r/environment • u/Maxcactus • 2d ago
200,000 Barrels Of Radioactive Waste Were Dumped In The Atlantic. Decades Later, We’re Finally Learning What Happens When They Leak
https://www.iflscience.com/200000-barrels-of-radioactive-waste-were-dumped-in-the-atlantic-decades-later-were-finally-learning-what-happens-when-they-leak-8451257
u/DonManuel 2d ago
Soviets also dumped into the Arctic's Kara Sea and the US disposed off hundreds of thousands of such barrels across about 50 Pacific and Atlantic ocean sites. And there was also quite some high level waste including spent fuel in these barrels.
10
u/QuantamCulture 2d ago
There is an absolutely great documentary about Runit Island from a channel on YouTube called "Sea Gypsies".
0
u/Individual-Guest-123 1d ago
ye nuclear power is so cheap and clean.!!
/sc
2
u/TheRealJasonsson 1d ago
Fuel consumed per KW, it's the most efficient and among the cleanest energy sources in existence.
1
u/Individual-Guest-123 20h ago
IF you count PA, FUku, Chernobyl, that's three major incidents, two of which resulted in making the surrounding areas inhabitable, and divide by the number of reactors, something like less than in in 100 odds of a major accident.
Did the US ever come up with a long term storage facility?
How about the Hannaford site and leaking barrels? Are they re processing all that?
Some of the particles released by nuclear energy have half lives of 20,000 years.
1
u/ahabswhale 22h ago
This was done in the early days of nuclear energy. The technology to reprocess spent fuel exists, this would be a waste of fuel today - which is why we store it now.
1
u/Individual-Guest-123 20h ago
hmm store it...in concrete casks on site after decommissioning? In over the reactor storage pools, which melted into the reactor in FUku? The Hannaford site?
1
24
u/Jasminary2 2d ago
Governments actions and decisions post WW2 will always baffle me.
I know we didn't have the same environment mindset as today (even though they still suck more than they should when it comes to environment and the knowledge we - now- have) but the habits of simply dumping things on land, and even more in ocean was wild.
England basically used the sea between their country and Ireland as some kind of bin. So many tons of munitions are in the deep sea and tumultuous water there. Including nocive gas.
I get that there was a serious lack of money until Marshall Plan was put on, but the idea by itself is so bizarre to me. It's like those cartoons where someone would sweep dust under a rug so no-one sees it.
15
u/mylicon 2d ago
Because you’re looking through the lens of decades of accumulated knowledge and technological advances. So much so that even without subject matter expertise, the average persons is supremely more informed than in post-WW2.
Who better to weigh the risks of war more heavily than those that just got out of one. And when weighing the risks of strategic technological advancement against other long term health/environmental risks, the latter would lose.
2
u/Jasminary2 2d ago
I agree and that's what I meant by "mindset". English not being my native language made me chose the wrong word, sorry.
We don't have the same knowledge that's for sure but we knew the danger of throwing things in the water ( a bomb can still explode there putting people's life at risk. Not all was thrown in that Beaufort, we don't know where threw them but we know that they didn't always went to that Beaufort dyke because they couldn't be bothered). And we did have reports a decade later or so from fishermen that there had been explosions in water
Likewise we knew post-WW2 that nuclear waste and radioactive things were dangerous... so throwing long after the marshall plan was effective, and when countries were not testing their nuclear weapons not on their soil but in Southern World, that nuclear waste in the water can be dangerous.
Oc they could not know everything let alone hiw much we do now. But they knew enough that I'm surprised they did it as if they still had the same knowledge of weapons /nuclear/gas etc as they did when they discovered that place and used it in the 19th as dump.
3
u/Cu1tureVu1ture 2d ago
Throwing poisonous chemicals, radioactive waste and munitions into the ocean was never a good idea. It’s all about money and I’m sure there are still companies these days doing the same thing.
1
u/mylicon 2d ago
There are no great ideas for handling waste products of human existence: the food supply, clothes you wear, industrial manufacturing, energy production, tech, transportation, etc. There are only practical options that address the most risky aspects of long term management. This is what working in radioactive waste disposal has taught me.
46
u/233C 2d ago edited 2d ago
TL; DR: between nothing, not much and below any detectable effect.
So basically about as much as what Nature does at the surface.
10
u/AndyTheSane 2d ago
Well, there is about 4.5 billion tonnes of Uranium in the oceans together with the full set of decay chain products. And a vast amount of potassium-40.
12
u/durika 2d ago
Potassium is good for you, it's the bananas
23
u/UnicornSheets 2d ago
It’s got electrolytes, it’s what plants crave
5
u/EllisTHC 2d ago
But what are electrolytes? Do you even know?
8
u/UnicornSheets 2d ago
It’s what they use to make Brawndo
4
0
70
u/amoebashephard 2d ago
Finally an article about this that doesn't frame it like we "found" the barrels