the necessary work and align all the interested parties was missing or dragging for so long. It's been much easier to maintain the glamorous, future-forward projects, like curing cancer and building shiny new fighter jets, not to mention the pork barrel spending that delivers votes, and the odd war of choice or two.
In the same way that the U.S. can maintain world-beating medical and military technology for export, I'd imagine we could get a tidy reputation and exchange value for world-class environmental remediation, if we pull off the technical feats required for cleaning up Hanford.
And thank you for your work in this area - I couldn't muster the willingness to take it on given the political climate at the time. I'm glad you're better placed.
It's a moral imperative that those who can, do what they can. My research group is interested in pure science, but with an eye towards these problems. We're actually going to Hanford to see their...
It's a moral imperative that those who can, do what they can. My research group is interested in pure science, but with an eye towards these problems. We're actually going to Hanford to see their facilities and challenges and opportunities - hopefully lots of the last one, and fewer of the prior.
At the very least, notable progress has been made in Hanford. Namely, the vitrification plant began initial operations last year, after 20 years of construction. As a Richland native, it is great...
At the very least, notable progress has been made in Hanford. Namely, the vitrification plant began initial operations last year, after 20 years of construction. As a Richland native, it is great to see that this huge project I've heard about my whole life is no longer a hypothetical.
It is not a question of if but rather when And on that detail I am unqualified to give you a proper answer... Then again apparently so is the federal government.
It is not a question of if but rather when
And on that detail I am unqualified to give you a proper answer... Then again apparently so is the federal government.
If you mean to say that without proper intervention the risk of ground water contamination being simply a factor of “when” is self evident. Given enough time everything that can happen will...
If you mean to say that without proper intervention the risk of ground water contamination being simply a factor of “when” is self evident. Given enough time everything that can happen will happen. Although it doesn’t read like it I’m really trying hard not to condescend, but appeal to our more rational and less emotional selves.
I think it is critically important we do our utmost best to speak with objectivity and only the facts that we have. Hyperbole in this arena does not benefit anyone.
We need to inform, help solve the problem, or garner support to solve it. Realistically the latter being pretty much the only thing we as civilians without expertise in the matter can do: provide support in the form of votes for those who can get the support the cleanup project needs.
The theory of contamination of the Columbia river is based on the information that the DOE and its contractors have provided us and to the extent that they know at this time. These same people and institutions are working hard to prevent the negative outcome. They need support, facts and cold hard rationale.
I agree with and appreciate your appeal to express the importance that this project be successful as the alternative could mean serious harm for a large swath of the western United States for the next thousand years.
My comment was not robust and you are correct in your admonishments. I will make an effort to elaborate and support my comments better. That said I don't have the drive to properly summarize this...
My comment was not robust and you are correct in your admonishments. I will make an effort to elaborate and support my comments better.
That said I don't have the drive to properly summarize this issue and I urge people to do a bit of investigation on the subject.
I would like to make a point though: The groundwater under Hanford is currently contaminated and has been for a long time. This is from water used to directly cool the fuel that was held in trenches or injected into the ground. It is nowhere near the contamination levels of the solid waste stored in tanks but some contaminants do make it to the river although generally considered safe for adults.
One of the major cleanup endeavors is pumping this water out and treating it.
That’s shocking! Or it just shows my lack of knowledge about this. Thanks for sharing the link.
Hanford's initial nuclear reactors used cold water pumped directly from the Columbia River to cool the nuclear fuel, and then released the contaminated water directly back into the river.
That’s shocking! Or it just shows my lack of knowledge about this. Thanks for sharing the link.
I was raised in Western Washington in the capitol Olympia. It's pretty liberal over here and I went to an alternative school that taught about climate change and environmental stewardship in...
I was raised in Western Washington in the capitol Olympia. It's pretty liberal over here and I went to an alternative school that taught about climate change and environmental stewardship in elementary school and throughout school.
Not once was Hanford mentioned or taught. I didn't even learn about it until I was in my twenties. It blew my mind that such a huge ecological disaster in progress never even came up. Just a radioactive elephant on the other side of the state that wasn't a secret but still kept under wraps enough to not be spoken up.
I remember when Obama was running for his first term. Somebody in Oregon or Washington asked him what he would do about the Hanford problem. He had absolutely no idea what it was.
I truly hope the funds are spent for proper immediate cleanup. The devastation contamination of the Columbia River would cause cannot be understated.
Now the Department of Energy is rethinking the cleanup plan for the spill discovered 13 years ago, with work crews making preparations for the excavation of the radioactive material over the past six years. The spill of cesium and strontium in the soil beneath the 324 Building is so radioactively hot that it would be lethal to a worker on direct contact within two minutes, DOE has said previously.
True story:
Back in the early 1990's, with a freshly minted Master's in Industrial Health and Safety in my back pocket, I interviewed for a safety job at Hanford. It was... eye-opening. The people interviewing me were well aware of the leaking tanks 30 years ago. They were aware that workers routinely had to be taken off the job permanently because it was so easy to get a lifetime's permissible radiation dose (or more) in minutes. One of the duties of the position involved development of robotics and sensors that wouldn't quit in environments with radiation flux comparable to a core meltdown. The tanks contain a witches' brew of toxic, corrosive, flammable, radioactive materials in every form from concrete-like sediment to contaminated golf carts. Every single person interviewing me told me not to take the job, and why. They were desperately unhappy with the secrecy, paralyzing bureaucracy, and budgets far too small to deal with the scope of the problem in less than the 1000 years or so it would take for the hottest stuff to decay naturally.
It's been pretty demoralizing over the years to see that nothing has changed, and the problems are creeping out from under the rug in more and more noticeable ways. This is the long-term cost of "superpower" status - 40 years of blood and treasure to make 60,000 nuclear weapons, contaminating a large (and growing) area of the country to the point of uninhabitability. I haven't looked at how bad it is in other nuclear weapon-enabled nations, but let this be a lesson if your local pols are clamoring for nukes.
For an idea of the scope and scale of the problem, there are good explainers here (PDF warning) and here.
I'm a nuclear scientist. I got into the field to help train the next generation of workers who will help clean up these messes.
These are a legacy of a past. They are the burden of the present and future. We don't have any perfect knowledge of the tanks, nor do we have a panacea. All we have is a massive effort by thousands of talented people trying their best. This is the way it will get better - with starts and stops and uncertainty and experimentation. Some day, we will read about the success of Hanford, I just hope I live to see it.
In optimistic news, after nearly 40 years of preparation, over 1% of the tank waste at Hanford has been remediated from a tank farm! This occurred over the last few years, and it is a tremendous sign of what is to come. The challenges are not insurmountable, they are just hard.
It's never been a technically hopeless project, it's just that the political courage to budget for the necessary work and align all the interested parties was missing or dragging for so long. It's been much easier to maintain the glamorous, future-forward projects, like curing cancer and building shiny new fighter jets, not to mention the pork barrel spending that delivers votes, and the odd war of choice or two.
In the same way that the U.S. can maintain world-beating medical and military technology for export, I'd imagine we could get a tidy reputation and exchange value for world-class environmental remediation, if we pull off the technical feats required for cleaning up Hanford.
And thank you for your work in this area - I couldn't muster the willingness to take it on given the political climate at the time. I'm glad you're better placed.
It's a moral imperative that those who can, do what they can. My research group is interested in pure science, but with an eye towards these problems. We're actually going to Hanford to see their facilities and challenges and opportunities - hopefully lots of the last one, and fewer of the prior.
At the very least, notable progress has been made in Hanford. Namely, the vitrification plant began initial operations last year, after 20 years of construction. As a Richland native, it is great to see that this huge project I've heard about my whole life is no longer a hypothetical.
The article mentions the possibility of contaminating the Columbia River. What is the actual risk of that happening?
It is not a question of if but rather when
And on that detail I am unqualified to give you a proper answer... Then again apparently so is the federal government.
If you mean to say that without proper intervention the risk of ground water contamination being simply a factor of “when” is self evident. Given enough time everything that can happen will happen. Although it doesn’t read like it I’m really trying hard not to condescend, but appeal to our more rational and less emotional selves.
I think it is critically important we do our utmost best to speak with objectivity and only the facts that we have. Hyperbole in this arena does not benefit anyone.
We need to inform, help solve the problem, or garner support to solve it. Realistically the latter being pretty much the only thing we as civilians without expertise in the matter can do: provide support in the form of votes for those who can get the support the cleanup project needs.
The theory of contamination of the Columbia river is based on the information that the DOE and its contractors have provided us and to the extent that they know at this time. These same people and institutions are working hard to prevent the negative outcome. They need support, facts and cold hard rationale.
I agree with and appreciate your appeal to express the importance that this project be successful as the alternative could mean serious harm for a large swath of the western United States for the next thousand years.
My comment was not robust and you are correct in your admonishments. I will make an effort to elaborate and support my comments better.
That said I don't have the drive to properly summarize this issue and I urge people to do a bit of investigation on the subject.
I would like to make a point though: The groundwater under Hanford is currently contaminated and has been for a long time. This is from water used to directly cool the fuel that was held in trenches or injected into the ground. It is nowhere near the contamination levels of the solid waste stored in tanks but some contaminants do make it to the river although generally considered safe for adults.
One of the major cleanup endeavors is pumping this water out and treating it.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Protecting-air-water/Groundwater-monitoring
That’s shocking! Or it just shows my lack of knowledge about this. Thanks for sharing the link.
I was raised in Western Washington in the capitol Olympia. It's pretty liberal over here and I went to an alternative school that taught about climate change and environmental stewardship in elementary school and throughout school.
Not once was Hanford mentioned or taught. I didn't even learn about it until I was in my twenties. It blew my mind that such a huge ecological disaster in progress never even came up. Just a radioactive elephant on the other side of the state that wasn't a secret but still kept under wraps enough to not be spoken up.
I remember when Obama was running for his first term. Somebody in Oregon or Washington asked him what he would do about the Hanford problem. He had absolutely no idea what it was.
I truly hope the funds are spent for proper immediate cleanup. The devastation contamination of the Columbia River would cause cannot be understated.
I was actually considering going to Hanford later this Summer to take my children on their tour. I wonder if this will dampen their enthusiasm?
If I remember anything about being a child, highly radioactive spills would have made me super excited.
What the fresh fuck?!?!