Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don’t think the US military is a positive example of safe usage of nuclear. First the Hanford nuclear site in Washington is one of the most polluted site in the entire state. The cleanup effort is the regions biggest employer and is costing the local communities, the state, and the federal government millions of dollars every year.

The Bikini Atoll in the Marshall islands is one of the most polluted places in the pacific ocean. The US military conducted nuclear testing around there and simply swept the pollution in one place. There are dozens of reports of cancer from both former military personnel an nearby local population. And concerns are rising with elevated sea level that pollution will be leaking at greater pace then currently.

These are just two examples of the US military neglecting safety concerns with their nuclear technology. There is no single spectacular event like the Chernobyl disaster. But rather decades of neglect and disregard to public safety which polluted many areas leaving potentially an overall damage on par—and potentially greater—then the Chernobyl disaster.



It's not the US Military generally that is held up as an example of nuclear safety, it's specifically the US Navy's track record for operating nuclear reactors. Hanford was a big mess, but that wasn't run by the Navy. Bikini Atoll was bad, but that wasn't caused by a mistake operating a nuclear reactor.

Your supposition that reactor accidents smaller than Chernobyl might be hidden from the public doesn't seem well grounded either; we know the US Army fucked up the operation of the SL-1 reactor, resulting in 3 deaths. Here's a big list of nuclear fuckups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... Some of those severe, some minor. I don't see much reason to believe that substantial naval reactor incidents have been omitted from that list. Such accidents are hard to hide from long, particularly if it means a bunch of sailors got irradiated or a ship had to be taken out of service for decontamination / repair. The incidents on that list bracket the sort of mystery accident you're supposing; it lists accidents much less severe and much more severe.


> Your supposition that reactor accidents smaller than Chernobyl might be hidden from the public doesn't seem well grounded either.

I supposed no such thing. You don’t need an accident to leave a mess (as evidenced by our current climate crisis). You just need to be negligent of the environment and surrounding population center. The US military (including the Navy) has a terrible track record when it comes to environmental issues around its military bases around the world. My supposition is that they are simply equally inconsiderate with their nuclear logistics as they are with their other operations. And Bikini Atoll is my ground for thinking so.


That list of military nuclear accidents was interesting. My impression is that the rate of accidents dropped off quickly over time. Maybe the military got better at handling nuclear material? Maybe some other explanation?


You're saying that nuclear testing produces a lot of radioactive fallout? Yeah, it does. This is absolutely not the same thing as operating a nuclear reactor.


Hanford had nuclear reactors.

But that is despite the point. Their safety record with nuclear is horrendous. Full of examples of neglect and pollution. I’m not an expert in the nuclear history of the US military, but I wouldn’t be surprised that many of their smaller reactors have similar stories as Hanford. It is just not as spectacular—and therefor not as much in the public consciousness—as Chernobyl.


yes they had reactors that were shutdown clear back in the 70s for being to old of design.


Hanafords mess dates back to the manahatten project and processed uranium and plutonium for fat man and little boy. the 1940s was a long fucking time ago. and when have learned a lot since then and technology has advanced. the testing in Bikini atoll was awful but has nothing to do with nuclear power its about weapons testing which is a entirely unrelated issue and we stopped doing that.


> the 1940s was a long fucking time ago

And yet we're still cleaning it up :)

> In 2007, the Hanford site represented 60% of high-level radioactive waste by volume managed by the US Department of Energy and 7–9% of all nuclear waste in the United States (the DOE manages 15% of nuclear waste in the US, with the remaining 85% being commercial spent nuclear fuel). Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: