A disgusting and unacceptable circumstance!

Nuclear waste should be stored much deeper into a subduction zone plate.. Drilling is cheap.. These plates are moving down into the molten core where it is already radioactive.. SAFE FOREVER.. cheap , easy. HELLO..

Sarcasm understood, but I think that's exactly what all were thinking when undertaking this venture, as well as not fully understanding what they were working with (perhaps we've seen many human animals do this in the past and remains in the present?) AND the gov't prioritized war machine needs over what was and is good for Americans - you know, us 'common, disposable folk'.

Rest assured, we're likely getting 1/10th of the truth and scope of this fiasco, if that lucky. Really we're all past that now, blame who, what, when or where.... we may have to deal with reality for once. That reality is that although most Americans go on with their daily lives, believing that no matter what Our Government can and will take care of all, any problem of any size.... that may not be possible this round.

I'm sure this isn't the only facility, and am surprised we heard of it at all. Billions of dollars and decades to fix means damage has been and is continuosly being done and as of now, as well as the near future, we have NO WAY or means of fixing this, cleaning, etc., etc., ... .

And we were worried about the Russians...

F**k you 7billion&1! This is a serious health issue that could not only affect locals, but also other people down the line....... Hanford took on other serious waste from other places and things have still not been dealt with. Ok Obama, what are you going to do about this serious issue (I know it is not above illegal immigration and guns in your mind, but seriously)????????????? Hanford could be the end of everyone...................................................................................................................

Maybe we need a central storage facility for this stuff that is properly managed.

Oh wait, that's exactly what they were trying to do before Obama shut it down.

Construction of a $12.3 billion plant to convert the waste to a safe, stable form is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Technical problems have slowed the project, and several workers have raised lawsuits in recent months, claiming they were retaliated against for raising concerns about the plant's design and safety.

Once again, government is NOT the answer, it's the problem.

Our criminal corrupt government f**ks up everything it touches. When is the last time anything our government has done came in under budget and wasn't involved in legal challenges.

This massive cleanup began in 1989. The triad of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Washington Department of Ecology and the EPA has been responsible for this cleanup effort.

Originally scheduled to be complete within thirty years, the cleanup was less than half finished by 2008. Of the four areas that were formally listed as Superfund sites on October 4, 1989, only one has been removed from the list following cleanup.

The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site. Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant, which is currently estimated to cost approximately $12 billion. Construction began in 2001. After some delays, the plant is now scheduled to be operational in 2019, with vitrification completed in 2047. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.

Bechtel is the same company that did such a wonderful job the Big Dig project that was tremendously over cost and leaks were found everywhere.

In May 2007, state and federal officials began closed-door negotiations about the possibility of extending legal cleanup deadlines for waste vitrification in exchange for shifting the focus of the cleanup to urgent priorities, such as groundwater remediation. Those talks stalled in October. In early 2008, a $600 million cut to the Hanford cleanup budget was proposed. Washington state officials expressed concern about the budget cuts, as well as missed deadlines and recent safety lapses at the site, and threatened to file a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Energy is in violation of environmental laws. They appeared to step back from that threat in April after another meeting of federal and state officials resulted in progress toward a tentative agreement.

Once again the infamous “closed-door meetings” between the incompetents in the federal government and the state. Our own DOE being threatened with violating environmental laws. Of course another “closed-door” meeting has slowed that all down.

We all know that kickbacks, extortion and corruption are what drive our criminal governments. To them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS mean absolutely nothing. Our government can care less as they make sure their cronies and the unions goonions are well funded with our hard earned money. A thirty year project will take well over SIXTY (60) YEARS, if not longer.

The Hanford site operations were initially directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beginning in 1942, followed by the Atomic Energy Commission and then the Energy Research and Development Administration. Hanford operations are currently directed by the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been operated under government contract by over 25 different private companies over the past 70 years.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

If Obama had not shut down the Yucca Mountain project we would have a safe, secure place to store all this radioactive sludge. Instead of allowing Yucca Mountain to go ahead, he let the idiotic, one in a billion chance concerns of environmental extremists take precedence and shut it down. Yucca Mountain was designed to keep this stuff safe and secure for thousands of years. Now we have sites all over the place that are not safe today and no where to move the stuff to.

The RESIDENTS of Nevada did not want Yucca Mountain you ignorant racist moron!!

why can't they pump it out and use it for fracking fluid - that stuff is safe, right???

To bad that meteor missed us today. I'd like to see this earth restored to 10k years ago.

@ JS in SD post 1.7,

It's not hard to see when your smoking that stuff. Stay off the drugs and you'll be a lot smarter.

I say these tanks should have been stored underneath the White House & Pentagon then the feds would take the leaking tanks seriously.

You can't do anything you want heard of jail?

7 you can do what you want? heard of jail?

RandogM, "Racist?" I didn't see anything about race in the comment but, I guess if you are going on a rant, you may as well throw in everything, right?

The "RESIDENTS" of Nevada were more than willing to take the construction money and jobs while Yucca was under construction but, when construction was almost finished and things began to wind down, only then was there a big problem.

I saw the same thing in the nuclear power industry in the 70s and 80. Construction companies began nuclear power plant construction in the middle of no place. As they began hiring hundreds and then thousands of construction personnel, the area around the construction site began to grow, even turning into small towns in some places. Everyone was happy because they were making good money but, when the plant was finished and they were ready to bring fuel on site and apply for an operating license, "Oh no! Can't do that! We don't want a nuclear plant for a neighbor!"

The same thing has happened with airports where people built homes under the flight paths because the land was cheap and then began to complain about the noise. Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too!

We do have WIPP in New Mexico, so Yucca was just another one that was proposed. I also like the NIMBY's,[not in my back yard] that want it deposited far from them. We all have been part of the problem because this waste was produced to aid us, so each state should share in its disposal as that will bring all of us into the discussion on proper disposal and site care! Garbage, it is a wonderful thing, isn't it? What are we to do with it? Read this to get some insight on Hanford: agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/hanford-lethal-and-leaking-race-to.html#!/2012/03/hanford-lethal-and-leaking-race-to.html

Shoot it at the largest furnace in the solar system, the sun. We have cheap disposable and very dependable rockets that have launced thousand of sattelites without a problem, shoot all nuclear and toxic waste at the sun and let it be consumed in fire a million miles from earth.

Yucca Mountain was a failed experiment from the start, there was water seeping into the mine which means waters would be seeping out of the mine which means any aquifers in the area would be in danger, and anyway JD, they put the brakes on Yucca long before President Obama got into office, because of the water problem. I tell you what JD, why don't you give us your address and we'll bury it in your back yard. What's that you say? NIMBY? and thats what everybody says and rightly so.

Just another pitfall and peril of nuclear power.

Time to go b@lls to the wall on solar research and deployment.

Why wait?

Don't worry, Becky! As soon as their president pardons JJjr for his egregious crimes, he'll get right to work on this - the most prevalent looming disaster our country faces.

Yucca Mountain was not a safe, secure place. We wanted it to be, and wished it would be, and hoped it would be, but it was not. The President was right to shut it down. We have no business building nuclear plants until we figure out how to deal with the waste, and so far, we have not. None of the ideas I see here are workable.

I think the best way to get the government to listen is to ask the President if you could take a 50 gallon drum of radioactive waste and shove it up the ass of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner. Not only will the Commissioner feel the additional energy [sic] to assist him in addressing the issue, he will even glow in the dark!

So, all in favor say "I".

I have a great idea...Bottle it and FORCE it down the throats of every politician, lobbyist and defense contractor including their families. I'll bet they would fix the problem asap if it was going to effect their own health. I find it ironic that they call themselves servants of the people when in reality they are nothing but self-serving scum.

Fed-x freight collect to the white house and let barry deal with it !

gcooper8

Please DO NOT confuse Nuclear WEAPONS and Nuclear POWER. All the spent fuel from my Commercial Nuclear Power Plant (which also happens to sit on the Hanford Reservation) from the last 27 years is located in either our spent fuel pool or dry cask starage (which takes up about a 1/4 of a football field) Thats 27 years of producing 1150 megawatts.....24/7. You have any idea how many solar panels it takes to produce 1150 megawatts?

it doesn't matter about the solar panels.they're not going to leak anything toxic in the air or in the ground. This is EXACTLY why we need to move away from nuclear energy....we have nowhere to store the spent fuel.......renewable energy is the only true safe energy we have......

We store in on site, safely and it takes up very little real estate, and once the spent fuel is in dry cask, there is little upkeep and they are self cooling.....27 years worth sits on an area smaller than my back yard. You have any idea what toxic chemicals are used to make solar panels? These leaking tanks have NOTHING to do with Nuclear Power.

uh janet - you have to MAKE the solar panels before you can use them. Tracking all the way back to the silica sand that is the source for the base silicon, it's reacted with halogen to get rid of the oxygen then distilled to get rid of the halogen (which is, of course, captured and recycled) The silicon is then further refined, then doped with another meal (usually boron), then either cast into a polysilicon block or grown into a single crystal orientation suitable for solar cells, cut up into slices and then further fabricated into solar cells. Note that this requires MASSIVE amounts of electricity

Heck of a job, nuclear industry.

This is not just a governmental problem, this is a human problem. We are so screwed on multiple levels and we've done it to ourselves, nobody else to blame, it's our greed and ignorance.

The real issue with Hanford is underground.

We have been tracking the movement of underground plumes of contaminated (Chemical and Radioactive) material as it has slowly and steadily made it's way toward the Columbia River.

When it makes it to the River we're screwed.

Let's stop for a moment and get something straight. The nuclear waste at the Hanford site that is causing problems was generated during the creation of nuclear weapons. Breeding Plutonium is messy business and you end up with a whole bunch of other trans-uranic wastes.

Nuclear Power, on the other hand, is actually one of the cleanest forms of energy. All the nuclear waste produced by every nuclear reactor that has ever operated would fit in about the same volume as it would take to sequester the volume of Carbon Dioxide produced by one coal plant for one year. And nuclear power is getting even cleaner! Newer designs can use what was previously considered "waste" as fuel, and the waste that the newer designs generate is mostly fission products, which only take ~300 years to decay. Much better than that trans-uranic wastes produced by older designs that take tens of thousands of years to become safe.

In my opinion, nuclear power is the only option going forward. Running out of fossil fuels is a matter of time. Solar and wind, while useful in certain circumstances, could never provide enough power to meet the entire world's current demand, let alone what will be needed in the future.

Hey "Jim Spence, how does this differ from private industries?

The nuclear waste at the Hanford site that is causing problems was generated during the creation of nuclear weapons. Breeding Plutonium is messy business and you end up with a whole bunch of other trans-uranic wastes.

It is also a result of ignorance from the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's on how to deal with the waste. They have found such things as a locked safe simply buried with nuclear waste inside.

They also have tried to claim it wasn't really a problem, much like the N-power industry claims.

Unfortunately this is a huge mess that must be dealt with.

As it is the Nuclear power industry also has messes to deal with, it is just that this story is about the weapons waste.

At the former Trojan Nuclear Power plant 300 tons of spent-uranium fuel rods and other radioactive waste have been sitting for about 10 years in Concrete and Steel Casks along the Columbia river waiting for somewhere to go. They were supposed to go to Yucca Mountain.

RandogM

The RESIDENTS of Nevada did not want Yucca Mountain you ignorant racist moron!!

Because the RESIDENTS of Nevada are MORONS.

Yes, lets NOT use Yucca Mountain. A site that's practically in the desert, in the middle of NOWHERE. Out of an irrational fear of radiation contamination, that... if true... might effect a WHOLE 5 people.

Despite the fact that the site is just a stones throw away from the Nevada test site, where literally at LEAST 400 atomic bombs have been tested since the 1940's.....

It's CLEARLY much safer to keep nuclear waste at multiple, low security areas across the entire country. Including facilities close to major cities with populations in the MILLIONS. Definitely a much better idea then storing it in the middle of a desert, away from a large population center, and one that's already been the subject of hundreds of nuclear weapons tests.

And this is coming from a democrat.... Shutting down Yucca Mountain is the WORST thing Obama could have done. And we have ignorant people like this to thank.

Again,,,,deep into a subduction zone...no possibility of contamination...ever...Why is this so hard for you people???

#1 Subduction zone disposal is prohibited by International law.

#2 Megathrust Earthquakes happen in Subduction Zones. Living in Oregon I am very aware of the Cascadia Subduction zone which we know will slip someday causing massive tsunamis from a huge earthquake (9.0 or greater).

It's never really silly to try to come up with solutions to problems, but I think that lead is relatively soft and many animals, including rats and ground squirrels, could chew through it. Also, lead never breaks down, it can only get dispersed over very long periods of time (which itself is a problem because lead is detrimental to our health as well).

Lead is also susceptible to acid attack which is why it is used in batteries. I don't know what is in the "stew" at Hanford, but nitric acid was and still is used in the purification processes for radioactive metals.

How many times has the government and the NRC assured the public that the containers used are practically fail safe and will contain anything, will not leak, etc. We all know that when contractors built the reactors they forged documents to show quality materials being used and that no short cuts were being taken. This is just another case.

Plafollette, "We all know that when contractors built the reactors they forged documents to show quality materials being used and that no short cuts were being taken." Actually, we DON"T all know that! I was an electrical test engineer on a nuke plant, under construction, back in the 1980s. The checks and balances I saw were amazingly thorough. The verifications and reverifications, testing and retesting at all levels was incredible. I was on the construction side. We tested systems upon their installation. When all the testing was complete we turned the systems over to the contractor who would then go through all the verifications and tests again to ensure everything was exactly what and how it was supposed to be. Oh by the way, both our documentation of materials, construction and tests, along with the contractor's documentation of verification and testing, was forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we both were subject to both announced and unannounced inspections.

You, obviously have no clue what you are talking about but, like so many on these blogs, you was more than willing to present your conjectures, musings and conspiracy theories as some sort of fact.

We should not have nuclear reactors in the U.S.The waste has to go somewhere and it is a horrible thing to have it leak into the ground water.It could contaminate the earth,make people ill and cause some to die for decades.

"We all know that when contractors built the reactors they forged documents to show quality materials being used and that no short cuts were being taken." Actually, we DON"T all know that!

You, obviously have no clue what you are talking about but, like so many on these blogs, you was more than willing to present your conjectures, musings and conspiracy theories as some sort of fact.

People often seem to like the movie version better than the real life version. Probably because the real life version isn't as exciting.

I do know from what I've read about this Hanford area that it's a pretty bad situation, and not because of a conspiracy. It's because of the magnitude of the situation and because it hasn't been taken care of for years and years and years.

John ; Why don't you ask the folks in Northern Idaho about lead poisoning?

The main problem with this liquid/sludge isnt radiation.....its the CHEMICALS that were used to seperate the different isotopes from the fuel for weapons grade plutonium.

fat lot YOU understand bonds - the RADIOACTIVITY IS THE PROBLEM. The chemicals stay but can't be neutralized BECAUSE of the radiation. Heavy metals are a "problem" but add radiation and it becomes a version of "the gift that keeps on giving". IF the liquids leak and migrate into the Columbia River and enter the food chain, the half life is on the order of 10,000 years. Welcome to "glow in the dark automatic lighting" <- that's only partially a joke.

Just Me-4786302

Unless I am mistaken the lead poisoning that has taken place is a by product of industrial production when it ends up in solution and then in the water supply. Solid lead is relatively stable and does not end up in the water supply. If that were the case, it would not be used for so many things.

That does not mean it couldn't be used as a liner for tanks with an outer shell.

And since lead is in the breakdown chain of Uranium it would shield radioactivity.

This came up during the Japan nuclear meltdown but nobody would listen. Here is my theory about a safety devise that could be placed in all reactors. In the event of a loss of cooling ability they could have enough solid lead placed above the containment vessel so that when the temp got to seven hundred degrees it would melt the lead and contain the uranium rods. And because it has such a huge heat capacity it would make it nearly impossible for the rods to melt down. The lead would shield the radiation and boil until the temperature dropped. It would have also sealed the cracks that happened in the cooling ponds when it went through the holes as the metal would have seized as it cooled.

John,

That's a good idea but Lead, while very good at stopping gamma radiation, is actually pretty poor at stopping neutron radiation. You'd need a very think covering on all the fuel rods to stop the reaction. A better idea might be using a neutron absorber like Boron, instead of Lead.

Although the best idea I have heard for preventing a loss of coolant accident is to make the coolant and the fuel the same thing, like in Molten Salt Reactors (my fav design is the LFTR). If cooling is lost, a plug of frozen salt (keep in mind the salt "freezes" at ~300 C) would melt, letting the fuel drain into a tank specifically designed to keep the fuel in a non-critical configuration.

Just a cleaning lady, if you knew the amount of pollution pumped out, every day, by coal and oil fired power plants, you would wish all of our electricity was generated by nuke plants. Read about what has stunted the growth of trees in the Jersey Pine Lands. Find out what eats marble off of buildings and statues. Did you know that the acidity of some lakes and rivers in the north east is so high fish can't live there. We have gotten better (cleaner) over the last 30 years, since the last nuke plants went on-line but, fossil fuel has a very long way to go before it will be anywhere nearly as "clean" as nuclear energy per kwh.

That's a good idea. Then you could dyamite fish at night.

This is nothing compared to the 40's & 50's........they used to pump river water through the reactors and back to the river. Plutonium production was the only thing that mattered......storage or properly dealing with the waste wasnt even an after thought. This is the largest clean up in history....

flylowguy, It has been known for years that the Columbia River has already been contaminated by Hanford. I have actually seen fish downstream from Hanford that were "red" in color when they shouldn't have been (they might have glowed in the dark). This problem will affect everyone eventually as that river does flow into the Pacific ocean.......................

May she RIP, and may justice be rendered!

My mom worked in the defense industry way back in the day, making circiut boards working with mercury.

She died when she was only 62 of cancer, and it was not pretty. Nicest lady ever. Our government is so @!$%#ed.

LittleDave, as someone who has seen both my dad and mom pass, I know the pain and I am very sorry for your loss. That being said, do you have any proof that mercury had anything to do with her death?

You said "back in the day." Well, back in the day, when I was a kid and we went to the dentist, one of the perks was that after you got your cavities filled, the dentist would give you a small bead of mercury that we would play with until there was nothing left. Back in the day, no one knew anything about heavy medal poisoning. Back in the day, in the 1920s and 30s, people drank radioactive water as a health drink! Back in the day, in the 1950s, doctors told people that cigarettes were healthy! Today, we know all of these things are wrong. The government (military) were among the first to begin saying cigarettes were bad for you and began abatement programs for things like asbestos and heavy medals. OSHA is part of the government you are cussing out. Without OSHA, do you think we would have special requirements for working with and cleaning up hazardous materials? Civilian industry is in it for a profit. The fewer rules and regulations they have the more they can profit. The government doesn't have to make a profit so who would you trust, the government who made the regulations and doesn't profit from the rules and regulations or the industry whose bottom line on everything is profit?

"Back in the day," when I was growing up in Mississippi, we were exposed to tons of farm chemicals. At one point my dad used to come home every night with his hands stained yellow from some chemical. There were crop dusters in the air all the time and mosquito trucks sprayed what might have been DDT behind our house in the summer. We actually used to PLAY in the cloud left behind the mosquito truck. My dad did not die of cancer; and many people in my family have lived to a pretty advanced age, so I don't know what to tell you guys. However, it was mainly the women who lived to a really advanced old age-and no women in my family ever did any actual farm work. I don't know of any correlation with early death and people who actually worked on the farm, though. Of course, I may be neon-colored inside right now.

seen too much...you like us all didn't know that the many things you were exposed to could be hazardous to your health. Time and science has and continues to make us more aware of just how little we actually know.

tiredofhypocrites...yours is probably the most accurate analysis between private and public initiatives. I am amazed at how often blame is wrongly placed or associated. Your assessment is very accurate regarding OSHA and private industry priorities. I would like to know the particulars before I point fingers at anyone agency or person. The article failed to state when they learned of this most recent leak and if or when they notified the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Apparently, all involved were surprised and had not anticipated this possibility. I hope those in the U.S. Dept. of Energy call upon the workers who complained originally. They may provide valuable clues or insight as to why a leak has occurred despite the intended outcome.

Speaking of the long term, it kind of makes wind and solar power seem a whole lot cheaper.

This waste is from weapons production, not energy production, according to the article. Additionally, there are many, many benefits to using nuclear to other forms of energy production at this time imo. A previous comment proposed using subduction plates and drilling to dispose of the material into the mantle.

Romney ran on a platform of drastically cutting regulation in all area's. Saying what business needed was for the government to get out of the way. What we end up with is leaking radioactivity, billion dollar banking companies going bankrupt because they gambled 12-1 on mortgages and as an earlier article noted beef producers pumping cattle full of chemicals to reduce fat and feed costs. Not saying republicans are solely to blame for lack of regulation that endangers us but clearly they put corporate profits ahead of safety. Maybe there's room for some regulation.

I recently retired from an industrial fan company. Around 1990 we were excited to get a very big contract offer to build special fans and blowers for the Hanford cleanup project. At first there was the usual government delays and buracracy which we expected. But soon after the Iraq war started, we were told that all of the money for the project had evaporated.

Joseph --

Thanks for pointing out to me that the waste from this plant is a by-product from weapons production, not energy. I guess I may have assumed it was from energy (or both energy and weapons production). Your comment prompted me to do quick (limited) research on the Hanford, Washington nuclear site. Your point is strengthened by the fact that weapons-grade material is much more concentrated than the energy production material. However, I cannot accept the implication that nuclear waste from energy production produces more benefits than dangers (one pound of rat poison will kill a person just as fast as five pounds of rat poison).

As to your consideration of the suggestion to use subduction plates to eliminate this waste, what are your thoughts about my earlier reply (#14.3) to this: "those subduction zone plates are moving very slowly by our understanding of time (inches per year), and the very edge of the subduction plate is often the epicenter of major earthquakes. Add to this the specter of deep water drilling and there seems to be more risk than reward." ?

Yes Larry, the government is right there, in the thick of all this mess.

Hi COinFL,

I think the easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would be to use it as fuel in the newest generation of reactor designs. A 1,000 fold reduction of current trans-uranic waste stockpiles plus the waste produced by the new reactors are mostly fission products which, while certainly not great, are orders of magnitude better than the trans-uranic wastes produced by the last generation. (Fission products require storage for ~300 years before their radioactivity is reduced to the levels produced by natural Uranium vs. thousands of years for trans-uranic wastes to decay to that level)

If you are interested, google "Generation IV Nuclear Reactors." My personal fav is the LFTR.

Where is Erin Brockovich?

Profits over people wins out, as usual. When will we evolve past this nonsense?

StephAce,

This isn't waste from a nuclear power plant. It's waste from Plutonium breeding that was done during WWII to build the first atomic bomb. I'm pretty sure there wasn't any profit in building nuclear weapons.

Its called The Need to Know bases & according to the Government we don't need to Know. My question is where is Great & Powerful EPA & why aren't we hearing from them. OH yea Cow feces near water on private line is more dangerous & the EPA is busy flying drones to spy on American farmers. Seem strange to me.

When I worked health care back in the early 80s in Baker Oregon, N. Eastern Oregon & S. Eastern Washington had the highest rate of brain cancer per capita in the world. This according to the Cancer Specialists however it wasn't made public knowledge. The enternet didn't exist & it was easier to cover-up.

Well, as to "spot pollution" - let's take a 2000 head dairy herd and look t the problem - cow pies are rather liquid and the liquid flows downhill. Add rain and even more flows. IF there is an active water flow at the "bottom" of that run off, the bacteria and other natural chemicals run into that stream/ river / lake (whatever). First off there is a component of plant nutrients in that inflow (fertilizer is fertilizer) - that will cause the plants to grow. Second, that material has a BOD (biological oxygen demand) that effectively "composts the liquid" (yes, it's not the same but most people have no idea, so composting is an easy way to explain it). Add to that - this is a CONTINUOUS flow (every day). They can SEE and REGULATE dairy farm run off EASIER - not to say that the radioactive waste is NOT a greater problem BECAUSE IT IS - ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER.

Maybe they need to be on your lawn.

Nuclear power is far safer for the environment than all other energy production methods currently available, imo.

It impacts far less land than solar and wind (deforestation and displacing native flora and fauna in the case of solar)

It doesn't have any impact on the planet's weather cycle because it produces no green-house gas emissions, unlike fossil fuels and coal.

It doesn't impact the health of the land and people hundreds of thousands of miles away, unlike coal, it doesn't sludge rivers, mutate fish, kill native species.

It does however produce a measurable, controllable net quantity of waste from the measurable corrosion from the water or other energy transfer medium on the pipes used to transfer the power through a turbine.

A previous comment has suggested using subduction zones for disposal into the earth's mantle.

The more nuclear power plants that go up across the world, the more chance for a catastrophe. It only takes one. If we would be sensible (what are the chances), a few, well chosen sites for nuclear power plants would perhaps be ok. But if the human race starts putting them up all over, and they already are doing that, it just doesnt seem like a good idea at all. We dont control the earth, weather, universe and beyond- no matter how "safe" nuclear power seems. The more that intelligent scientists quip about how safe it is, the more I realize that one of these days a nuclear power plant is going to get hit by a volcano, flood, earthquake- or maybe just human error. Who knows what might happen to one of these things. The risk does not seem to justify the benefit.

I'm not arguing the fact of which energy source is safest, just the way the government does as little as possible in order to keep the environment safe, as well as their reluctance to keep the peole informed about such incidents.

So much hate. So few commas.

Nuclear waste should be put deeper into a subduction zone plate. Drilling is cheap.. Then no fears forever. These plates are moving down into the molten core where it is already radioactive.. safe forever..

I like jim's suggestion, except that those subduction zone plates are moving very slowly by our understanding of time (inches per year), and the very edge of the subduction plate is often the epicenter of major earthquakes. Add to this the specter of deep water drilling and there seems to be more risk than reward.

Drilling is cheap..

Well, if they hit oil and spill it, it's not so cheap. Ask the gulf residents about the little BP thing that happened there.

The Yucca Mountain project was studied for decades and the best solutions of both worlds, but Obama and company closed down the project after billions had been spent. The technology was to cast the radioactive waste in glass "logs" and bury the logs deep in the earth's crust. There, it would be safe. Because it is in the glass, it cannot leach into the soil. And if there is an earthquake, which was Obama's argument, the worst that can happen is a log breaks. Like breaking a pencil, only the ends where the break takes place is exposed which is minimum exposure. It's amazing to after decades of environmental impact studies, the project was suddenly no longer viable, and there is no project to replace it.

JobSeeker-

Here in Southern Nevada, we've been protesting Yucca Mountain since it was a concept. We've also spent the Bush Era having it crammed down our throats against our will, until our Sen. Harry Reid became the Majority Leader. His position gave him enough political clout that he was finally able to get it shut down. It was never a truly viable project, and the environmental impact studies were consistently against them as well. The project to 'replace' Yucca, was proposed to take place in Utah. The site was further away from Salt Lake City, than Yucca is from Las Vegas. Public outcry lead to the denial. If Yucca is any indicator, they can expect about 20 years of having it go forward anyway...and yes, cost the taxpayers billions.

You're telling me that you didn't learn anything from the Fukushima Disaster! A 'broken log' is far from the worst that could happen. The broken ends would consitute 'minimum exposure'? If I brought an old mercury thermometer to your house, near your loved ones, and broke the 'glass log', I'm thinking you'd freak out over the minimum exposure I gave them!

Nuclear waste/rods are HOT. They require lots and lots of water, just to keep them cool. If not kept cool, they will MELT glass. Yucca Mountain is in the DESERT. You can do a quick search to confirm any of this. You could also add a search for the record drought we've had here for YEARS...Our drought levels have been so severe, we followed the stories about the 2012 Drought in the rest of the country, with envy!

Should there be an earthquake, that somehow doesn't just bury the place in a massive cave-in, there could still be a total meltdown if the water supply is impaired. Not to mention the dangers of shipping such hazardous cargo through America! If you've ever seen/heard about a semi-truck spilling something across a street/highway, or a train derailment, you know that it could happen with radioactive waste. Maybe near an Elementary School, or your (literal) backyard.

Real people DO actually live in Las Vegas. We have families, churches, parks...the same stuff you'd find in most other American cities. We have people who are politically Red, Blue, or Purple. We have a fantastic Air Force Base, which is the Home of the World Famous Thunderbirds. They also play host to pilots from around the world for training exercises.

My answer was always- "Fine, we'll accept your garbage...but it's gonna cost you, constantly. We're going to have to pay to keep testing the soil, water and air. We learned how expensive damages can be, from Utah's 'Down-Winders' so we'll need a fund for any harm caused to our future generations. We'll have to fund better University programs, to do research on exposure-related illness (for the workers). We'll need money to train employ and deploy special teams in case of the above mentioned shipping spills. Most of all, we'll need money so that if those other states decide not to keep paying the bill for their storage, we could pull it out, and dump it at their state line."

It might pull MY state out of bankruptcy, but I'd wager more than a few states would decide it was cheaper to keep at home!

Holy sh*t, Vixen......do some research. Spent fuel that has been placed in dry cask storage doesnt require water for cooling. They have a self circulating system that uses ambient air.

@ Vixen.......I fail to see the relevance of comparison a "live" operating nuclear plant and spent uranium storage miles below the surface.

I have an idea. Let's use Generation 4 reactor designs to turn the trans-uranic wastes from old nuclear reactors into electricity and fission products, which require much less time to decay to safe levels (~300 years)

Also, the "glass logs" wouldn't be like a thermometer, with a liquid encased in glass. The waste products would be chemically bonded to the glass to prevent them from leaching out. And they wouldn't be nearly as hot as fuel rods because the wastes would be distributed over a much larger volume.

gee, then you say the US Gummint is incapable of MULTITASKING?

Hi Gil. The article says that this waste facility is from Weapon production, not power production. So bringing Solar power into the discussion isn't really relevant at all.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Solar and Wind power - but it's got nothing to do with this problem at this site - the storage needs and the safety issues are totally different.

I thought this was storage from weapons the US built back in the 40s. Who you going to make pay?

I thought this was storage from weapons the US built back in the 40s. Who you going to make pay?

You answered your own question Ed.

diluted radiation is STILL radiation - just more "spread out"

Its reactor.....and what happend at Crystal River isnt even in the same ball park as millions of gallons of waste from producing weapons grade plutonium. Your comment is stupid.

while not the same issue - what gives YOU the insight as to be able to make substantive comments of the quality of a comment?

Hi Florry - the article says this facility and it's waste are from Nuclear Weapons, not from a Nuclear power reactor. So, it's not the 'same problem' at all. Modern Nuclear power stations and their storage needs are totally different from the WWI era Nuclear Weapons facilities. :)