Learning from the Past ...Radioactive oysters in Willapa Bay, WA

[Fledermaus]

Apparenty, some of this crap can stay around for quite awhile.

EFFECTS AND EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATION
Hanford operations have affected Columbia River fish from past discharges. Plumes of radioactive and chemical toxins are entering the river on a daily basis, and even more is in the groundwater, destined for the Columbia. During the 1950’s and 1960’s, radioactivity from Hanford was found at high concen-trations in shellfish at Willapa Bay at the mouth of the Columbia and extending for at least 200 miles into the Pacific Ocean.7 At its height, the radioactive pollution made the Columbia River the “most ra-dioactive river in the world.” Willapa Bay oysters were contaminated with levels of Zinc-65 at 250 times that of Chesapeake Bay oysters, which were considered highly contaminated due to atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing.

In the early 1960’s, a Hanford worker set off radiation alarms entering the Hanford Site after eating oyster stew from a can. The oysters had been harvested from Willapa Bay, at the mouth of the Colum-bia, and were so hot that their consumption made the consumer himself radioactive.8

http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+oysters+in+Willapa+Bay,+WA

[Teaser]

1. given recent events

the title could use some clarification.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I second that

Unless the intent is to mislead.

[pscot]

5. He did use the word "past"

in the title. The text speaks of testing; the 60's and 70's. I understood it.

[Teaser]

6. see the little red "edited" note?

.

[Fledermaus]

7. Apparently, its was still showing up in 2003

When other toxicology tests were run and found PCBs and what not.

[pscot]

9. Have there been any recent findings

of radiation? I've eaten my share of Willapa oysters.

[Fledermaus]

10. I did some reading. At one time the Irish Sea was contaminated from nuclear weapons production.

It took about 30 years for the radiation levels to drop. Thats all I know. The Irish Sea contamination was from the same time frame.

http://www.rpii.ie/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=c3aae226-1dbf-40eb-9e15-bb75891a50e8&PublicationID=88

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. There's a Toxipedia????

Who knew....
Sad that we have to have a toxipedia.

[bahrbearian]

4. I never knew that,, I eat Willapa oysters and clams all the time. Damn

I always thought that they were the safest. Damn

[AtheistCrusader]

8. And the rising acidification of the ocean from CO2 sources is killing them off.

So, pick your poison, I guess.

[Fledermaus]

11. Global warming can be averted without nuclear. If you run nuclear all the time forever, it will fail

Sooner or later it will fail.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. True enough.

On a long enough timeline, everyone's survival rate drops to 0.

[Fledermaus]

13. New Madrid Earthquakes 1811-1812 Northeast Arkansas -Magnitude ~7.7

This sequence of three very large earthquakes is usually referred to as the New Madrid earthquakes, after the Missouri town that was the largest settlement on the Mississippi River between St. Louis, Missouri and Natchez, Mississippi. On the basis of the large area of damage (600,000 square kilometers), the widespread area of perceptibility (5,000,000 square kilometers), and the complex physiographic changes that occurred, the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 rank as some of the largest in the United States since its settlement by Europeans. They were by far the largest east of the Rocky Mountains in the U.S. and Canada. The area of strong shaking associated with these shocks is two to three times as large as that of the 1964 Alaska earthquake and 10 times as large as that of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Because there were no seismographs in North America at that time, and very few people in the New Madrid region, the estimated magnitudes of this series of earthquakes vary considerably and depend on modern researchers' interpretations of journals, newspaper reports, and other accounts of the ground shaking and damage. The magnitudes of the three principal earthquakes of 1811-1812 described below are the preferred values taken from research involved with producing the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Brown's Ferry is in that area.

Same reactor design/generation/containment. Then again, the Japanese reactors tripped fine, and shut down for the earthquake, it's just the coolant systems lost power when the tsunami hit the backup generators, and power could not be restored in a reasonable timeframe, and the decay heat got out of control. All downhill from there. BF might not have any such problem.

Prudence suggests we shitbarn that reactor though. It's old, and I would argue, now an unproven design.

[kristopher]

15. Why should we build nuclear?

At this point it is up to the supporters to justify it.

1. nuclear power isn't "cheap" it is expensive;

2. learning and new standardized designs will not solve all past problems - waste, safety and proliferation are part and parcel of the technology;

3. the waste problem is a real problem, even if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change does not make a renaissance "inevitable";

5. there are other ways to provide electricity than with large-scale “baseload” sources of generation - "baseload" is in reality nothing more than an economic construct that developed around centralized generation and a distributed approach is technically far superior;

6. there’s every reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Inline.

1. nuclear power isn't "cheap" it is expensive;
Absolutely. Safety regulations, and design criteria for safety leave the cost of Nuclear power second to none.

2. learning and new standardized designs will not solve all past problems - waste, safety and proliferation are part and parcel of the technology;
Proliferation has countermeasures. Safety has improved DRASTICALLY since the 1960's, though I will grant, nothing can be made 100% safe. Waste is not always waste. What was pulled from reactors in the 70's can be reprocessed and re-burned today, and there are additional technologies on the way that can further eliminate waste on the front end. On the long-term storage end, there are even plans to scoot this stuff along into the earth's mantle, possibly even using the decay heat of the spent fuel to accomplish it.

3. the waste problem is a real problem, even if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
I'll take about 3 cubic yards of high level waste from a reactor per year over all the involvement of a coal plant any day.

4. climate change does not make a renaissance "inevitable";
Never said it was. If we can skip nuclear entirely, with technology on the shelf right now, I'm fine with that.

5. there are other ways to provide electricity than with large-scale “baseload” sources of generation - "baseload" is in reality nothing more than an economic construct that developed around centralized generation and a distributed approach is technically far superior;
I do not buy this for a second. Centralized generation is massively useful. 72% of my state's power comes from Hydro, and it is friggin awesome. Only a shame we cannot significantly increase hydro capacity in the traditional sense (lots of opportunity in tidal), as we are out of suitable sites, and there is a habitat cost associated with it. (Long term, when other power is available, even hydro can go the way of the reactor)

How about environmental conditions? In northern climes like Wisconsin, which will work better in deep freeze/icing conditions in the winter time for low-CO2 producing power? Solar and Wind, or a reactor? I'm going to go with a reactor that has 95% or better capacity, and does not suffer from icing conditions like a wind turbine that only starts out at about 40% capacity on a good day with the best siting.

How about a heat wave? Wind can just about halt low level wind in the hottest of days. You need VERY tall/well sited wind turbines to get at moving air under those conditions, and power demands are very high during those conditions. Aside from heat emission regulations in a few rivers, reactors have zero issues in this situation.

6. there’s every reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.
I'll worry about the US first. CO2 is a concern, because it isn't localized pollution, but we are by far the biggest generator, biggest consumer of energy, and proliferation risks from the US are miniscule. China isn't having problems with this either. In fact, I respect China's nuclear weapons program the most out of the big three of Russia-China-US. Yes, they built some, but only enough to ensure unacceptable losses to an aggressor, and they have halted there. Further development of their weapons are centered around stable long-term deployment, so solid fuel rockets, instead of liquid, etc. They aren't producing huge numbers of warheads with the intention of transferring them, or building enough to 'win' a war.