
U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open - mitchelldeacon9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/20/us-put-nuclear-waste-under-dome-pacific-island-now-its-cracking-open/
======
Shivetya
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.

[1] [https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-
TR-648143...](https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-
TR-648143_final.pdf)

[2] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-
weapo...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-weapons-
world-war-II-threaten-waters-worldwide-180961046/)

~~~
Someone
News from a few weeks ago [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/02/first-
world-war-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/02/first-world-war-
mustard-gas-leaks-belgian-underwater-grave/):

 _”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...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messines_\(1917\)#List_of_the_mines)
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)

~~~
alexwasserman
And also -

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery)

The Doomsday Wreck.

------
erentz
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].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-
pac...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-
radioactive-waste)

[2]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA)

~~~
sailfast
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.

~~~
omegaworks
>the Marshall Islands traded US liability for nuclear issues as part of their
move to self-government.

This is classic over-the-barrel negotiating tactics used by colonizing nations
over their former colonies. The Marshall Islanders had few options here.
Continue to have their sovereignty dictated from and literal lands and lives
ruined by a foreign nation, or take liability for the colonizer's
experimentation and some control of their future back.

Just because a choice was made, doesn't make the process _just_ or _right_. It
may release the United States from a _legal_ obligation, but it doesn't excuse
any _ethical_ or _moral_ obligations of the state to the people of the
islands.

~~~
sailfast
I completely agree with you.

It is unfortunate, however, that states do not often act out of ethical or
moral obligations unless it serves some other, broader interest. It's my
fervent hope the United States chooses to act on its ethical and moral
obligations, but overall a regression to the mean of state behavior can also
be expected from time to time.

My more cynical self sees many more pressing and dangerous environment
disasters domestically that are readily apparent and not being dealt with
properly - in places where people actually vote for US politicians. This
indicates to me that a fix in a United States associated state will
unfortunately likely not merit the expenditure for awhile unless some legal
case could be brought.

------
cameldrv
Pretty bad reporting. OK, it contains Pu-239, but how much? If it leaks, what
effects will that have?

~~~
cyrix100
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.

[1]:[https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/enewetak.php#cleanup](https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/enewetak.php#cleanup)

[2]:[https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/dirt-mud-densities-
d_...](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html)

[3]:[https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-
TR-648143...](https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/ccc/Hamilton_LLNL-
TR-648143_final.pdf)

~~~
cyrix100
Just wanted to add that the mass leakage rate to remain under NRC limits would
be 1.39e11 [g] / 55000 [yrs] = 2527 [kg/yr] = 7 [kg/day]

Put into that context, it might not be too absurd to think leakage would
remain under NRC limits if only small cracks were present (assuming those
limits are actually applicable to this scenario)

------
api
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.

------
Circuits
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.

------
mimixco
Great documentary on this, free to watch. [0]

[0]
[https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dome/](https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dome/)

------
jason_zig
Does anyone else feel helpless when reading stuff like this? Is there anything
I can do to make things better in these scenarios?

~~~
acct1771
Tell people around you to stop implicitly trusting centralized power.

~~~
irrational
But whom has the power to clean something like this up except for centralized
power?

~~~
justin66
"The market."

Just kidding.

~~~
onemoresoop
The market is irresponsible.

Not kidding.

------
JSeymourATL
Tangentially related: What ever became of Taylor Wilson? >
[https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-wilson-taking-the-
ene...](https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-wilson-taking-the-energy-
industry-by-storm-2017-11)

------
sunstone
The people who designed it have now passed on so it has met its designed
lifetime.

------
RappingBoomer
so we just have to go in and fix it up. No big deal.

------
Grazester
Paywalled so I cant read but that dome in cover something with a porous bottom
and rising sea level isn't helping either.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA)

~~~
jdpedrie
Clear site cookies and local storage, or open in private session.

------
anovikov
I don't think there's so much activity left after so many years

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,110 years. Source: Wikipedia.

------
colordrops
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.

~~~
yongjik
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."

~~~
ehnto
I can't see why solar isn't now the leading candidate. Nuclear is cool and
all, but the simplicity of a butt-tonne of solar in a field can't be
overlooked. It's not likely to fail catastrophically, maintenance is modular
and low-impact. The skills needed are trades not degrees and if we can get the
power output/battery/backup balance right, as a society we have clean,
reliable energy indefinitely.

I say that knowing we are barreling toward fantastic solar participation in
the grid in many countries, and I feel it's just a matter of time before it
becomes the dominant source of our energy, especially as battery solutions
come into play. It's also not the end of the world to have some backup gas
generators that fire up once in a blue moon. Compared to 100% fossil fuels,
the occasional gas turbine firing up on a stormy week would be negligible.
Alternatively, novel storage methods such as hydro storage could make even
backup energy green.

There are probably cities where it wouldn't work right now, but I can't
imagine there being many places where it couldn't work at all.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Solar and nuclear are complementary technologies. Nuclear produces power at
night when solar doesn't, solar produces power during the day when the demand
is higher. It significantly reduces the amount of storage batteries you need,
which is the primary impediment to using solar exclusively.

Solar is also problematic during winter. We need to replace fossil fuels as a
heat source, but when heating with electricity at scale during winter, the
demand _rises_ at night meanwhile the days are shorter and solar generates
less. Heating New York and Chicago in winter using solar and batteries doesn't
have promising economics.

~~~
8bitsrule
Storage is easy for renewables, regardless of local geology, using already
existing tech.

In many places, the winds blows powerfully at night. With a capable grid like
the one China has build in the last 10 years, that energy can be efficiently
moved a thousand miles.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Storage is easy for renewables, regardless of local geology, using already
> existing tech.

By the time you generate power from some actual generation source, pay the
conversion losses both ways and then pay the equipment, land and maintenance
costs of the storage technology, it isn't cost-competitive. And then people
keep burning carbon.

> In many places, the winds blows powerfully at night. With a capable grid
> like the one China has build in the last 10 years, that energy can be
> efficiently moved a thousand miles.

Wind is regionally intermittent. If it's a still night in one place there is a
significant probability that it will also be a few miles from there. But
transmitting power over a thousand miles isn't cost-competitive. Both the
infrastructure cost and the transmission losses scale with the distance,
making the cost quadratic with the transmission distance. On top of that, it
multiplies your costs for the generation, because if you're not going to use
storage you need enough generation in Region A to power both Region A and
Region B when it's a still night in Region B, but you also need that much in
Region B for when it's still in Region A. Even if that only happens one night
out of five.

There are also national security implications. For all but a small handful of
countries "1000 miles away" is in another country. Who does Israel connect its
grid to? Or Japan? Does Germany enjoy buying power from France? What do you do
when your neighbor raises the price?

Then everyone, including the bigger countries, takes on a large-scale
dependency. Lose the long-distance transmission lines and the brownouts aren't
just regional, it's the whole continent. There are ways to harden against that
but then we're raising the cost even more.

------
781
More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

~~~
calibas
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...](https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-
uranium-discovered-radiation-cancer-1424704)

~~~
ccffph
It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on
HN.

Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed
specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US
where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to
put it because of people like you.

Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and
storage. I cannot stress this enough.

If you don't believe me, this website has plenty of information regarding
nuclear power, straight from the source. It is developed and run by the UN.
Based on your misinformation, I strongly urge you to pore over this content
and then attempt to reevaluate your own question.

[http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx](http://www.world-
nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx)

~~~
Krasnol
> world-nuclear.org

There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear
lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last
months.

~~~
ccffph
The page is run by the UN. Who, in your opinion, would be a more reputable
source?

~~~
Rockslide
What makes you think this site would be "run by the UN"? The WNA is a nuclear
industry lobbying organization. Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~
ccffph
My personal experience with interacting with the WNA revolves around their
interactions with the WNU, which is the World Nuclear University. It's a
partnership between the WNA, IAEA, and others. Their goal is to promote
education in the field and having significant experience with the WNU, and
having noticed no irregularities, it would be very unlikely if the WNA was
simply making things up, or if they were spreading falsehoods. The WNA site is
consistently pointed to as a global source of truth by the WNU and by the
IAEA.

Could you enlighten me as to who would be a more reliable source on nuclear
technology?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_University)

[http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/what-we-
do/worl...](http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/what-we-do/world-
nuclear-university.aspx)

[https://www.iaea.org/services/technical-cooperation-
programm...](https://www.iaea.org/services/technical-cooperation-
programme/world-nuclear-university/wnu-school-on-radiation-technologies)

Would an organization evidently so deeply ingrained with and tied to the UN
and the UN's nuclear-specific arm, backed by numerous experts, really be in
the business of misleading anyone? Would you disregard a pro-climate change
website for its pro-climate change bias as well?

If you still don't believe me, feel free to drop your email and I can setup a
time for you to meet several physicists or engineers in the NYC area for
lunch, for an educational session free of charge.

~~~
Krasnol
What is "pro-climate" today if the main line of this recent out of "nothing"
nuclear hype is: "It's either nuclear or coal", which is a lie painting people
who don't want to have nuclear as some kind of idiots with a phobia.

> If you still don't believe me, feel free to drop your email and I can setup
> a time for you to meet several physicists or engineers in the NYC area for
> lunch, for an educational session free of charge.

Oh please...what are the chances that the person is even close to the NCY
area...? I'm from Germany. You know...the country with no nuclear issues at
all anymore...besides with the waste of it of course.

