3 ms·

The spill was discovered 13 years ago, and happened even earlier. This is nothing new to be worried about. If anything, be reassured that the cleanup process

The spill was discovered 13 years ago, and happened even earlier. This is nothing new to be worried about. If anything, be reassured that the cleanup process will happen based on more accurate information that it previously was.

StanislavPetrov 3y ago
The spill was discovered 13 years ago, and happened even earlier, so we aren't sure how long this extremely toxic radioactive material (which is so toxic that can kill a person in 2 minutes) has been seeping into the soil and the ground water. Nothing to worry about.
- lolinder 3y ago
  They're measuring the groundwater and there's no evidence of radiation in it yet. That it's been this way for 13 years means it's not going to suddenly reach groundwater now—it's just that they didn't realize how much there was in the immediate location of the spill.
  - StanislavPetrov 3y ago
    >That it's been this way for 13 years No, the spill was discovered 13 years ago, but it happened even earlier. The article doesn't say when the spill from the 58-year-old building happened, just that it was detected 13 years ago. To me, the fact that an untold number of year passed before this massive, highly radioactive spill was detected, and the further fact that it took them 13 years to figure out how bad the spill was, doesn't inspire confidence that they have a full handle on the situation and have accurately measured just how widespread the contamination is.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      The article did indicate that there was work being done in the 80’s during which the floor of a “hot cell” was damaged and allowed the radioactive material to leak out into the soil.
smaudet 3y ago
"As that work began, contaminated soil was discovered in a wider area beneath the building, where it was not expected. DOE paused work in April, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the DOE national laboratory in Richland, was called upon to help Hanford officials understand the extent of the underground contamination. PNNL confirmed the findings of the Hanford contractors that the spill was both broader and deeper than thought when the plan to excavate it from within the hot cell was developed." Eh, no? They basically said "oh shit this is a bigger problem let's re-evaluate" not "oh man we goofed but have a new plan". "However, DOE said the building currently is in a safe and stable configuration. The contaminated soils at it have remained stable for decades, it said." Except, they just learnt they were wrong about the contamination extent. I'm not sure how much I trust this evaluation to be correct. I would HOPE they are doing something like, using geiger counters with a groundwater well in a different location to check radiation levels. Another comment mentioned cesium and strontium, which at least cesium has a half life of 30 years, meaning if this spill happened 30-40 years ago a majority of the radiation may already have dissipated. Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life? How? If you don’t know the size of the original spill can you work it out from whatever it decays to?
  - jenadine 3y ago
    Not a physicist, so you'll correct me if I'm wrong. The Cesium decay into something. So we could measure the concentration of the resulting atom compared to those of Cesium.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life? You can calculate how long ago the material left a reactor (from the comments, that was always known). You can't calculate when the spill happened.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Besides the new discovery, isn't it worrying on its own that basically nothing was done the last 13 years, showing one part of the problem?
- lazide 3y ago
  It’s decayed significantly into less radioactive elements in the mean time. As long as no one is playing in the dirt under the building, it’s actually not a bad place to leave it while it ‘cools’.

StanislavPetrov 3y ago

The spill was discovered 13 years ago, and happened even earlier, so we aren't sure how long this extremely toxic radioactive material (which is so toxic that can kill a person in 2 minutes) has been seeping into the soil and the ground water. Nothing to worry about.

lolinder 3y ago
They're measuring the groundwater and there's no evidence of radiation in it yet. That it's been this way for 13 years means it's not going to suddenly reach groundwater now—it's just that they didn't realize how much there was in the immediate location of the spill.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  >That it's been this way for 13 years No, the spill was discovered 13 years ago, but it happened even earlier. The article doesn't say when the spill from the 58-year-old building happened, just that it was detected 13 years ago. To me, the fact that an untold number of year passed before this massive, highly radioactive spill was detected, and the further fact that it took them 13 years to figure out how bad the spill was, doesn't inspire confidence that they have a full handle on the situation and have accurately measured just how widespread the contamination is.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    The article did indicate that there was work being done in the 80’s during which the floor of a “hot cell” was damaged and allowed the radioactive material to leak out into the soil.

smaudet 3y ago

"As that work began, contaminated soil was discovered in a wider area beneath the building, where it was not expected. DOE paused work in April, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the DOE national laboratory in Richland, was called upon to help Hanford officials understand the extent of the underground contamination. PNNL confirmed the findings of the Hanford contractors that the spill was both broader and deeper than thought when the plan to excavate it from within the hot cell was developed." Eh, no? They basically said "oh shit this is a bigger problem let's re-evaluate" not "oh man we goofed but have a new plan". "However, DOE said the building currently is in a safe and stable configuration. The contaminated soils at it have remained stable for decades, it said." Except, they just learnt they were wrong about the contamination extent. I'm not sure how much I trust this evaluation to be correct. I would HOPE they are doing something like, using geiger counters with a groundwater well in a different location to check radiation levels. Another comment mentioned cesium and strontium, which at least cesium has a half life of 30 years, meaning if this spill happened 30-40 years ago a majority of the radiation may already have dissipated. Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life?

lostlogin 3y ago
> Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life? How? If you don’t know the size of the original spill can you work it out from whatever it decays to?
- jenadine 3y ago
  Not a physicist, so you'll correct me if I'm wrong. The Cesium decay into something. So we could measure the concentration of the resulting atom compared to those of Cesium.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> Shouldn't we be able to determine the age of the spill using the cesium half life? You can calculate how long ago the material left a reactor (from the comments, that was always known). You can't calculate when the spill happened.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

Besides the new discovery, isn't it worrying on its own that basically nothing was done the last 13 years, showing one part of the problem?

lazide 3y ago
It’s decayed significantly into less radioactive elements in the mean time. As long as no one is playing in the dirt under the building, it’s actually not a bad place to leave it while it ‘cools’.