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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:28 PM Apr 2014

Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels

Source: Guardian

One million cubic metres of waste near Sellafield are housed at a site that was a mistake, admits Environment Agency

Britain's nuclear dump is virtually certain to be eroded by rising sea levels and to contaminate the Cumbrian coast with large amounts of radioactive waste, according to an internal document released by the Environment Agency (EA).

<snip>

The EA document estimates that the one million cubic metres of radioactive waste disposed of over the last 55 years by the civil and military nuclear industry at the site, near the Sellafield nuclear complex in west Cumbria, is going to start leaking on to the shoreline in "a few hundred to a few thousand years from now".

<snip>

Officials at the EA are considering a plan by the companies that run Drigg to dispose of a further 800,000 cubic metres of waste there over the next 100 years. This will include radioactive debris from Britain's nuclear power stations, nuclear submarines, nuclear weapons, hospitals and universities.

<snip>

Although Drigg was meant to be for low-level radioactive waste, there are fears that some of the disposals in the past may have included higher-level wastes. The rest of the nuclear industry's medium and high-level wastes are still awaiting an agreed disposal route, with successive UK governments failing for decades to find a deep burial site.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/choice-cumbria-nuclear-dump-mistake-environment-agency

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels (Original Post) bananas Apr 2014 OP
Oops. . . Journeyman Apr 2014 #1
Fuck. We must control that. n/t Ghost Dog Apr 2014 #2
The mass media is already telling us that risk from nuclear radiation is truedelphi Apr 2014 #3
I tried to do some research there, back in the seventies... Ghost Dog Apr 2014 #11
Seriously? caraher Apr 2014 #15
I rarely read "Time" magazine, but it was in print, for a full truedelphi Apr 2014 #17
Was it this article? caraher Apr 2014 #20
It might have been that article. truedelphi Apr 2014 #24
Understood caraher Apr 2014 #26
That would be incredibly poor reporting if it's true FBaggins Apr 2014 #21
Not sure that it is "poor reporting" truedelphi Apr 2014 #25
Sorry... that doesn't seem to make sense. FBaggins Apr 2014 #27
Are you unaware that the radiation monitoring sites inside Calif. truedelphi Apr 2014 #28
I'm aware that some people were fooled into thinking so. FBaggins Apr 2014 #29
Links please. n/t truedelphi Apr 2014 #30
Sure FBaggins Apr 2014 #32
Here is my link, to a most recent recounting of shenanighans that went on, with text: truedelphi Apr 2014 #31
Thanks for proving my point. FBaggins Apr 2014 #33
And this and other sites like it are the real danger from rising sea levels imo. nt cstanleytech Apr 2014 #4
Aw, crap! freshwest Apr 2014 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Apr 2014 #6
that was always my feeling too until NMDemDist2 Apr 2014 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Apr 2014 #8
It takes a lot to get something from Earth to hit the Sun muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Apr 2014 #18
This Economic argument needs to be put out there. The Stranger Apr 2014 #19
There simply isn't a safe place to put nuclear waste madokie Apr 2014 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Apr 2014 #10
Yay, nuclear!!! blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #12
I always push for plasma gasification. This would break down low level radioactive waste into Sunlei Apr 2014 #14
How does this affect nuclei? caraher Apr 2014 #16
I have no idea. Research "plasma gasification" to read how the technology is used. Sunlei Apr 2014 #22
I wonder if any of it could be used in a fusion reactor snooper2 Apr 2014 #23

Journeyman

(15,001 posts)
1. Oops. . .
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:46 PM
Apr 2014

Absent criminal prosecutions, or the implementation of effective disposal controls, what more can be said? . . .

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
3. The mass media is already telling us that risk from nuclear radiation is
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 03:58 PM
Apr 2014

A big unknown.

Time Magazine, circa Summer 2011, an article mentions that there is simply no data or research or studies on the risks and hazards of nuclear radiation. Meanwhile people in the news are telling us that such and such a nuclear element is being "diluted" by entering the ocean.

People are a bit less lied to in Great Britain and Europe, but the power ends up being wielded by the Corporate State and not the communities.



caraher

(6,276 posts)
15. Seriously?
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:49 PM
Apr 2014

There is a vast scientific literature on the topic of the risks and hazards of nuclear radiation. Those are fairly well characterized for high, one-time exposures like the atomic bombing victims or firefighters exposed at Chernobyl.

There are definitely unresolved issues, but if an article in Time said that nothing is out there, it is simply mistaken.

It is true that there's a lot of uncertainty regarding the risks of low-level exposures, mainly because they are arguably zero and certainly small. It's hard to measure tiny risks with any precision! And it's hard to conduct an ethical controlled study, so you're stuck with looking at people who have been exposed in uncontrolled circumstances. Much of what's assumed for planning purposes derives from extrapolating data on atomic bomb survivors to much smaller exposure levels.

The danger is that if you expose a large population to risks that are not large on the level of individuals, it doesn't take much of a risk before you're talking about affecting many lives.

With this waste site, the issues are a little different from the general risk question. If there's some high-level waste mixed in, you now have much more potential for individuals to suffer high exposures if the integrity of the site is compromised. More importantly, the situation shows the pitfalls of trying to plan a facility for long-term storage. I'd have thought any seaside site would be a bad idea regardless, but the larger lesson lies in the way climate change altered the calculation. When they established the site I doubt anyone involved imagined there was a real prospect of significant sea level changes.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
17. I rarely read "Time" magazine, but it was in print, for a full
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:38 AM
Apr 2014

on paragraph of words, while I was at a dentists' office, that "there is no real data out there about dangers of nuclear radiation."

The Powers that be want us all to accept what they are doing.

And yes, I am old enough that I remember how American researchers rushed over to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on what the two A bomb events did to the population there.

And I agree with the statements you are making in reply to me.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
20. Was it this article?
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 04:33 PM
Apr 2014

Coming on the heels of the Fukushima meltdown, summer 2011 had many articles in Time on radiation. This one seems most pertinent. It contains lines like

As an example of the controversy surrounding low-level radiation, the U.S. federal government can’t even agree on a safe dose.


and

Many supporters of the LNT model admit that there is contradictory evidence surrounding the health effects of low-dose radiation, but that it is the duty of regulatory agencies to err on the side of caution in the face of such uncertainty. A main problem in reaching consensus on a safe level is that linking cancer deaths to low-level radiation is almost impossible given that nearly 20-30% of Americans get cancer at some point in their lives anyway. Further complicating a statistical analysis is the fact that humans are exposed every day to background radiation. “We live in a radiation field. There are cities where background radiation level is extraordinarily high, such as Denver, but the cancer rates are particularly low. I don’t know why— maybe the diet is better—but the point is that no one knows why,” says Zimmerman.


They also mention the idea of a completely "safe" dose and even the "a little radiation is good for you" conjecture...

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
24. It might have been that article.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 02:50 PM
Apr 2014

I have given up on keeping sources to prove what I say. Except for the two carefully marked boxes in my basement regarding MTBE, the gas additive, the remaining stuff I have kept about sources must now number in thousands of articles. So unless I transferred the print artciicle to my computer's HD, I would have to be willing to spend the better part of a week researching a source.

And in this case, the Time mag belonged to the dentist I was seeing.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
21. That would be incredibly poor reporting if it's true
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 10:11 AM
Apr 2014

There are hundreds upon hundreds (likely many thousands) of studies (many running for decades) with "real data" about the effects of nuclear radiation. In fact, there's an entire scientific specialization (Health Physics) dedicated to the subject.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
25. Not sure that it is "poor reporting"
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 02:53 PM
Apr 2014

Time magazine has long been an arm of the CIA, so what gets reported is what the PTB wants to have reported. Notice that how in the last forty years, we have not once had a choice between a pro-nuke power candidate and an anti-nuke power candidate. Both candidates for the PTB (One Big Money Party) have been for the nuke industry, with regards to the nation's highest office.

Sometimes you get to vote for a Senator that is not pro-nuke, but even that is a rare event.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
27. Sorry... that doesn't seem to make sense.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 03:05 PM
Apr 2014

You're saying that the PTB want people to believe that there isn't much understood about the effects of nuclear radiation on human health?

All evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. They went out of their way to disseminate the clear consensus of science on the subject immediately after the event began. Do you not remember all the charts/tables comparing dosage to normal background levels and common dose scenarios (dental x-rays, radon inhalation, long-distance flights, etc)?

I remind you that it's really been the anti-nuke crusaders (much like the anti AGW crusaders) who have tried the hardest to leave people with the impression that the science is not settled. That radiation is somehow far more dangerous than decades of science has previously believed.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
28. Are you unaware that the radiation monitoring sites inside Calif.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 03:15 PM
Apr 2014

Were shut down within three weeks of the Fukushima event?

Here in Calif, we started relying on New England's radiation monitoring sites!

When government agencies are part and parcel of a blackout on real news, i would say that we are being lied to.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
29. I'm aware that some people were fooled into thinking so.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 03:31 PM
Apr 2014

But it was never true.

In fact, California had some of the best monitoring in the country in weeks following the meltdowns (by Cal Berkeley among others)

There were quite a few radiation monitors working within California (and more were added)... and a handful that were out of service at one point or another during those first few weeks - as could be expected. The truly paranoid imagined grand conspiracy theories where the government was intentionally hiding the worst of the radiation by pretending they were shut down. This ridiculous urban legend expanded through the woo-sphere into the current belief that all of the sites were shut down.

Don't fall for it.

Here in Calif, we started relying on New England's radiation monitoring sites!

Then you wren't paying attention. We were posting California data (milk/soil/water/fruit/etc) here on DU with some regularity.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
31. Here is my link, to a most recent recounting of shenanighans that went on, with text:
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 06:09 PM
Apr 2014
http://enenews.com/tv-at-height-of-fukushima-emergency-in-the-very-spot-in-california-where-the-radioactive-plume-was-forecast-to-hit-had-no-working-monitors-foia-email-shows-epa-decided-not-to-deploy-radnet-to#?1#?1#WebrootPlugIn#?1#?1#PhreshPhish#?1#?1#agtpwd



ENENews.com – Energy News
« Scientists present links between unusual Alaska seal deaths and Fukushima fallout — Skin lesions, hair loss, lethargy — ‘Pulsed release’ when built-up radionuclides were set free as ice melted — “Wildlife health implications” due to radiation exposure discussed (PHOTOS & MAP)
Expert: “Can’t be changed & can’t be stopped”; Radioactive Fukushima water will continually enter ocean — Significant ‘discreet leaks’ recently — West Coast “should be alarmed” at lack of testing—Levels rising for 2 years & expected to increase »
TV: At height of Fukushima emergency, region in California where plume hit had NO monitors — Email shows EPA ‘decided’ not to deploy RADNET to area — Only one left broke as radioactivity began spiking — “No clue” about exposure levels (MAP)

Published: January 25th, 2014 at 1:05 am ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
77 comments

Follow-up to: Obama pick to lead EPA is from 'Office of Air and Radiation' -- In charge of troubled 'RadNet' during Fukushima peak

Left: Washington Post map of suspected path of Fukushima plume that hit California’s Central Coast; Right: Light blue dots are RADnet monitors that were not functioning

KION, Jan. 9, 2014: [...] when the plume was supposed to hit, there were no functioning RADnet monitors on the Central Coast. Hirsch said the EPA was going to deploy portable monitors. But look at the posted email from the EPA to air quality districts that were to monitor the portables. This was obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request by [University of California Santa Cruz lecturer Dan Hirsch]. [...] “EPA HQ has decided at this time to not deploy the deployable RADNET monitors to CA, OR and WA.” So at the height of the emergency the central coast, the very spot where the radioactive plume was supposed to hit the EPA had no working monitors for the air quality in Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara counties. Why? [...] we really have no clue how much radiation was in the air on the central coast in the days and weeks after the Fukashima [sic] accident. Hirsch said we do know from a monitor in Bakersfield, before it broke in mid-march, that radioactive air quality was spiking. [...] I’ve made a call to the EPA for comment on this they’ve yet to respond. Hirsch can only speculate that the EPA was worried about public hysteria over this and chose to now [not?] deploy the monitors.

Results from a sample of ocean water collected near the coast of Santa Barbara County on on March 22. 2011 is now available on the newly published map at www.ourradioactiveocean.org. Test results found 14.7 Bq/m³ of cesium-134 and -137. Other samples taken further off-shore in the weeks that followed also found cesium-134, which is used as a ‘fingerprint’ for determining whether the contamination originated from Fukushima Daiichi.
####
The site itself has a link to a map of all radioactivity readings that it has reports on for that time period

Additional articles at the site

« Scientists present links between unusual Alaska seal deaths and Fukushima fallout — Skin lesions, hair loss, lethargy — ‘Pulsed release’ when built-up radionuclides were set free as ice melted — “Wildlife health implications” due to radiation exposure discussed (PHOTOS & MAP)
Expert: “Can’t be changed & can’t be stopped”; Radioactive Fukushima water will continually enter ocean — Significant ‘discreet leaks’ recently — West Coast “should be alarmed” at lack of testing—Levels rising for 2 years & expected to increase »

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
33. Thanks for proving my point.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 10:30 PM
Apr 2014

You've found one of the oft-repeated-but-never-true cons. Who cares that there were several working monitors around California, right? We'll pretend that the couple that went down in one part of the state were really where they knew in advance that the real hit would come.

Of course that's a flat out lie. There was no modeling showing that the plume would hit one part of California while skipping the rest of the West Coast (and monitoring in Hawaii of course).

Also interesting that this same conspiracy site loves to pump the tooth fairy's claims of infant deaths in Washington state in the weeks following the accident... without explaining how the monitors there (which never went down) never showed any more of a spike than the ones in California.

Hirsch said we do know from a monitor in Bakersfield, before it broke in mid-march, that radioactive air quality was spiking.

Not really. The readings were falling when it went offline... and the spike shortly before that time was hardly larger than the spike that was recorded before the Fukushima event (and was consistent with the normal radon-driven spikes that are often picked up).

“EPA HQ has decided at this time to not deploy the deployable RADNET monitors to CA, OR and WA.”

And the following sentence noted that this was because they were being sent to Hawaii and Alaska (where higher readings were modeled)... but let's ignore that, right?

Response to bananas (Original post)

NMDemDist2

(49,313 posts)
7. that was always my feeling too until
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:00 PM
Apr 2014

hubby asked "What if the rocket exploded after liftoff?"

even sending it to the sun is too risky

Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #7)

muriel_volestrangler

(101,159 posts)
13. It takes a lot to get something from Earth to hit the Sun
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 08:59 PM
Apr 2014

There's a lot of kinetic energy to be lost from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun to get it to drop at the Sun, rather than just be in an orbit around it. You could more easily get it into an orbit that never crosses the Earth's orbit, but even then it's very expensive - you still need to get above escape velocity from Earth - about 25,000 mph. I suspect the cost would be impractical - certainly for the low-level waste at the site in the OP (which is not just the material from the nuclear industry, but also medical radiological sources).

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #13)

The Stranger

(11,297 posts)
19. This Economic argument needs to be put out there.
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:41 PM
Apr 2014

[quote]we're clearly getting cheap energy only because we're not paying for the full life-cycle cost.[/quote]

madokie

(51,076 posts)
9. There simply isn't a safe place to put nuclear waste
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:33 PM
Apr 2014

never was and never will be. Nuclear energy is the most asinine thing man has ever come up with. It is neither a safe, sane nor cheap way to make electricity.

Response to madokie (Reply #9)

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
14. I always push for plasma gasification. This would break down low level radioactive waste into
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 09:39 PM
Apr 2014

usable energy (part of the energy can power the plasma arc) and good quality building materials. Would also get rid of our garbage dumps and any other big trash heaps we humans created.


caraher

(6,276 posts)
16. How does this affect nuclei?
Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:51 PM
Apr 2014

You can break any kind of chemical structure this way, but the problem is in the unstable nuclei. Unless you're running something as hot as a fusion reactor, you're not going to drive much by way of nuclear reactions, so your product will be just as radioactive as the feedstock.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
22. I have no idea. Research "plasma gasification" to read how the technology is used.
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:50 AM
Apr 2014

There is even a new nuke reactor (not in the USA, I think I remember Russia?) that uses plasma gasification for all it's low level waste disposal.

I've always read 'low level waste' with plasma gasification. "Low level waste" storage dump problem was mentioned in the topic story.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Cumbrian nuclear dump 'vi...