Old 6th Apr 2021, 18:41
  #8 (permalink)  
tdracer
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,198
Originally Posted by Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! View Post
What makes me wonder is the "Must evacuate 300 houses in case this gigantic pool of radioactive waste inundates the neighbourhood, but in the meantime, to address the problem, we'll just pump it all into the ocean"
I suspect the 'radioactive' aspect is being hugely overplayed - as ORAC notes radioactivity is all around us - it's not generally a problem until it's concentrated and I doubt these ponds have high concentrations.
But you're really talking the 'wisdom' of the EPA here - you know the same ones who fine people millions for small toxic waste spills but then accidentally dumps millions of gallons of the stuff into a pristine mountain stream and ignore it?
About 30 years ago, they were refurbishing the I-90 floating bridge over Lake Washington. They were using water cutters to remove the concrete road surface so they could redo it - but the EPA said you can't let that contaminated water spill into the lake and pollute the lake - you need to store it in the bridge pontoons until you can remove it for proper waste treatment. So they did, but a big storm came up - with all that extra water weight in the pontoons the bridge broke-up and sank - which or course resulted in absolutely no pollution in the lake.
tdracer is offline