U.S. Orders Halt to Shipments of Nuclear Trash; Discrepancy Found ..

[struggle4progress]

.. in Data Provided for Hanford Site

YAKIMA - <snip>

The Energy Department, which manages the south-central Washington site, planned to begin shipping some radioactive waste from the Battelle Columbus Laboratory in Ohio to Hanford next week.

Those plans were put on hold Friday when the 2004 environmental impact statement governing solid waste disposal at Hanford came into question. <snip>

The environmental impact statement outlines the expected effect of storing nuclear waste in a proposed burial ground at Hanford.

But data scientists used to determine the effects on groundwater differed from data that appeared in the final report, the Energy Department said. <snip>

http://www.rednova.com/news/science/184645/us_orders_halt_to_shipments_of_nuclear_trash_discrepancy_found/

<edit:> This story apparently no longer appears on the rednova site. Here are some alternatives:

http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050723/NEWS06/507230370
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/6737330p-6625008c.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/233757_hanford23.html

[shraby]

1. Link needs fixed, doesn't work

[struggle4progress]

3. Story's apparently no longer on the rednova site.

I provided some alternatives.

[NNadir]

2. Oh boy, that sounds really, really, really, really dangerous.

How many people were killed?

[struggle4progress]

4. Oh, it's just the usual lies from the pro-nuclear boys. eom

[NNadir]

5. A question is a lie?

Just another case of poor semantic ability from the pro-global climate destruction anti-environmental anti-nuclear radiation paranoid scientifically illiterate squad I guess.

Let me rephrase the question. Were any lives even remotely endangered by the "discrepancy?"

Now I will make a statement so it can be called a lie: I question whether the need to attempt to evoke paperwork difficulties to raise radiation paranoia is a far more important task than, say, addressing global climate change.

I have missed hearing from the Greenpeace crowd, who have been absent of late. I was worried that they were all among the millions killed by that leaky pipe at Sellafield about which they created at least 9 or 10 threads.

I am relieved that they survived that disaster which left life in the UK extinct.

Now that they have returned, I am dying to hear if they have substituted a program of positive realistic approaches to addressing global climate change or are they still diddling with their poor understanding of radiation?

I wonder if we could get a Greenpeacer to comment on this line from a report posted in another thread:

"Doubtless there will be gains in energy use efficiency, shifts toward less carbon intensive fuels, and greater use of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, wind and tidal power). But except for a
massive shift toward nuclear - which has many serious problems attached, and would in any case take decades to bring about - there are limits to what such changes could possibly achieve in terms of CO2 reduction. Other technological ideas - like the development of the so-called ‘hydrogen economy’, or the extraction of CO2 from coal and its sequestration underground or at sea - are remote, even fanciful ideas as large scale and significant solutions to the problem. Indeed, such notions can themselves be the basis of avoidance inasmuch as they suggest that something is being done. Understandably, poor countries are unlikely to put great effort into constraining their CO2 emissions - especially in the face of
massive discrepancies between them and the rich."

http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50222

Let me repeat the fun part for those who don't read very well:

"Indeed, such notions can themselves be the basis of avoidance inasmuch as they suggest that something is being done."

I would love to hear more about the magic solar capacity that will come on line in 2040 after we are all done focusing on the paper work for every shipment of something (gasp fear fear fear gasp fear fear fear gasp) radioactive.

And the Greenpeace solution to global climate change is...?

[struggle4progress]

6. "data .. used to determine .. effects on groundwater differed from ..

.. data .. in the final report" -- a surprisingly common sort of discrepancy in documents produced by pro-nuclear propagandists ...

[NNadir]

7. ...and for the pro-global warming anti-nuclear propagandists these

data discrepancies reported in dead links mean what?

Was this the difference between fatal and non-fatal concentrations? Can you report for us the type of detectors used to generate the data entered on the terrifying paperwork, the half-life of the isotopes in question, the time between determinations or any other details? Did the discrepancy represent 2 trillion times background or 0.0005 time background radiation? How geologically mobile are the isotopes in question? How dilute?

Is the paperwork discrepancy as frightening as a complete lack of paperwork for 1 million tons of coal ash? One billion tons of coal ash? One trillion tons of coal ash?

Has anyone on DU ever posted a thread about the lack of paperwork associated with dumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

Has anyone at anywhere at any time ever been killed by a paperwork error associated with the transportation of low level nuclear waste?

What would have been the risks associated with the discrepancy? I mean if this enough to generate a whole thread, or nineteen whole threads, surely this is one of the most important environmental acts.

Only one of the three scientifically illiterate news reporters in these articles actually refers to the elements in this very, very, very, very, very, very dangerous discrepancy in the low level waste. He runs off talking about 10,000 year old radioiodine and its possible effect on ground water. Do you think he knows the specific activity of 10,000 year old iodine or the risks associated with it, or how much water one would have to drink after direct percolation through waste before equaling ones background radioisotope count? Clearly he doesn't or he wouldn't be working himself into such a tizzy about it.

Then he says that big word "transuranics!" Do you think he's an expert on the Oklo mine or if he even knows what it is? Do they teach you in journalist school about the chemistry of "transuranics," their solubility, and their transport.

Typical of all fake radioactive scare stories, these stories imply that incomplete data represents some kind of demonstrable danger. In fact, no such danger has been proved. The way that anti-environmental anti-nuclear scientifically illiterate pro-coal radiation paranoids work is to manufacture fear through the claim that the absence of information is the same as danger. Of course, we are lacking information in many areas that have nothing to do with nuclear issues. For instance, we are lacking information on what the long term effects of mercury from coal plants are. We know quite well that this material is distributed in just about every American, but we do not know what it will do. We are lacking data on how quickly the glaciers that provide water to billions of people is disappearing. We are lacking data on how destabilized our climate is in our prime agricultural areas.

But what's important? The paperwork at Hanford and oh, yes, the leaky pipe at Sellafield that has wiped out all life in Cumbria.

How is that this aerosolized mercury which is not monitored or controlled in any way, is worse than solid waste that can easily be monitored?

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, gasp, gulp, oh my oh my oh my oh my radioactivity! The computer modeling has been done only for 1,000 years, not 10,000 years! What a tragedy. Imagine the enormous risks to humanity in that missing 9,000 years! Why I bet everyone on earth will die.

By the way I suggest that all radiation paranoid fear mongering anti-environmental anti-nuclear activists avoid airports. They're very, very, very, very, very, very scary and dangerous these days: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x8402

I regret to say that in spite of the huge risks represented by gasp fear fear fear gasp scare oh my oh my radioactive patients in airports, I'm thinking of taking my kids on aircraft to fly to UK. I think I'll take them to Cumbria where all life has been eliminated by the leaky pipe at Sellafield which was the subject of more threads than the improperly filled out paperwork at Hanford. (Because everyone is dead, accommodations will be cheap no doubt.) Because I don't want my kids to grow up to be scientifically illiterate Greenpeace cranks, I'm going to take them to this museum: http://www.go-experimental.com/public/go-experimental.cfm

[struggle4progress]

8. Not a big fan of groundwater protection, eh? eom