PDF of report done in 2013 [1] which basically says and leaks will rapidly dilute. The key to remember is the lagoon and surrounding areas are already far more polluted than what this dome may leak.
Besides, if ever want a real scare go look at the maps for all the chemical munitions dumped in our oceans that we know about [2] - does not include normal munitions and such.
So while it is a problem it is not the real problem that already exist.
”Deadly mustard gas has leaked from a First World War underwater “weapons cemetery” in the North Sea, close to the Belgian coast”
Those were trace amounts, so there is not much immediate danger, but things can get worse.
And for normal munitions, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messi... probably lists a few of the scariest (a few 10,000+ kg stashes of explosives buried in Belgium since World War One. One of them exploded in 1955 after a lightning strike, showing that they were still dangerous after fortie-is years; a few others still buried somewhere)
FTA on the town’s main drag proudly advertise fish and chips made with Baltic-caught cod on their menus.
My friends from this area generally advise against eating at any place which advertises this too strongly. To the locals it's actually a turn off to begin with.
The US needs to go in and clean up this mess and should feel very obligated to move quickly on this, but is hasn’t. See also this article from 2015 [1] and folks may enjoy this video for the visuals of it [2].
That would be a nice thing to do, but per the article in 1983 the Marshall Islands traded US liability for nuclear issues as part of their move to self-government.
That is not to say that some Federal-level support is not warranted like other Superfund sites, but that it may not be the total and complete responsibility of the US Federal government to resolve the issue, as agreed to legally by both parties.
This is the correct thought process. The linked article from llnl [1] states that “The final plan called for (1) removing all radioactive and non-radioactive debris (equipment, concrete, scrap metal, etc.), (2) removing all soil that exceeded 14.8 Bq (400 pCi) of plutonium per gram of soil, (3) removing or amending soil between 1.48 and 14.8 Bq (40 and 400 pCi) of plutonium per gram of soil, determined on a case-by-case basis depending on ultimate land-use, and 4) disposing and stabilizing all this accumulated radioactive waste into a crater on Runit Island and capping it with a concrete dome.” It goes on to state that “A estimated total of 73,000 cubic meters of surface soil...was recovered by scapping and deposited in Cactus crater on Runit Island.”
Unfortunately, it does not provide an average specific activity for the material stored, only a lower limit threshold. If we assume it was near this lower limit of 14.8 bq threshold (could be the case depending on how often case (3) was used) and assume mostly plutonium-239. Since isotopic distribution is unknown, this is a conservative assumption because the longer half-life will yield a larger mass in the calculation. The molar density can be calculated from the specific activity listed:
Na/m = a x hl/ln(2) =
14.8[decay/s] x 23110[yrs]/ln(2)
= 1.57e13 atoms/gram
= 2.61e-11 mol/gram
The mass of the dirt collected will be assumed to be wet sand with a density of 1905 kg/m^3 [2] (note that density is actually slightly higher than this due to the plutonium contained). And finally, the volume collected is 73,000 cubic meters, or 1.39e11 grams. So the total amount of plutonium is:
2.61e-11[mol/g] x 1.39e11[g] = 3.63 mol
So our envelope calculation yields about 870 grams of plutonium. So how accurate is this? It is probably on the high side after reading the paper posted by Shivetya [3]. They cite a total inventory of 545 GBq. Using the assumptions above, one would expect an inventory of 2058 GBq.
As for the effects, that’s difficult to tell. Really the two scenarios that come to mind are a constant leaching into the environment or a disaster that results in the total mass being dumped. In the latter case a disaster of that magnitude would likely disperse the material in a biased direction. In this case it would dilute relatively quickly. Impacts from the radiation would probably be apparent close by in the biased direction. A constant leak would depend on the leach rate and leak locations. The NRC defines monthly sewer release limits of material in Table 3 of 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B - standards for protection against radiation. The number given for Pu is 84 uCi or 3.108e6 Bq. Based on the plutonium inventory calculated and neglecting material decay, the material could leach out within NRC limits over a period of 55 thousand years (2058e9/3.108e6/12). Note that this number is likely highly inflated given the assumption that all radioactive material is Pu-239 and the comparison in [3]. Using the number from [3] and assuming all activity is Pu, the duration would be 14 thousand years. However this is a rough analysis that does not account for isotopic distributions, so please take the results with a grain of salt.
One "meta" way of looking at things like this is that it represents a part of the technical debt left behind by the industrial revolution. Eventually we have to go back and fix this stuff, but as with technical debt in most code bases we tend to ignore it. Unfortunately technical debt is subject to compound interest, so the longer we ignore it the more costly it is to eventually deal with.
Some messes are just too big to clean up. They knew going into the testing that it was going to kill thousands and thousands of natives and effect native people in a terrible way for generations to come but they didn't give a shit then and they dont give a shit now. That's why most of the natives have 6 fingers and 4 toes, are sterile and the land is poisoned and will stay poisoned. You can deny it all you want but if it was not true shit like this wouldn't be so common place. We aren't the only ones and this isn't the only site and it's not just radiation, its carbon, its carcinogens, it's plastic... there is a whole boat load of shit like this that everyone pretends to care about when their talking about it with their husband or best friend but seems to have no trouble sleeping off the next day. What makes us think we can all just act like animals one day and civilized humans that next... I have no clue but that's reality. People ask: "Oh what can I do, I am so small and the problem is so big!" idk but I do know this if you ACTUALLY cared you would figure out some way to help. What's the difference between pretending to care and actually caring you ask? It's simple, doing something about it versus talking about doing something about it, it's that simple, that's the difference. Write your governor, send some money, do anything or just admit you don't care, and do nothing. That's what the US government is counting on you to do and that's why they got away with this and that's why they will get away with similar shit in the future.
Plenty of people will offer things you can do, but really they're only things that will treat your feeling of helplessness and not things that have any significant chance of improving these scenarios.
I hear things like "we should go full nuclear, modern nuclear reactors are safe" all the time, yet this ignores externalities, unknown unknowns, human incompetence, and the unexpected. Who would expect the ocean to rise over your nuclear waste dome? Have people suggesting this forgotten the allegory of the unsinkable ship the Titanic? Entropy always wins in the end.
Ironically, if we did go full nuclear, the oceans probably wouldn't have risen, saving us from a cracking nuclear dome and an untold number of other hassles.
Sure, nuclear power is not 100% safe, but its "worst case" pales in comparison to fossil fuel's "guaranteed outcome by 2100."
I'm OK with building, say, solar instead of nuclear. I'm definitely NOT OK with keeping fossil fuel where nuclear is available, while paying a lip service saying "Oh don't worry, in 30 years maybe we will switch to renewables."
This is waste from nuclear weapons testing, it was concreted over as a "temporary measure" and now it seems like a more permanent solution needs to be found.
Unclear why you believe nuclear energy (by which I assume you mean nuclear power generation) is relevant.
I've sorta reached the conclusion that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy if everyone is well behaved and disciplined about it.
On the other hand, given the wrong incentives, you might just stow nuclear waste where it's cheapest and where you can get away with it, and then not be penalized when the containment mechanism you cheaped out on fails... or maybe you just conveniently forget to do maintenance on it as the responsibility for doing maintenance somehow conveniently evaporates due to some bureaucracy.
I think the debate isn't over whether or not nuclear power itself is safe, it's the debate over whether or not humans under capitalism are to be trusted to behave responsibly with this technology. Nuclear power isn't just the technology in isolation... humans are an intrinsic part of it.
Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is.
Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...
[+] [-] Shivetya|6 years ago|reply
Besides, if ever want a real scare go look at the maps for all the chemical munitions dumped in our oceans that we know about [2] - does not include normal munitions and such.
So while it is a problem it is not the real problem that already exist.
[1] https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-TR-648143...
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-weapo...
[+] [-] Someone|6 years ago|reply
”Deadly mustard gas has leaked from a First World War underwater “weapons cemetery” in the North Sea, close to the Belgian coast”
Those were trace amounts, so there is not much immediate danger, but things can get worse.
And for normal munitions, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messi... probably lists a few of the scariest (a few 10,000+ kg stashes of explosives buried in Belgium since World War One. One of them exploded in 1955 after a lightning strike, showing that they were still dangerous after fortie-is years; a few others still buried somewhere)
[+] [-] Tade0|6 years ago|reply
My friends from this area generally advise against eating at any place which advertises this too strongly. To the locals it's actually a turn off to begin with.
[+] [-] erentz|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pac...
[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA
[+] [-] sailfast|6 years ago|reply
That is not to say that some Federal-level support is not warranted like other Superfund sites, but that it may not be the total and complete responsibility of the US Federal government to resolve the issue, as agreed to legally by both parties.
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
But definitely the US should improve that encasement or otherwise minimize the dangers.
[+] [-] _bxg1|6 years ago|reply
Same old story. I think most of the world has given up expecting the U.S. to be any kind of responsible world citizen.
[+] [-] Hydraulix989|6 years ago|reply
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/23/what-lies-beneath-numec...
[+] [-] cameldrv|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyrix100|6 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, it does not provide an average specific activity for the material stored, only a lower limit threshold. If we assume it was near this lower limit of 14.8 bq threshold (could be the case depending on how often case (3) was used) and assume mostly plutonium-239. Since isotopic distribution is unknown, this is a conservative assumption because the longer half-life will yield a larger mass in the calculation. The molar density can be calculated from the specific activity listed:
Na/m = a x hl/ln(2) = 14.8[decay/s] x 23110[yrs]/ln(2) = 1.57e13 atoms/gram = 2.61e-11 mol/gram
The mass of the dirt collected will be assumed to be wet sand with a density of 1905 kg/m^3 [2] (note that density is actually slightly higher than this due to the plutonium contained). And finally, the volume collected is 73,000 cubic meters, or 1.39e11 grams. So the total amount of plutonium is:
2.61e-11[mol/g] x 1.39e11[g] = 3.63 mol
So our envelope calculation yields about 870 grams of plutonium. So how accurate is this? It is probably on the high side after reading the paper posted by Shivetya [3]. They cite a total inventory of 545 GBq. Using the assumptions above, one would expect an inventory of 2058 GBq.
As for the effects, that’s difficult to tell. Really the two scenarios that come to mind are a constant leaching into the environment or a disaster that results in the total mass being dumped. In the latter case a disaster of that magnitude would likely disperse the material in a biased direction. In this case it would dilute relatively quickly. Impacts from the radiation would probably be apparent close by in the biased direction. A constant leak would depend on the leach rate and leak locations. The NRC defines monthly sewer release limits of material in Table 3 of 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B - standards for protection against radiation. The number given for Pu is 84 uCi or 3.108e6 Bq. Based on the plutonium inventory calculated and neglecting material decay, the material could leach out within NRC limits over a period of 55 thousand years (2058e9/3.108e6/12). Note that this number is likely highly inflated given the assumption that all radioactive material is Pu-239 and the comparison in [3]. Using the number from [3] and assuming all activity is Pu, the duration would be 14 thousand years. However this is a rough analysis that does not account for isotopic distributions, so please take the results with a grain of salt.
[1]:https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/enewetak.php#cleanup
[2]:https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/dirt-mud-densities-d_...
[3]:https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-TR-648143...
[+] [-] api|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Circuits|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mimixco|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dome/
[+] [-] jason_zig|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
That's not good, but it's not some sort of catastrophic event here.
[+] [-] acct1771|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gooseus|6 years ago|reply
Plenty of people will offer things you can do, but really they're only things that will treat your feeling of helplessness and not things that have any significant chance of improving these scenarios.
[+] [-] _bxg1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Krasnol|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JSeymourATL|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunstone|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teslaberry|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fuckamerica|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RappingBoomer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grazester|6 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA
[+] [-] jdpedrie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anovikov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yongjik|6 years ago|reply
Sure, nuclear power is not 100% safe, but its "worst case" pales in comparison to fossil fuel's "guaranteed outcome by 2100."
I'm OK with building, say, solar instead of nuclear. I'm definitely NOT OK with keeping fossil fuel where nuclear is available, while paying a lip service saying "Oh don't worry, in 30 years maybe we will switch to renewables."
[+] [-] secfirstmd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dduuggrr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 781|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|6 years ago|reply
Unclear why you believe nuclear energy (by which I assume you mean nuclear power generation) is relevant.
[+] [-] gaze|6 years ago|reply
On the other hand, given the wrong incentives, you might just stow nuclear waste where it's cheapest and where you can get away with it, and then not be penalized when the containment mechanism you cheaped out on fails... or maybe you just conveniently forget to do maintenance on it as the responsibility for doing maintenance somehow conveniently evaporates due to some bureaucracy.
I think the debate isn't over whether or not nuclear power itself is safe, it's the debate over whether or not humans under capitalism are to be trusted to behave responsibly with this technology. Nuclear power isn't just the technology in isolation... humans are an intrinsic part of it.
[+] [-] calibas|6 years ago|reply
Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...