Nate Moore
Earth Science
Current Events
10-30-14
Wald, Matthew L. "In U.S. Cleanup Efforts, Accident at Nuclear Site Points to Cost of Lapses." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2014.
Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. has been mass producing nuclear weapons. Through the process of creating these weapons, vast amounts of biohazardous waste is produced. Where all of that waste goes is often an afterthought, although it actually presents a real problem. In New Mexico a leakage of radioactive waste, brought the issue to front stage. A drum of the waste broke open and exploded causing minor radioactive harm to 24 of the facilities staff. These leaks have happened at other sites, but this is by far the most costly. Estimated cleanup and improvement costs expect to be over 550 million dollars. This includes adding a new ventilation system which is estimated to cost well over 200 million dollars. The author states that these costly and harmful mistakes could easily be prevented but it also leaves people wondering whether there is a more efficient strategy for disposing of this waste. The Obama administration has now shut down a couple of theses facilities and it appears as if this trend will continue. The specific containers that were leaked,were improperly packaged by employees at a different site. These leaked containers are now being held in a repository and others in a site in Texas. Many employees of the facility feel as if they have been conned into thinking they were safe at the facility. As one employee quoted, “It feels like I’ve drank the cool-aid”. A possible suggestion to solve the problem of this radioactive waste would be to use it as a fuel to power other nuclear power plants. Construction of a facility that would transform the waste into usable material was started in South Carolina but halted because of costs.
The recents events surrounding the leakage of radioactive material affect everyone in the United States. These facilities are everywhere in the country and if leakage continues, it will continue to harm the populace. If a larger leak were to occur, the radioactive material has the potential to spread through the air and possibly enter an urban population. Also, the price for the cleanup of these sites continue to damage the economy and increase the debt. The money for these improvements and cleanups is also derived from tax dollars. The material that is being stored at theses sites does not decontaminate for upwards of a thousand years. In order to ensure safe control of these treacherous materials, a more advanced technique to store the waste must be put into place. Furthermore, the lax rules and regulations surrounding the industry will come back to haunt us if, and most likely when, a major accident in the handling of the material occurs. The solution that the article mentions appears to be a viable option and one that should be pursued. Although it is not cost efficient, in the long run it could save lives as well as save money. Environmentally, this strategy could benefit us as well, instead of vast quantities of chemical waste dotting the country, it could be used as a source of clean energy.
Overall, this article was well written and passed along a large quantity of information. The author explained and developed his thoughts on the leak itself. He included in-depth information about the leak as well as what caused the leak. This was extremely helpful as the average reader would not be able to decipher what the spill meant. One point of information that could have been developed more is the impacts of costs. The author provides astounding facts about the specific costs but does not explain the possible impacts of large costs.Also, the author could have delved deeper into the strategies on how to deal with this type of waste. After reading this article the reader might question certain aspects of the environmental programs in place within our country. The article mentions the shift in control over biohazardous waste from one division to another and the reader might wonder whether the new division is up to standard.
Nate wrote a very well written article the leakage of nuclear waste. There were several things that impressed me after reading his review. One thing that impressed me was how it cost over 550 million dollars to clean up a small leak in nuclear waste. This is because it shows you how dangerous it is and how the safest and most expensive materials must be used to clean it up. A second thing that impressed me was how there are so few regulations on nuclear waste. This seems bad because nce equipment becomes older, nuclear accidents will become more frequent if we don’t update the technology. A final thing that impressed me was how there is such reluctance to spend a relatively low amount of money to prevent nuclear spills. This is because if an accident happens, which is likely, the cost to clean up the spill will be far greater than the cost would be just to update the equipment and prevent the spill.
ReplyDeleteThere were several aspects of the review that were particularly well presented. One aspect that was well presented in the review was how Nate made sure to take about the repercussions of a nuclear spill, small or large, and what could be done to stop them. Another aspect I thought was well presented was how Nate included in his article that nuclear waste could be used positively, for things such as energy.
One aspect of this review that would have made it better would be to incorporate quotes into it. This is because it makes the article sound much more professional and makes the topic a little easier to understand.