EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Strontium-90 Discovered in Soil Surrounding Vermont Yankee Leak
MONTPELIER - Vermont Yankee reported Friday afternoon that the radioactive isotope strontium has been located in the soil near where tritium had been discovered leaking at the Vernon nuclear power plant in January.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Strontium-90 was discovered in soil that had been excavated from the area of the leak, Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said. It was noted in an analysis the company received Monday from a soil sample taken March 17, he said. The state Health Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission were notified Thursday, he said.
Former nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Burlington characterized strontium-90 as the most harmful of the radioactive materials that have been found around the leak. If it comes into contact with humans, strontium-90 concentrates in the bone and causes leukemia, he said.
"This is the worst," Gundersen said. "This is the most harmful, the hardest-to-detect and the most soluble."
The existence of strontium-90 will increase the cost of eventual decommissioning of the plant, Gundersen said.
Along with tritium, Vermont Yankee has acknowledged the discovery of cobalt-690, cesium-137, manganese-54 and zinc-65.
The state Health Department noted the strontium discovery in its updates on the tritium leak Friday. The department emphasized that the strontium has been found in the soil but not in groundwater or in drinking water.
Smith said Vermont Yankee will continue to test for various radionuclides in the soil and monitoring wells and can't say yet whether the strontium has all been discovered.
"They're going to have a lot more digging to do to capture it," Gundersen predicted.
Vermont Yankee revealed heightened levels of tritium in monitoring wells on the plant grounds in January based on samples taken in November. The company found sources of the leak in underground pipes in February and March and stopped the leaks. The company has since been excavating and removing contaminated soil.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
70 Comments so far
Show AllThen, where do they put the contaminated soil?
What will it take for humans to see who and what we have become, then, to see who and what we need to be.?
Or way of life, from the little toys we played with as children, to the computer I'm typing on, to the food we eat, is destroying the very ground under our feet.
I was at Palomares, Spain after the B52/KC135 crash in 1966....There are areas still fenced off and contaminated.......The United States loaded ships with contaminated dirt and, "allegedly" brought it back to the states....I am sure they probably dumped it in the Atlantic......"Who was going to follow the ships?"
Why would you build a nuclear plant or nuclear trash dump by a river????
Start watching videos of Michael Ruppert and David Icke, "Greed and Power have no limits!"
Not a big fan of nuclear but if they make it safe and more of them dry air cooled ones, bring up them up. Demand for energy is going up and were all part of it.
Bill, so what about this?
BRATTLEBORO — A former Nuclear Regulatory Commission official now working for the Union of Concerned Scientists said that the NRC was a "lapdog" of the nuclear industry and wasn't enforcing its own regulations when it came to "unmonitored and uncontrolled" radioactive tritium leaks.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who at one time was a member of the Vermont Public Oversight Panel, told the annual meeting of the New England Coalition late Saturday that the NRC could have fined Entergy Nuclear $140,000 a day for every day it leaked tritium and other radioactive substances into the groundwater and ground, but it didn't.
Lochbaum said based on Entergy's own estimate of 90 days of uncontrolled and unmonitored releases, the NRC could have fined Entergy $12.6 million for the Vermont Yankee tritium leak alone.
In some cases, Lochbaum said, nuclear plants have leaks for years, not months in Yankee's case.
In fact, he said, virtually every commercial reactor in the country was leaking tritium, not the two-dozen plus number usually used by the NRC. He said he compiled his list of leaking reactors based on the NRC's own documents.
"Virtually every nuclear plant in the U.S. has reported leaks and many have reported many leaks," he told the 30 people gathered at the Gibson River Garden in downtown Brattleboro. "And no one knows how many leaks have not yet been found."
"Having set the safety bar at an appropriate height, the NRC meekly watches plant owner after plant owner limbo beneath it," he said.
Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for Region One of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Sunday afternoon that the NRC considers that 34 reactors are currently or have recently been leaking tritium. She said that number represented plants that had contaminated groundwater.
She couldn't say how many plants were still leaking tritium.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100517/NEWS02/5170366/1003/NEWS02
Billy, it is obvious you are a person of integrity. However.
Why do you feel the same corporations who brought us all manner of disaster, are suddenly above reproach and the government is enlightned only in this area? I am being sincere here. I remember three mile island. Chernobyl.
Where do you store the waste? Personally, i am with Einstien on these matters. Our ethics haven't caught up with our technology. Hubris. That is the polite way to put it.
And as you know, just because we can't smell it or see it, doesn't mean much. We know so much less than we think we know. In fact, wisdom implies knowing how little we do know. It has also been shown that nuclear isn't even cost effective.
peace.
rita
Claiming ignorance is reason enough to shut down every nuclear power plant. Incompetence is also reason enough to shut them down. They always claim 'unintentional'. Does anyone actually believe they're going to say 'yes, we're ignorant' or 'yes, we're incompetent' or 'yes, the leaking/dumping/spilling etc... was INTENTIONAL' or 'yes, we're so ignorant, so incompetent, our behaviour is deliberate and our actions are intentional'? Shut them down. Put them in jail. This continued lack of oversight and severe lack of corporations being held accountable ... in mountaintop removal, coal mining, ocean oil drilling, Massey Energy, Entergy, BP, Exxon, etc... is long past the point of being unacceptable.
When is enough going to be enough?
Isn't it time we make the tough decisions regarding our country's energy problems before we've destroyed every square inch ... before there is nothing left for future life to flourish?
Sioux Rose
The future: Note the parallels:
1. Oil geyser in the Gulf also in part related to a lack of regulatory oversight of the way that operation (in such deep drilling) was being conducted.
2. Wall ST collapse: lack of oversight in this "product" known as derivatives or swaps, which were let loose like a bad GM experiment into the living currency streams to ultimately pollute them.
3. People dying from certain big pharma cocktails because the FDA allowed these companies to "police" themselves and vouch for the safety of their products (without objective scientific peer review studies).
4. Coal mine explosion: Deaths due to lack of regulatory oversight
If the left/progressives HAD access to mainstream media, we could then explain how all of these terrible items, added to others, directly ensue when government is seen as the enemy. The case could easily be made that a government doing its job (as rep of THE people) is the only regulatory body strong enough to stand up to corporate capitalism and its rabid lust for profits at any and all costs. These are in plain sight in the first 4 items I related.
I may not understand your post. Are you saying that we should rush forward without certifying safety features? Look what just happened with that approach.
I say better to live with less AC and heat. Turn off the lights in shopping malls at night. Do sensible things.
Joe
You can't turn off the lights in places like hospitals and emergency rooms unlike shopping malls.
>>Why would you build a nuclear plant or nuclear trash dump by a river????<<
And, in Pennsylvania, we build them IN the river. TMI is on a small island in the middle of the Susquehanna.
Bingo. My question, too. So they remove the soil...to WHERE? It's still radioactive!
In the past it was shipped to the Indian reserves. They are so poor they can afford it.
I remember reading the Isaac Asimov "Foundation" series when I was much younger. This a story of a massive Intergalatic empire that collapses from within.
The reason for the collapse in part due to Scientists and Engineers knowledge decaying. Technicicans no longer know how to repair machinery and computers designed by Engineers long before. Infrastructure decays. Scientists do not know HOW certain things were built.
I was incredulous at the time. "How could people FORGET?. Does technology and science not always advance? " (Needless to say I had not considered the Dark ages.)
I read some time ago of NASA trying to contact old retired Scientists because the current crop of Engineers did not know how to design some of the Rocketry that was engineered back in the 1950's.
Is this decay irreversible?
No, GwNORTH, I'm sorry, but it's lost.
A recent Smithsonian article spoke of the incredible blueprint designs of the Parthenon; written into its very stones, which were themselves the blueprints for the entire building. However, the preservationists of today were enthralled and yet mystified as to how this was done. Tools better than that of today? Yes, and lost, lost, lost.
How did the Incas build walls of stone so perfectly aligned, that not even a knife blade can cut between those stones?
Midwives of the past burned, burned, burned to permit the rise of the doctor class. Natural and native medicines, lost, lost, lost.
Histories, designs, building methods, tools, traditions, languages, all so easily lost. I think that the turnaround time is now on the average of 10 years, and if a skill or method is lost, it is gone, gone, gone.
I did read about some scientists who were concerned about this lax of collective memory and worried about just what we all worry about. What word, design or feature could warn a future civilization of a dangerous fuel buried underground, and in 50 years lost and forgotten?
Like the Mayan codex.... the future will wonder, what is that and what does it mean? Text messaging is getting rid of vowels and how long will it be before written communication is disorganized and misinterpreted too? Sadly, human nature is such that if something is buried, ( like spent nuclear fuel) a future population of people will marvel and say,"Someone took great care to bury this, so it must be of great value. Let's dig!"
Cause and effect, and consequences, the great nemesis of humanity.
Sioux Rose
STARDUST: Thank you for an intriguing post.
This reminds me of another article. I can not remember where I read it but apparently the ancient Egyptians were very familiar with the Bubonic Plague. They knew it was spread by fleas and that these fleas were carried by rats. They even had cures for it that were so successful the plague never really affected them.
This infomation was stored In the Great Library at Alexandria which was then burned by the Christians as "Pagan beliefs".
I too am fascinated by the past. Most people are not aware as example , that much of the region between Australia and Asia was above water a little over 10,000 years ago. Most are not aware that off the coast of India are cities beneath the Indian Ocean that date back over 10 thousand years.
Most are not aware that man knew the earth went around the sun several thousands of years BC.
GwNorth and stardust, very pertinent and important posts!
Sioux Rose
Gordon Michael Scallion publishes an "Earth Changes" newsletter and gained credence when he predicted with incredible accuracy, the then upcoming hurricane Andrew. In his book, "Notes from the Cosmos," he explains his view of the civilization that once resided on the planet Mars. I relate this because according to Scallion, precisely the same scenario took place. Believing that a shield around the planet would protect it from invaders, a very sophisticated shield (or weapon system) was engineered and it held for a number of generations. Eventually the young saw no purpose in it, and because they did not understand the technology involved, in seeking to dismantle it, things went awry. It imploded on citizens to purportedly wipe out life on that planet.
Even if this were to serve as an allegory from fiction, it teaches the cautionary tale lesson: That he who lives by the sword dies by it. Too often has that adage proven true.
MICHAEL C Great post.
Thanks for reminding me about the Foundation series. In the end, wasn't it the consciousness spawned from those who stayed in touch with nature and on Earth that proved superior to the consciousness nurtured by those who left for space? I hope that's a valid prophecy as it's been a "foundation" stone for my personal mythology for a long time.
Lets not forget that O'Bomber is an advocate of building new nuclear power plants.
Of course he was against this before he was for it.
send in BP, they'll clean it up........................
Only a small group of nuclear scientists and idiots [if the difference can be maintained ...] continue to believe that these plants are or can be made safe. We are already saddled with tons of highly radioactive waste stored in deteriorating tanks in various locations around the country, most definitely including the large waste depository at Hanford, Washington, on the banks of the Columbia River. The tanks at Hanford have been leaking for over twenty years, and government agencies and private contractors have been 'researching' how to make them safe. If it were possible, it would already have been done. Radioactivity is in the ground water at Hanford and has already been leaking into the Columbia River. We have known the stuff is hideously toxic to all life forms for over forty years, and we have also known that there is no known way to contain it indefinitely. The half life of some of the more toxic elements is measured in thousands of years. What kind of idiocy is this? And who could be so uninformed as to be surprised to find these toxins next to the Yankee plant?
MichaelC writes:
"Only a small group of nuclear scientists and idiots [if the difference can be maintained ...] continue to believe that these plants are or can be made safe."
Where are the resident apologists who jump onto CD threads to assert that only a few easily solvable technical difficulties stand in the way of a glorious nuclear future?
Apologists (on many topics) are scarcer in response to concrete reports of failure. Harder to argue for technical safety when the story is about actual deadly poison spreading. But on a policy article, or a theory article, they invest a lot more "energy" in muddying the waters of the blogosphere.
One thing that always astonishes me is our unwillingness to imagine using less energy. Similar with economic "growth" in general. We always seem to be working inside a mindset that assumes we "need" to continuously expand our energy use and production of stuff.
Sioux Rose
WEBWALK: Apt observation. I would not be surprised if they show up, anyway, although most just love to aim at Harvey Wasserman, in particular. You're right about it being more difficult to argue with such overt evidence of contamination and its evident dangers.
Strontium-90 is indeed very dangerous and its presence in the soil is disturbing. Unfortunately, as a result of nuclear weapons testing, strontium-90 is ubiquitous both in soil and in bones. I have been unable to find anything more than a paragraph about this particular discovery. It would be nice to know how high the Strontium level surrounding the nuclear power plant is compared to other locations in the North East.
Many environmentalists, myself included, can make the case that nuclear energy is safer than burning fossil fuels.
Testing nuclear weapons is indefensible.
Environmentalists were very successful in all but destroying nuclear energy in the US. No new plants have been built for 30 years.
It is very unfortunate that they have been completely unable to make a dent in our use of fossil fuels which is exploding, hindered every once in a while by a recession.
The scare tactics that are applied to nuclear energy could more plausibly be applied to burning coal.
You dig filth out of the ground which is full of URANIUM, arsenic, sulfur etc.
You burn it and release it right into the atmosphere with absolutely no controls.
The carbon releases are poised to destabilize the Earth's climate. This is already happening of course, but soon the impact will be great enough to render the Earth incapable of supporting life.
I shudder to think of the problems my children will face because of carbon, of the suffering of polar bears and just about every animal species because of carbon.
Strontium in the soil, even if it came from this plant, which is unlikely, simply does not match the gravity of fossil fuels.
It is noteworthy that this Vermont plant is old and due to be shut down in 2010, but since no new and safer plants are being built, we are stuck with the 70's technology.
Harvey Wasserman always has RELATIVELY little to say about fossil fuels.
Sure, he promotes solar energy with his solartopia, but overall he does more harm than good.
I did some research today on alternative energy. Not solar or wind or biomass stuff. But energy that is self-perpetuating/ regenerating via the world of quantum physics and other leading-edge discoveries.
This stuff ain't science fiction. It's there. But being held back.
For example, did you know the government can put "holds" on new energy patents? A year at a time. Renewable. For what reason? "National security."
Uh, yeah. Right.
Other problem? Funding. It takes money to get these guys out of their garages and sharing with each other to make sound prototypes.
So what does Obama champion? Congress champion?
Any money going toward these projects?
Nada. Why? Obvious, don't ya think?
The whole "We have no alternatives for now" or even "We have to cut our consumption down"...myths.
Again, anyone willing to spend a little time on the internet will find many promising ideas that are already working on a small scale. Ideas that are environmentally friendly, efficient, and would cost little to operate. And could power homes, buildings, appliances, cars.
Re: "our unwillingness to imagine using less energy." I agree. Besides individual changes, there are systemic changes.
We could start with ending war, war games, jet flyovers, tanks, shipping troops and supplies. A big savings - and no sacrifice of anything useful. Next replacing much car and airplane travel with public transportation.
We could employ all the troops here to clean up our environmental messes, repair and clean what is falling apart and build new energy efficient transport infrastructure.
Those two social choices alone would cut energy use way down, keep us safer and happier.
Joe
Sioux Rose
JOE: Right on! The 3rd prong in your strategy should involve educating the public in basic energy conservation skills that they can readily implement into their lifestyles... like AC set at 78 in summer, or heat at 62 in winter. Car-pool driving, or biking, etc. It's important to teach this to children as then these practices become routine as opposed to challenging. Are children today (in America) taught that water is sacred? That it's a precious resource we cannot take for granted? Are they taught to love trees and understand their role in cooling our homes via shade, or providing ecosystems that many 4-legged and winged creatures depend upon?
Shut your rathole and teach your kids first before preaching chubby poochy. BUUURRRP !
What the hell is the matter with you?
You spoke to soon. Read right above you.
Does anyone think the companies who run these plants intentionally want to cause problems? For a variety of reasons it just happens. We can pretend it's possible to control it with extensive regulation, but that is dependent largely on the government (we can assume the private company will cut corners as much as it can to remain profitable and pass whatever regulations are in place). The government changes quite often, which is not something we can depend on.
And this isn't the 1970's. There are heaps of new sustainable energy options. We simply don't need nuclear power anymore.
In the 40s, 50s and 60s the US Navy "disposed" of nuclear waste in the Pacific. Drums of radioactive waste (in the tons) were shipped off-shore and thrown overboard. When the drums refused to sink, the Navy would shoot them full of holes with machine guns to sink them.
Cheers.
Billy, they don't believe in science. They believe in tooth fairies. Just do it safe, simple, and right and peopel will shut up about it. I don't like nuclear power but if you can do it safe, then go for it and I'll trade my SUV for an electric powered one.
Yeah that's a better description. Hey, whatever way you think works. If I can get a job to repair and build those nuclear facilities and it's all safe, sign me up.
Oh, it's safe. Trust me.
Sioux Rose
SNOOP: Thanks! And great post above.
Chernobyl?
Three Mile Island?
Your comments?
Oh Bill....Bill....Bill. you have drunk the koolaid.
Go to http://paradigms.bz and listen to Episode #40.
Nuclear power is not clean, and it is not safe. And it is very very expensive.
I live in Vermont and have been aware of VT Yankee and it's history of leaking radiation since the late 1970's, when it was still a relatively new plant. It needs to be shut down.
>>I happen to be one of the idiots that thinks that nuclear power can be done safely.<<
Do you live near a nuclear plant? Do you live downwind from a nuclear plant? Will you move to a location downwind from a nuclear plant?
UPDATE: Still waiting for an answer.
Strontium and tritium in Vermont, oil in the Gulf of Mexico, instead of brotherhood, we have pollution from sea to shining sea...
Personally, I'm ok with living on nuts and berries, and living in a wigwam. Providing, of course, that none of it is radioactive.
It is not tons, it is thousands of tons; and the half life of some of that stuff is in the billions of years, not thousands.
DU, which has spread around the world from battle zones in the ME and Balkans, has a half life of 4.5 billion years, for instance.
When I was a kid, fathers tried to make a better world for their sons. They told their children to do no harm, but to continue to build a better world to leave for their children. Many of us have tried.
I was at Bikini for an H-Bomb test series in 1956. I had radiation poisoning, but fortunately survived (so far). There are not too many of us left. I've been working for an end to nuclear, whether power or weaponry, ever since.
Unfortunately, today's movers and shakers seem to have no priority except to acquiring the almighty buck. They don't care what happens to their kids, or to the planet, as long as they wind up as the one with the largest bank account and holdings.
Since they have bought the government out from under us, I don't see a lot of hope as long as We the People continue to be We the Sheeple.
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/only-some-of-names-have-changed.html
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/tritium-hot-zone-expands-around-vermont.html
Sioux Rose
MINITRUE: Thank you for the heartfelt post. If a society dedicated itself to teaching the premise "Harm None," there could BE no major investment in militarism, nor a media at the ready to invent enemies and then glamorize the nature of conflict itself. When the modern world, like a runaway train, comes to a halt (hitting obstacles sufficient to freeze its current momentum), it's possible that such a teaching will come to be valued above all others. Our job now is to send our seed/thoughts out, that one day they take root to help in the formation of such a world.
Hi Sioux Rose,
Thanks. I wrote about the "train" many years ago.
U S
Mindless Jaggurnaut rolling on,
Crushing, devouring, all in its path
A runaway freight with no engineer;
Or is it?
The people are tired of trying to stop it,
Or control it, or understand it.
Worn down by their efforts,
Their disillusionment, their pain.
No one cares who the engineer is,
Or if there is one.
No one cares who it crushes
As long as it’s someone else.
A runaway freight,
Plunging into an unlighted,
Unfinished tunnel;
Full of people along for the ride.
Steve Osborn
22 Nov. 1974
At the time, I didn't think the tunnel was so deep. :-)
It is a hellbound train for sure.
They want the bucks only if they know that we want their power. Demand for coal goes down so you need another source. Solar panels and wind turbines can't keep up with the demand enough so demand for nuclear power goes up. Wer all guilty of demanding power and money. Government is who we vote for. We vote for government so we buy ourselves out.
This is simple to solve..
Put some COREXIT 9500 all over it....it will go away.
Is anyone truly surprised by this?
Sorry, Double clutched it.