Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
21. I have to disagree
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:05 PM - Edit history (5)

The volume that leaks out of the tanks is an unknown.


It has been revised upward in the last few years from a few gallons a year to hundreds of gallons a year. These have all been estimates.


There are millions of gallons of waste in single shell tanks. The vitrification plant (process that solidifies the waste into manageable logs) is years from completion. There is no major construction underway to build enough double shell tanks to hold all of the waste. Known "leakers" are transferred to the newer double shell tanks, but that is not a fast process, and old technology has not allowed for 100% transfer as well. Hence, this waste will continue to be stored in tanks built as long ago as 1944 far in to the future.

The tank leaks are not diluted well because they require water medium for movement. These tanks are located in a desert that receives less than ten inches of rain a year. Without a good, consistent flush of rain water, the contaminates will dwell in the soil, moving slowly down with each rainfall. An ever expanding underground cloud. In effect, a channel direct to ground water will be created and will eventually becomes saturated. Upon saturation it will "dump" a large volume in a short period of time. This ground contamination is not comparable with the ocean when speaking of dilution.

Where Fukishima as an instant, acute effect on the environment that can dissipate over a shorter amount of time, the tank waste is a slow, methodical contamination over expanding areas that cannot be cleaned up with current technology. Note: In the nuclear clean up world, clean up = dilution.


So it is a matter of what snapshot in time you wish to take the photograph. There will be a time when these tank wastes far exceed the contamination from Fukishima but in a more localized area and with a great deal more persistence. That is until it eventually travels to the Columbia River.

Edit upon discovery: Last revision estimates that up to 1 million gallons (that's right...1 million) have leaked from the tank farms. This is bad stuff. I know of a couple occupational exposures that resulted in debilitating injury. The word from the workers is vastly different from official accounts.


The Government Accountability Project claims that between 1987 and 1992, it took only 16 vapor releases requiring medical attention to trigger large scale investigations by the DOE, the then tank farm contractor Westinghouse, the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the DOE's Office of Inspector General, and, upon invitation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The investigations resulted in widespread changes onsite.

Now, over a decade later, the rate of worker exposure to chemical vapors has increased 750 percent, and over 1200 chemicals have been documented in the vapors contained in the tank headspaces.

The report claims workers exposed to the tank vapors have health effects ranging from nosebleeds, persistent headaches, tearing eyes, burning skin and lungs, constant productive coughs, shortness of breath, dizziness, nausea and increased heart rates. Despite these conditions, says the Government Accountability Project, CH2M Hill fails to require basic respirators in the tank farms, denies worker requests to use supplied air, and is planning to reduce the level of personal protective equipment used by tank farm workers.


I would like to note that WRPS is the company that currently operates tank farms and not CH2MHill which was the contractor at the time of this report..
K&R!!!!! burrowowl Apr 2013 #1
Gee, it'd be nice if it wasn't up to independent researchers to pay attention to this stuff. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #2
You must not have been paying attention FBaggins Apr 2013 #5
Really? So where's the data on radioactive isotopes in, say, Pacific fish caught for sale in the US? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #12
It's too low to measure in almost all cases. FBaggins Apr 2013 #13
Exactly. The EPA isn't measuring it. The FDA isn't measuring it. My point exactly. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #15
Sorry... wrong. FBaggins Apr 2013 #17
Dance, dance, dance. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #19
Thanks for making my point. FBaggins Apr 2013 #20
If you've actually read what I've written, I'm not "predisposed to think" anything. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #22
you were corrected in a few simple errors FBaggins Apr 2013 #23
Right. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #24
Why did you bring Sr90 into the discussion?... SidDithers Apr 2013 #29
you're absolutely right, Sid; I meant Strontium, not Cesium. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #36
That's a big "IF" FBaggins Apr 2013 #39
Is wasn't a "goofy platitude" FBaggins Apr 2013 #38
what's the recommended level of excess radiation exposure above natural background? CreekDog Apr 2013 #25
There is no such thing FBaggins Apr 2013 #37
Apples and Oranges versus Bananas and Tuna Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #42
Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #45
Don't blame me if your ambiguous and confusing rhetoric ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #47
Lol! FBaggins Apr 2013 #48
Huh? hunter Apr 2013 #46
Try this for a "huh" - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #49
You do understand that a much worse scenario is within our borders? mick063 Apr 2013 #3
Much worse? FBaggins Apr 2013 #4
You really don't know do you? mick063 Apr 2013 #10
Please consider posting this as an OP as it so succinct. snagglepuss Apr 2013 #11
In fact I do. FBaggins Apr 2013 #16
I have to disagree mick063 Apr 2013 #21
The methods of disinformation are many Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #40
Oustanding post! Octafish Apr 2013 #43
Aw... and you saved your first post for little 'ol me? FBaggins Apr 2013 #44
I agree with him. Occulus Apr 2013 #87
He's not a newbie FBaggins Apr 2013 #88
Yup nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #14
Yep. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #26
All this from one nuclear installation gone bad Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #6
This is one reason (albeit an extremely potent one) why..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #33
Why do you hate nuclear power? malaise Apr 2013 #7
You mean aside from it being the most..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #30
You did see my sarcasm thingy? n/t malaise Apr 2013 #31
Yeah I did. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #34
Honest question: Is Obama still intent on the taxpayer supported Nuke in Georgia? byeya Apr 2013 #8
Why of course! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #28
kick flamingdem Apr 2013 #9
Well, me and the birds are fine for today, nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #18
Hmmm.... Nanas! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #27
Check out this old Mork and Mindy you tube clip! Zorra Apr 2013 #32
From ancient times.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #35
Fukushima is still out of control. Octafish Apr 2013 #41
De nada. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #50
And, don't forget ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #51
"This video has been removed by the user." hunter Apr 2013 #52
Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #53
Uploaded again, don't know how long it will last - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #54
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell nt DeSwiss Apr 2013 #55
NOAA Sea Surface Temperatures reveals a surprising thing... Octafish Apr 2013 #56
Let me guess... FBaggins Apr 2013 #57
Is your mission in life to knock me for wondering about the stupidity of atomic power? Octafish Apr 2013 #58
Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #59
Keep the smears. It's the NOAA satellite data. Octafish Apr 2013 #60
There's nothing wrong with the data. FBaggins Apr 2013 #61
Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins? Octafish Apr 2013 #62
You're not saying that you're responsible for the interpretation of the video, are you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #63
What a load of crap. Octafish Apr 2013 #64
I gave you the benefit of the doubt. FBaggins Apr 2013 #65
Write what you want. Just don't smear me. Octafish Apr 2013 #68
I didn't. FBaggins Apr 2013 #69
Really? Look at the map and see for yourself where the sea surface temperatures are highest. Octafish Apr 2013 #72
Right! What else could it POSSIBLY be??? FBaggins Apr 2013 #73
The NOAA map I posted was from the last month. Yours is from 1997. Octafish Apr 2013 #74
Did that actually make sense to you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #75
2002? Big deal. It's still not what you wrote. Octafish Apr 2013 #77
It's exactly what I wrote. FBaggins Apr 2013 #80
It's still there. Which reminds me why I don't trust the nuclear industry's perspective... Octafish Apr 2013 #81
Except that it isn't "there" FBaggins Apr 2013 #82
Except. It is. Octafish Apr 2013 #83
Repeating a clear falsehood doesn't make it any less dishonest. FBaggins Apr 2013 #84
All is well, right? Octafish Apr 2013 #85
All is most certainly not "well" FBaggins Apr 2013 #86
Let us compare, FBaggins. I say it's not normal. You say it is. Octafish Apr 2013 #79
FBaggins is up to his old tricks, eh? RobertEarl Apr 2013 #89
Is it time to quit eating from the Pacific Ocean? Coyotl Apr 2013 #66
My sense is to quit eating the salmon that swims long distances and tuna flamingdem Apr 2013 #67
This is also addressed to Flamingdem and any others Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #70
We seem to be caught between a wild-caught radioactive rock..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #71
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #76
Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific ...»Reply #21