Hacker News Reader

Comment by PeterStuer | Hacker News Reader

"the building currently is in a safe and stable configuration"

Just like they said all previous times.

First took them decades to 'discover' there had been 'accidents'. Then they 'just let it sit' for another 7 years, before being forced to do 'something' because the building was planned to be demolished. Then they try to jungle-rig together some contraptions that might scoop out the spill without too much cost Then it takes them another 5 years to accidentaly stumble upon the spill not being so contained as they 'hoped'. But hey, trust them. This time they promise its all safe and stable. Once again.

This is the same comedy capers fly by night operations we see time and time again in each human endeavour. Yet somehow, the nuclear lobby wants us to believe they are exempt from human failty, despite being disproven time and time again.

Nuclear power might be great, but humankind just can't handle the responsabilities.

View on HN

This spill occurred 40 years ago. Humans are capable of improvement over time. Look at airline safety, for example.

> Look at airline safety, for example.

Like the Boeing 737 Max?

No, like the aggregate

It may sound heartless but we can make new people.

We can’t make an uninhabitable environment habitable.

Well technically, space is an uninhabitable environment and people can temporarily live there fine

Well technically I would say that people aren't "living in space" I would say they are living in a space station.

Our environment is rapidly becoming uninhabitable though carbon dioxide emissions. Venus, here we come.

True but I don’t understand how an engineer can design a safe nuclear power plant for a rapidly uninhabitable environment.

It might be the only option though.

People like to latch onto things thinking they are an obvious perfect solution without honestly recognising the costs.

Fish Was Right

> No, like the aggregate

Not very comforting.

Just one bad accident can destroy so much more than aircraft

There were a lot of people, companies, agencies, and policies that failed in the 737 Max debacle. It was a systemic failure and not some random, individual, isolated event.

And yet overall its still very safe to go into a modern airplane.

Improved so much in this case, they have done nothing about it in 40 years and it keeps getting worse.

It's actually the inverse - in the last 40 years this spill has been radiating away and getting less dangerous. However, for that period people have been exposed to it, and it's been sitting there as an accident waiting to happen if (for example) the site gets flooded.

You did not read the article, you did not read my post, and you didn't read yours, for that matter.

My guess, with a certain US Political Party cutting funding for things like the EPA and Super Fund Activities, I would guess no one had the funds to properly diagnose and do the appropriate cleanup.

So they decided it was good enough for "now" until this was discovered. I would say the Company that caused the spill will get away without paying cleanup costs. That is what usually happens with these type of Environmental Damage in the US.

There is also a risk to disturbing the site. Sometimes leaving something alone is the best option.

This is not about nuclear power, but about nuclear weapons production.

And a lot of well-paid workers

Hanford has almost no relation to nuclear power at all - it was a nuclear weapons development and fuel processing site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com