Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-03-2011, 10:47 AM
 
941 posts, read 1,792,019 times
Reputation: 768

Advertisements

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer View Post
... ...Hanford is probably the largest radioactive waste dump in the country, if not the world! The Reactor Compartment (RC) from the Submarine I served on in the Navy is burried at Hanford - along with 76 others.

Why the Feds decided to ship the FFTF fuel to Idaho is beyond me. Maybe someone in the transhipment container business was owed a payback from some politician.
I don't know how I managed to stay away from Hanford since it seemed if something was radioactive I was always examining the restricted area to see if it had barriers at the correct distance from the source. However over the years I heard a lot about it and that it seemed to be the leading candidate for Superfund cleanups which never seemed to get started. I knew what was going on at Oakridge, Tennessee but it always seemed the late night coffee conversations didn't consider it to be in the same class as Hanford.

At one time when tanks at Hanford were leaking their contents I saw some tanks being constructed for testing as above ground repositories to contain what must have been some really frightful mixtures that had been sequestered during the Plutonium production era during WWII. The reagents that were being used to verify how long those tanks might last were a witches brew of spectacular compounds. If that area is ever going to be cleaned up to a satisfactory level it will have to involve half the dirt in Washington State being sequestered for eternity.

I remember the Navy putting out information which people in the know said was false about how they were going to take care of the reactor vessels so the material they were made from could be reused. From the few land based nuclear facilities that I was aware of being re-mediated to salvage I failed to understand how they were going to be disposed of as normal scrap steel. The problem to me is a total NIMBY attitude about where the material is going to be disposed of for what might actually turn out to be an eternity.

There was a serious discussion about putting all such nuclear waste into areas where Plate Tectonics would carry it deep into the interior of the Earth where it could remain for the necessary amount of time. A second school was to use the residual radioactivity as fuel and burn it to the final fission products which would be harmless. But unless that turned out to be gold or another precious metal cost was a problem. So nuclear bears a curse because not enough money is available for the necessary research to discover the final end product we can coexist with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Alaska
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top