June 10, 2002

8:30 AM

Jaw-drop-inducing link of the dayThe federal government spent $62 million on a building to store and treat low-level radioactive waste at a California nuclear weapons laboratory, then decided the structure wasn't secure enough. So where is the waste kept now?

... Right outside the new building, under tents.

posted by magullo (11 comments total)

I don't normally indulge in the whole Monday Meme, but today is shaping up to be a bad day.
posted by Irontom at 8:33 AM on June 10, 2002

if we can send a member of n*sync into space, why cant we send this waste and give the building to the homeless?

signed, monday morning hippy
posted by tsarfan at 9:41 AM on June 10, 2002

if we can send a member of n*sync into space, why cant we send this waste

It would be great if we could dispose of nuclear waste by, say, sending it into the sun. The problem, however, comes in the launch. Accelerating a payload to escape velocity still requires sitting it on top of a big pile of explosives and blowing them up. Though we've gotten pretty good at getting fragile payloads (i.e. people) into space, there's still the occasional flub at launch. Imagine the challenger explosion, except with nuclear waste instead of astronauts. South Florida would be blanketed by a cloud of radioactive poison. Which probably wouldn't be good for the future of the space program, even if it did help simplify presidential politics.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:50 AM on June 10, 2002

I guess they could put the 'hundreds of 55 gallon drums' on a bunch of trucks or a train and send it to a more "secure" place?

dammed low-level radioactive waste!
posted by tomplus2 at 10:00 AM on June 10, 2002

Well, um, dare I say it ... they point out that the building is still under construction. Presumably when it is no longer under construction, it will actually win when compared with the tents. This is also material with a short half-life. And it will move inside the building in just three months.

It wouldn't be an election year, would it?
posted by dhartung at 10:30 AM on June 10, 2002

if we can send a member of n*sync into space, why cant we send this waste and give the building to the homeless?

I don't know, because it wasn't made for people to live in? Or maybe because the homeless, if left unsupervised, would probably trash it.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:36 AM on June 10, 2002

From the June 2002 Harper's Index:

Estimated percentage of the inhabitants of the contiguous United States who have been exposed to nuclear fallout: 100.

It's very simple. If you have a government testing bombs at Los Alamos, not particularly concerned about the long-term effects that the fallout will have upon environment and the health of its citizens, then it's almost certain that you will have morons keeping radioactive waste under tents.
posted by ed at 11:24 AM on June 10, 2002

The "under construction" explaination was one of the several "answers" she was given. I think the point is that she can't get a straight explaination as to what is going on with that building.
posted by jennak at 11:26 AM on June 10, 2002

outdoor storage = easy dirty nuke anyone?
posted by Hackworth at 12:31 PM on June 10, 2002

speaking of los alamos, and nuclear waste, say hello to area g.

and be sure to check out the rest of that los alamos study group website, the mda's particularly.

tents, awnings and oil drums are regularly used for 'temporary' storage of materials. it was one of the panics we had here over the cerro grande fire ... and i'm quite glad i wasn't downwind.
posted by crazyhorse at 2:48 PM on June 10, 2002

The "under construction" explaination was one of the several "answers" she was given. I think the point is that she can't get a straight explaination as to what is going on with that building.

Isn't it obvious? Wild parties be goin on up in there.
posted by delmoi at 5:47 PM on June 10, 2002