Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee
So they looked at a known nuclear waste disposal location and they are surprised they found leaking nuclear waste.
At least nowadays the nuclear waste is stored in nearly indestructible stainless steel and concrete canisters and not some unsuitable steel barrels, thrown in the ocean.
Who dumped it there?
Based on the article, several nations used the area for dumping waste in the late 40s through the 60s
Oddly they call out France specifically but nobody else.
Based on the nuclear material found it's likely weapons test waste.
Probably because France conducted the survey
One mention of the French dumping over 46,000 barrels in the late '60s.
There’s an area of the Irish sea where they machinegunned the barrels when they would not sink. Boggles the mind it does.
Yes, but storing this amount of barrels in such a way must be crazy expensive. I guess thats why they prefer to toss it into the ocean
I think it's more that we (officially) didn't know any better. It's not like we started storing it safely in land based disposal sites, then took a brief break to dump it in the ocean, and then came back to land based. For instance, this is what the US Navy did with part of the first Seawolf, SSN-575. Nowadays we weld up the reactors and bury them in Eastern Washington. Absolutely more expensive to do it this way, and also an incredible amount safer. The rules and regulations we abide by today are built on the learning from mistakes made during the 50s.
Nah, people knew better... they just didnt care. We're talking about the same people that smoked abestos filtered cigarettes and filled their cars with leaded gas.
Asbestos is an amazing mineral. It is phenomenal as a fire retardant material, which is why it got so widespread. It took time and studies for us to truly understand exactly what the repercussions to using it are, and then implement appropriate controls (and phase it out). Similar with leaded gasoline (although maybe less so, depending on how complicit the oil companies were).
In any case, with all three of these things, it's not like we instantly knew how bad for us and the environment they are and how to appropriately handle them. There's a very constant iterative process to improving safety standards. Those barrels were likely dumped in the sea because we knew the contents could be harmful to humans. We neglected the environmental impacts because those weren't as highly prioritized, studied, or cared about. Processes change over time, and huge progress is seldom realized overnight.
Just like the oil companies knew about the effects of burning oil would have on the global climate. The Abestos industry absolutely knew the dangers for a very long time. So again. They do not care if it means less money to be made.
Would love to see proof of this, rather than just conjecture.
I see a lot of "allegedly" in that article without any resolution. The government claims the companies knew since the 30s, but they say otherwise, and the article doesn't seem to include proof either way. I'm not surprised the government would allege that either, as the alternative is yet more evidence of how poorly run NNSY was (and frankly still is).
As an anecdote, we still find asbestos on ships built in that era. It'll be another several decades until we stop finding it.
Obviously a article on a new lawsuit would say 'allegedly' because the case was still ongoing at the time...
Also, it shouldnt suprise anyone the government from trying to shift blame when they knew it was dangerous long before then as well. Simply they could no longer keep covering up the huge mess they made. Doesnt mean their facts were wrong, but simply omitted themselves from them.
https://www.asbestos.com/featured-stories/cover-up/
It'll be another several decades until we stop finding it.
Considering its still legal in some applications...
Not knowing better about two unrelated things means they did know better about a third, unrelated thing?
All the examples were well known to be dangerous by the early 1900s. If we were talking about late 19th century, sure we can say it was plain ignorance... but 1950's? Theres no excuse.
Sometimes you gotta compare multiple risks. Like, for example, lung irritation caused by asbestos, compared to, say, the lung irritation that comes with dying in a fire. Or the value of getting more than two miles to the gallon while needing to replace half your engine every hundred miles.
For instance, this is what the US Navy did with part of the first Seawolf, SSN-575.
Here's the referenced bit for anyone curious:
On 18 April 1959, the Navy disposed of the radioactive S2G plant by sealing it in a 30-foot (9.1 m) high stainless steel containment vessel, towing it out to sea on a barge, and then sinking the barge at a point about 120 miles (190 km) due east of Maryland in 9,100 feet (2,800 m) of water. Twenty-one years later, the Navy was unable to relocate the container, but said that the radioactive materials inside should decay before the containment vessel deteriorated.
Its really not. You make a concrete cylinder and chuck it in. Granted, its a bit more complicated, but its really not anymore so than a normal building.
Radiation is most efficiently blocked by mass, dont need special materials or fancy construction.
Here's the press release. Earth.com is classic churnalism, and I've seen AI slop writing from it before.
Edit: And from The Conversation (French). Keep in mind this story is two months old.
its summoning a kaiju
I mean, what did they think would happen?
In the pursuit of not spending money on something that isn’t profitable humans just pulled a “if I can’t see it, it can’t hurt me”.
Just stick radioactive waste in cement or whatever and drop it in the ocean. poof, gone! Would you look at that, it isn’t a problem anymore! Like a dog kicking bits of grass on a giant turd it just left.
The good news is that they weren't meant to be permanent, only hold long enough for the material to decay. The article doesn't say (or they don't know yet) if that was achieved. They do say that the measurements for radioactivity picked up something, but it might have been the background radiation that's everywhere thanks to worldwide nuclear testing. Not much we can do about it at that depth.
Water is such a good radiation insulator that you need to be a few meters from the nuclear waste to be able to detect any radiation, the issue usually is the effect to wild life, that absorbs radioactive heavy metals, but so deep in the ocean, it's not much of an issue.
The background dose rate attributable to nuclear testing is pretty negligible when compared to the bigger sources, i.e. radon in the ground and other naturally occuring elements, as well as cosmic radiation that makes its way to the Earths surface. The EPA has a fairly comprehensive page on the subject.
Do you want a Godzilla? Because this is how you get a Godzilla
Feeling pretty bad for future residents of Earth. It is not going to be pleasant.
Not great, but the least of our problems. Probably the oceans will be free of fish by 2040, the way things are going. That radioactivity might just mutate some things to survive, but I kinda doubt it.