4 ms·
>Nuclear incumbents aren‘t upset that billions of dollars are thrown away on waste disposal and unnecessary cleanup projects—they are getting those contracts. F
by etrabroline 5y ago
>Nuclear incumbents aren‘t upset that billions of dollars are thrown away on waste disposal and unnecessary cleanup projects—they are getting those contracts. For instance, 8,000 people are employed in cleanup at Hanford, Washington, costing $2.5B a year, even though the level of radiation is only a few mSv/year, well within the range of normal background radiation.
While I largely agree with the author, this misunderstands what is being cleaned up at Hanford. Hundreds of millions of gallons of nitric acid containing hundreds of tons of Plutonium are sitting in huge 70+ year old tanks that are slowly leaking. Stabilizing this waste is not throwing money away. Obviously the background radiation is no higher than anywhere else.
- blockmeifyoucan 5y agoThis disingenuous argument the author is using should make you question bis other points too, even (especially) those you happen to agree with.
- etrabroline 5y agoOk. What else do you think he gets wrong and why? I don't think this argument is disingenuous because if he knew more about that particular cleanup effort he would not have used it as an example. You can't ever know more about at topic than everyone on the internet combined.