General Discussion

suffragette

(12,232 posts)

5. And those are the 'better tanks'

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 10:15 PM

Jun 2013

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Worst-Hanford-tank-may-be-leaking-into-soil-212259211.html

AY-102 is one of 28 double shell underground nuclear storage tanks at Hanford. These are newer, sturdier tanks than the older single shell tanks at the site, six of which are known to currently be leaking nuclear waste into the environment. The double-shell tanks were hoped to be a saving grace for Hanford -- a way to safely contain 56-million gallons of waste from decades of plutonium production until the treatment plant .

The treatment plant noted above has had major issues,too. Posted about that before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1293867

This is the true cost of nuclear power and waste and it's not measured by wattage.

Thanks for keeping on top of this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Worst Hanford tank may be leaking into soil [View all] Generic Other Jun 2013 OP

Hanford is such a lovely gift to our great, great, great grandchildren htuttle Jun 2013 #1

Company Town -- I had this published a few years ago Generic Other Jun 2013 #27

That sure does say it well. Nice writing. dixiegrrrrl Jun 2013 #34

We are downwinders dixiegrrrrl Generic Other Jun 2013 #35

Shit...I lived in Moses Lake too... dixiegrrrrl Jun 2013 #38

UNFORTUNATELY, seems Wash. has been screwed, elleng Jun 2013 #2

Sounds pretty dangeous RobertEarl Jun 2013 #3

These tanks have been leaking into the soil for decades. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #4

As a left wing environmentalist RobertEarl Jun 2013 #6

Noplace. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #8

They can move it? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #9

This is precisely the problem to which I was referring. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #10

2019? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #11

If you are asserting that the material could go critical, it would have done so in the gigantic tank Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #44

The left wing environmentalists? Really? Generic Other Jun 2013 #16

Damn Enviromentalist. If it wasn't for them blocking the stuff from being used for crop dusting, we bahrbearian Jun 2013 #18

I agree, 100%. Enthusiast Jun 2013 #19

Evidently, Buzz is a public employee RobertEarl Jun 2013 #30

Yippee! Let's all play "I disagree with you, so I'll intentionally misrepresent your position!" Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #21

I have been anti-nuke to the core my whole life Generic Other Jun 2013 #25

"You slur those who insist on a solution to a problem they did not create." Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #29

Using the word "leftwing" like this is a bad thing like you are sets me off Generic Other Jun 2013 #31

If you're a teacher, then take your own advice for a second: Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #36

Number 6 is wrong Generic Other Jun 2013 #37

I am not defending Hanford indie9197 Jun 2013 #39

Thanks for tidying up my errors. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #40

Oh and a link to my poem upthread Generic Other Jun 2013 #33

And those are the 'better tanks' suffragette Jun 2013 #5

Not nuclear power, it's the cost of atomic bomb production. NutmegYankee Jun 2013 #7

I'd say both since there's also an active nuclear plant there suffragette Jun 2013 #12

You can say both if you like indie9197 Jun 2013 #13

If you read Suff's link you see RobertEarl Jun 2013 #15

They have an entire nuclear submarine dumped out back Generic Other Jun 2013 #26

Who knew? Not me. RobertEarl Jun 2013 #28

If onl;y those dirty "leftwing" enviros would let them build more nuke plants Generic Other Jun 2013 #32

That's a part that isn't discussed as much, the operation of Columbia Generating Station suffragette Jun 2013 #41

Read that the fuel rods were dissolved in acid RobertEarl Jun 2013 #42

Hanford Watch has that listed as the method they used in the past suffragette Jun 2013 #43

The explosions at Fukushima were hydrogen sourced. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #45

I've been under the impression the radioactivity from that area has screwed up for many decades. freshwest Jun 2013 #14

Yes but the Columbia River has not been contaminated yet Generic Other Jun 2013 #17

Well It has been contaminated, Link bahrbearian Jun 2013 #20

I didn't know that story! Generic Other Jun 2013 #23

I read years ago that it had been and mutated wild stock, causing loss. freshwest Jun 2013 #22

The dams already have killed the salmon in the Columbia Generic Other Jun 2013 #24