U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,608 posts, read 9,846,584 times
Reputation: 9238

Advertisements

Interesting. I will have to start at the beginning of this thread and work forward. Just this morning I heard about this new development of the U.S. Nuclear industry. They are designing a "micro" reactor that can be built (in the U.S., jobs don't you know) but are "movable" as a unit, and can therefore be sited anywhere in the country, or world, where there is energy need (where isn't there) but no budget for huge fixed installations. There would literally be tens if not hundreds of thousands of the things dotting the planet. Forget the risk of accident... and with so many in use,it would be 'when', not if, what about all the WASTE??!! When I moved to Oregon I did not know about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford is where WWII era nuclear waste is stored. It is leaking into the groundwater, albeit slowly. It threatens the Columbia River. It has killed possibly 6,000 people since its inception at the end of WWII. Fukishima only killed 30 people?? That's like saying Chernobyl only killed the 100 or so workers that were directly involved in the initial sealing of the reactor core. I don't have a word to describe disingenuity on that scale. Only when we have the capability to launch that stuff out of earth orbit will I think it is a good idea to let nuclear installations proliferate more than they have. Why am I not surprised to see familiar userid's from P&OC arguing on the side of bat**** logic concerning the long term wisdom of keeping fissionable material in close contact with human habitation.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 08:23 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,420,666 times
Reputation: 7641
(Updated August 2012)

Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea and Russia.

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:29 PM
 
389 posts, read 487,695 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
Interesting. I will have to start at the beginning of this thread and work forward. Just this morning I heard about this new development of the U.S. Nuclear industry. They are designing a "micro" reactor that can be built (in the U.S., jobs don't you know) but are "movable" as a unit, and can therefore be sited anywhere in the country, or world, where there is energy need (where isn't there) but no budget for huge fixed installations. There would literally be tens if not hundreds of thousands of the things dotting the planet. Forget the risk of accident... and with so many in use,it would be 'when', not if, what about all the WASTE??!! When I moved to Oregon I did not know about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford is where WWII era nuclear waste is stored. It is leaking into the groundwater, albeit slowly. It threatens the Columbia River. It has killed possibly 6,000 people since its inception at the end of WWII. Fukishima only killed 30 people?? That's like saying Chernobyl only killed the 100 or so workers that were directly involved in the initial sealing of the reactor core. I don't have a word to describe disingenuity on that scale. Only when we have the capability to launch that stuff out of earth orbit will I think it is a good idea to let nuclear installations proliferate more than they have. Why am I not surprised to see familiar userid's from P&OC arguing on the side of bat**** logic concerning the long term wisdom of keeping fissionable material in close contact with human habitation.

H
Living downstream from Hanford Reach during WWII was hazardous. The site was under military command to create an explosive for use in the Pacific wars. As history shows, the 14 lbs of plutonium created in Hanford's B reactor was detonated 1500' over Nagasaki, Japan 1945 by US Forces.).

B reactor also did a number on the Columbia during operation. Cooling water was drawn from the Columbia, fed through the core (picking up radioactivity) and then dumped right back into the river if levels were met. Plutonium extraction followed irradiation and used the only known method to isolate this newly invented element. As Glenn Seaborg's method was successful on the bench scale using micrograms of Pu, the US army and their team of engineers were also successful with kilograms and massive tank farms to hold the caustic radioactive wastes with no concept of what to do with it at the time (laughably, we're finally getting closer).

BTW, The Columbia Generating Station and Areva Fuel Assembly Plant in the same area and have been strictly commercial since the start. Funny story about nuclear fuel. Another company across the US was selling a better burn and cheaper fuel for BPR designs so CGS didn't even bat an eye ordering fuel 1000s of miles away vs comparable stuff made just down the street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 05:23 PM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,589,068 times
Reputation: 1057
Everyone gets cancer, as long as they are healthy and lucky enough to live until then. Wethere they live near a nuclear plant or not doesn't matter. Radiation from the sun is far more dangerous than living near a modern nuclear plant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:36 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,420,666 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
Everyone gets cancer, as long as they are healthy and lucky enough to live until then. Wethere they live near a nuclear plant or not doesn't matter. Radiation from the sun is far more dangerous than living near a modern nuclear plant.
Not to worry, so far the anti-nuclear gaggle here after over two hundred posts cannot come up with any verifiable accredited proof that people who live next to nuclear reactors are more prone to cancer than anyone else on this planet....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 06:48 AM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,461,516 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Not to worry, so far the anti-nuclear gaggle here after over two hundred posts cannot come up with any verifiable accredited proof that people who live next to nuclear reactors are more prone to cancer than anyone else on this planet....
I think there was one post asserting a relationship and 199 post denying it.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:05 AM
 
568 posts, read 824,559 times
Reputation: 1244
ah plwhit.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,425 posts, read 8,784,970 times
Reputation: 7734
Sen. Wyden heading to Hanford following radioactive leak | NWCN.com Washington - Oregon - Idaho If you live downstream along the Columbia look for a glowing river at night. And don't drink the H2O.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 06:51 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,420,666 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik View Post
Sen. Wyden heading to Hanford following radioactive leak | NWCN.com Washington - Oregon - Idaho If you live downstream along the Columbia look for a glowing river at night. And don't drink the H2O.
Just like most posters here, see one headline that you like that fits your agenda and post it, don't bother to see what the whole story might be....

It's a new leak, nowhere close to contaminating the groundwater let alone the river... Be scawred, be very scawred.......

The environmentalists worthless comment:

Quote:
We're getting nuclear waste from military subs going up the river on barges to Hanford," said Brett Vandenheuvel who is charge of Columbia Riverkeeper, an organization keeping a close eye on the complicated decades long cleanup at Hanford.
The TANK that's leaking was emptied back in 1995, it does not contain any submarines nuclear waste, just more environmentalists innuendo mistruths......

It's funny how the article left out some key information:

Quote:
The leaking tank was built in the 1940s and was stabilized in February 1995, when all pump-able liquids were removed by agreement with the state.

The specific cause of the liquid level decrease in Tank T-111 has not been determined, the DOE said.

Monitoring wells in the T Tank Farm, where Tank T-111 is located, have not identified significant changes in concentrations of chemicals or radionuclides in the soil, the DOE said.

“DOE is continuing to monitor its network of monitoring wells in the area of T Tank Farm and is evaluating possible next steps,” the department said.

“Fortunately, there is no immediate public health risk,” Inslee said. “The newly discovered leak may not hit the groundwater for many years, and we have a groundwater treatment system in place that provides a last defense for the river. However, the fact that this tank is one of the farthest from the river is not an excuse for delay. It is a call to act now.”

The DOE said this tank was classified as an assumed leaker in 1979. In February 1995, interim stabilization was completed for this tank. In order to achieve interim stabilization, the pumpable liquids were removed in accordance with agreements with the state of Washington. The tank currently contains about 447,000 gallons of sludge, a mixture of solids and liquids with a mud-like consistency, it said.
Feds: Hanford radioactive waste tank leaking; no public health risk yet | Q13 FOX News

This is Washington so of course the worst disaster spin possible and half-truths will be put on this story by some media outlets......

Last edited by plwhit; 02-20-2013 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 07:09 AM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,461,516 times
Reputation: 3137
The Navy stores old submarine reactor compartments at Hanford. I'm almost 100% sure they don't send liquid waste there. There's really no danger of leakage from old reactor compartments. They are sealed and don't have liquids in them when stored. It's fixed radiation on piping that makes then radioactive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top