Calif. Aquaduct: Peter Gleick: Deal With the Water Crisis Now!

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-10/sl_gleick

www.parade.com/intelligence

WIRED MAGAZINE: 16.10

Politics : Law RSS

Peter Gleick: Deal With the Water Crisis Now

By Matthew Power Email 09.22.08
Portrait: Mario Hugo
The 2008 Smart List: 15 People the Next President Should Listen To

1. Parag Khanna: Embrace the Post-American Age
2. David Laibson: Tweak Human Behavior to Fix the Economy
3. Carolyn Porco: Use Big Robots — and Big Rockets
4. Leroy Hood: Look to the Genome to Rebuild Health Care
5. Montgomery McFate: Use Anthropology in Military Planning
6. Peter Gleick: Deal With the Water Crisis Now
7. Jagdish Bhagwati: Keep Free Trade Free
8. Ellen Miller: Make Washington More Like the Web
9. Ram Shriram: Open Up the Airwaves
10. A.T. Ball: Wage Smarter War With Agile Army IT
11. Steve Rayner: Take Climate Change Seriously
12. Mitchell Joachim: Redesign Cities From Scratch
13. Mark Smolinski: Detect Epidemics Before They Start
14. Charles Ferguson: Beware of New, Easy-to-Make Nukes
15. Robert Dalrymple: Get Ready for Extreme Weather

Among the challenges facing the next president, few are more complex—scientifically, politically, and economically—than the unsustainable global demands on fresh water supplies. Sources are drying up in the US and worldwide, raising the specters of hunger, disease, and international conflict. No one has a clearer view of these issues than Peter Gleick, president and cofounder of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland, California-based environmental think tank. So what will the new president need to understand about water? Here are eight slides from Gleick's hypothetical PowerPoint presentation.

The US mismanages water at all levels. For instance, states compete for resources.
Proposal: Establish a non-partisan national water commission to recommend policy changes.

Drought costs $6-8 billion a year. Rivers are over-allocated. Reservoir levels are falling.
Proposal: Promote water conservation to reduce pressure on limited supplies.

Domestic water supplies and systems are vulnerable to multiple security threats.
Proposal: Improve monitoring. Hold water-security workshops at the US War Colleges, State Department, CIA, and DHS.

Water has profound implications for international security as well.
Proposal: Empower the US State Department to address global water-related disputes.

Nearly 1 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water...
Proposal: Fund clean-water, sanitation, and hygiene projects in the developing world.

...leading to 2.5 million deaths annually from preventable illnesses and malnutrition.
Proposal: Take a leadership role in eliminating waterborne diseases.

Climate change will intensify flooding, storms, drought, and disease.
Proposal: Factor the effect of climate change on water supplies into all new infrastructure projects.

Taking water seriously is a no-brainer.
Proposal: Put water at the center of your administration's strategic agenda.

Peter Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute.


==================================================================


Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report

LONDON (AFP) Feb 22, 2004
A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism, The Observer said on Sunday.

The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by " US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly.

The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington 's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and President George W. Bush's skepticism about global warning -- a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.

The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported.

The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life."

Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.

It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.

Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:

-- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.

-- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqua duct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California

-- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made un-farmable by drought.

-- "catastrophic" shortages of portable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.

Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.

"We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper.

Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".

Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.

"It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said.

Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public".

Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.

Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated.

The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking.

Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a major transformation of the US military.

All rights reserved. Copyright 2003 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.

Quick Links
TerraDaily
Search TerraDaily
Subscribe To TerraDaily Express
Top of Form

TerraDaily Search Engine

TED Conference 2009: Juan Enriquez: Beyond the crisis

Talks Juan Enriquez: Beyond the crisis, mindboggling science and the arrival of Homo evolutis
Mail-message-newEmail to a friend
Share digg twitter delicious stumbleupon reddit myspace Video RSS
Download this Talk

* Video to desktop (Zipped MP4)
* Video to iTunes (MP4)

More actions for this Talk

* Sign in to add to favorites
* Watch this talk as high-res video (MP4)

Discuss this talk: Beyond the crisis, mindboggling science and the arrival of Homo evolutis ( Juan Enriquez )

$592 Trillion Phantom Economy Blows as Latest Demon Derivative Unwinds

$592 Trillion Phantom Economy Blows as Latest Demon Derivative Unwinds [see prior post from Sovereign Wealth Society Editor Bob [ex-Congressman]...

economist.com Nov29,2008 p.95 [paper edition] 'derivative watch - $9 trillion of CDS have run through the market knocking the Dow from 14,000 to 8,000 in one short year. with $580 Trillion outstanding and 15% growth of new CDS's being written on Treasury Bills [insurance policies written for the safest known entity for investors on the planet - 'unprecedented'].....

The worst demon derivative to date is about to whip down Wall Street…leveling what little is left!
- Over 700 banks (with trillions of dollars in assets) will come crashing to the ground.
- Hundreds of hedge funds will collapse.
- Corporate bankruptcies will soar.
- And another $20 trillion will be wiped off global stock markets.
- But this one bombed out investment will soar two to ten fold as the world comes undone.
- Find out the entire story from the investment group who eerily predicted the current crisis “to a T!”…

Gross: Trillions, Not Billions, Needed ($35 TR Global GDP on $580 Global Derivatives exposure)

Street Talk

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/gross_depression/2009/02/09/179716.html?utm_medium=RSS

Einstein Quote:

"It is a scale of proportions which makes the bad difficult and the good easy."

RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

Gross: Trillions, Not Billions, Needed

Monday, February 9, 2009 9:52 AM

By: Julie Crawshaw Article Font Size

Forget bailout billions, says Pimco bond giant co-CEO Bill Gross. Preventing a “mini-depression” will cost taxpayers trillions.

"This economy needs support from the government, a check from the government in the trillions," Gross told Bloomberg.

"There is a potential catastrophe if the U.S. government continues to focus on billions of dollars."

Gross says the Fed need to buy Treasuries to keep long-term interest rates low while the U.S. increases its debt sales to pay for its huge budget deficit and stimulus programs.

“To the extent that the Chinese and others do not have the necessary funds, someone has to buy them,” Gross says.

“It is incumbent upon the Fed to step in. If they do, that will be a significant day in the bond market and the credit markets.”

General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, too, warns that the U.S. economy is suffering its steepest downturn since at least the 1970s and could descend into depression.

“Unlike the other downturns that I’ve been a part of, this one is faced with limited liquidity,” Immelt said at a recent conference.

“Once you break through ’74-’75, you don’t stop ’til you get to 1929,” adding that governments are doing all they can to stimulate economic growth and stabilize credit markets — and that the measures being taken should show results by early next year.

“Governments are all in,” Immelt says. “And in my view, government always wins.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The Internet for Activists

The Internet for Activists

Internet for Activists is a how-to-do-it guide to using websites and e-mail in grass roots politics. Leonard Kranser's unique book blends essential technical knowledge with lots of political and media savvy. The result is a practical handbook in layman's language for those who are not computer experts. It is easy reading, filled with interesting real-world examples.

Kranser shares what he learned field-testing Internet tactics in a successful six-year campaign to rally public opposition to his county government's multi-billion dollar El Toro airport plan. He writes for those who may need to carry on similar efforts "with hard work, clever tactics, and a miniscule budget."

His El Toro Info website won an Award of Excellence for Internet and On-Line Marketing from the Public Relations Society of America.

"Len Kranser's explanation of how the battle over El Toro was waged is a how-to manual for Web-based political activism . . . The relationship between ordinary citizens and their government will never be quite the same again."

- Stephen Burgard, Director, School of Journalism, Northeastern University
Formerly editorial writer, The Los Angeles Times Orange County

Hanford Nuclerar Waste Site Washington

Hanford Nuclerar Waste Site Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuclear reactors line the riverbank at the Hanford Site along the Columbia River in January 1960. The N Reactor is in the foreground, with the twin KE and KW Reactors in the immediate background. The historic B Reactor, the world's first plutonium production reactor, is visible in the distance.

The Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex on the Columbia River in the U.S. state of Washington, operated by the United States federal government. The site has been known by many names, including;
- Hanford Works,
- Hanford Engineer Works,
- Hanford Nuclear Reservation or HNR,and the Hanford Project.

Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.[1] Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

During the Cold War, the project was expanded to include nine nuclear reactors and five massive plutonium processing complexes, which produced plutonium for most of the 60,000 weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.[2][3] Nuclear technology developed rapidly during this period, and Hanford scientists produced many notable technological achievements. However, many of the early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate. Government documents have since confirmed that Hanford's operations released significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River, which threatened the health of residents and ecosystems.[4]

The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the manufacturing process left behind 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of high-level radioactive waste that remains at the site.[5] This represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume.[6] Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States[7][8] and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.[2] While most of the current activity at the site is related to the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Geography
* 2 Early history
* 3 Manhattan Project
o 3.1 Site selection
o 3.2 Construction begins
o 3.3 Plutonium production
o 3.4 Technological innovations
* 4 Cold War expansion
o 4.1 Decommissioning
* 5 Contemporary Hanford
o 5.1 Site tours
* 6 Environmental concerns
* 7 Cleanup era
* 8 Historic photos
* 9 References
* 10 External links

[edit] Geography
A map shows the main areas of the Hanford Site, as well as the buffer zone that was turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument in 2000. (See also this virtual tour of the site.)

The Hanford Site occupies 586 square miles (1,518 km2) in Benton County, Washington (centered on [show location on an interactive map] 46°30′N 119°30′W / 46.5°N 119.5°W / 46.5; -119.5Coordinates: [show location on an interactive map] 46°30′N 119°30′W / 46.5°N 119.5°W / 46.5; -119.5), roughly equivalent to half the total area of Rhode Island.[2] This land is currently uninhabited and is closed to the general public. It is a semi-desert environment, covered mostly by shrub-steppe vegetation. The Columbia River flows along the site for approximately 50 miles (80 km), forming its northern and eastern boundary.[9] The original site was 670 square miles (1,740 km2) and included buffer areas across the river in Grant and Franklin counties.[10] Some of this land has been returned to private use and is now covered with orchards and irrigated fields. In 2000, large portions of the site were turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument.[11] The site is divided by function into three main areas. The nuclear reactors were located along the river in an area designated as the 100 Area; the chemical separations complexes were located inland in the Central Plateau, designated as the 200 Area; and various support facilities were located in the southeast corner of the site, designated as the 300 area.[12]

The site is bordered on the southeast by the Tri-Cities, a metropolitan area composed of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and smaller communities, and home to nearly 200,000 residents. Hanford is the primary economic base for these cities.[13]

[edit] Early history

The confluence of the Yakima, Snake, and Columbia rivers has been a meeting place for native peoples for centuries. The archaeological record of Native American habitation of this area stretches back over ten thousand years. Tribes and nations including the Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla used the area for hunting, fishing, and gathering plant foods.[14] Hanford archaeologists have identified numerous Native American sites, including "pit house villages, open campsites, fishing sites, hunting/kill sites, game drive complexes, quarries, and spirit quest sites",[15] and two archaeological sites were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976.[16] Native American use of the area continued into the 20th century, even as the tribes were relocated to reservations. The Wanapum people were never forced onto a reservation, and they lived along the Columbia River in the Priest Rapids Valley until 1943.[17] Euro-Americans began to settle the region in the 1860s, initially along the Columbia River south of Priest Rapids. They established farms and orchards supported by small-scale irrigation projects and railroad transportation, with small town centers at Hanford, White Bluffs, and Richland.[18]

[edit] Manhattan Project

Main article: Manhattan Project

During World War II, the Uranium Committee of the federal Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) sponsored an intensive research project on plutonium. The research contract was awarded to scientists at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab). At the time, plutonium was a rare element that had only recently been isolated in a University of California laboratory. The Met Lab researchers worked on producing chain-reacting "piles" of uranium to convert it to plutonium and finding ways to separate plutonium from uranium. The program was accelerated in 1942, as the United States government became concerned that scientists in Nazi Germany were developing a nuclear weapons program.[19]

[edit] Site selection
Hanford High School, shown before residents were displaced by the creation of the Hanford Site
Hanford High after abandonment

In September 1942, the Army Corps of Engineers placed the newly formed Manhattan Project under the command of General Leslie R. Groves, charging him with the construction of industrial-size plants for manufacturing plutonium and uranium.[20] Groves recruited the DuPont Company to be the prime contractor for the construction of the plutonium production complex. DuPont recommended that it be located far away from the existing uranium production facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The ideal site was described by these criteria:[21]

* A large and remote tract of land
* A "hazardous manufacturing area" of at least 12 by 16 miles (19 km × 26 km)
* Space for laboratory facilities at least 8 miles (13 km) from the nearest reactor or separations plant
* No towns of more than 1,000 people closer than 20 miles (32 km) from the hazardous rectangle
* No main highway, railway, or employee village closer than 10 miles (16 km) from the hazardous rectangle
* A clean and abundant water supply
* A large electric power supply
* Ground that could bear heavy loads.

In December 1942, Groves dispatched his assistant Colonel Franklin T. Matthias and DuPont engineers to scout potential sites. Matthias reported that Hanford was "ideal in virtually all respects," except for the farming towns of White Bluffs and Hanford.[22] General Groves visited the site in January and established the Hanford Engineer Works, codenamed "Site W". The federal government quickly acquired the land under its eminent domain authority and forcefully removed some 1,500 residents of Hanford, White Bluffs, and nearby settlements, as well as the Wanapum and other tribes using the area.[23]

[edit] Construction begins
B-Reactor construction (1944)

The Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) broke ground in March 1943 and immediately launched a massive and technically challenging construction project.[24] Nearly 50,000 workers lived in a construction camp near the old Hanford townsite, while administrators and engineers lived in the government town established at Richland Village.[25] Construction of the nuclear facilities proceeded rapidly. Before the end of the war in August 1945, the HEW built 554 buildings at Hanford, including three nuclear reactors (105-B, 105-D, and 105-F) and three plutonium processing canyons (221-T, 221-B, and 221-U), each 250 meters (820 ft) long.

To receive the radioactive wastes from the chemical separations process, the HEW built "tank farms" consisting of 64 single-shell underground waste tanks (241-B, 241-C, 241-T, and 241-U).[26] The project required 386 miles (621 km) of roads, 158 miles (254 km) of railway, and four electrical substations. The HEW used 780,000 cubic yards (600,000 m³) of concrete and 40,000 short tons (36,000 t) of structural steel and consumed $230 million between 1943 and 1946.[27]

[edit] Plutonium production

Further information: B-Reactor

The B-Reactor (105-B) at Hanford was the first large-scale plutonium production reactor in the world. It was designed and built by DuPont based on an experimental design by Enrico Fermi, and originally operated at 250 megawatts. The reactor was graphite moderated and water cooled. It consisted of a 28-by-36-foot (8.5 m × 11 m), 1,200-short-ton (1,100 t) graphite cylinder lying on its side, penetrated through its entire length horizontally by 2,004 aluminum tubes.[28] Two hundred short tons (180 t) of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters and sealed in aluminum cans went into the tubes. Cooling water was pumped through the aluminum tubes around the uranium slugs at the rate of 30,000 US gallons per minute (130 L/s).[28]
Front face of the B-Reactor

Construction on the B-Reactor began in August 1943 and was completed just over a year later, on September 13, 1944. The reactor went critical in late September and, after overcoming nuclear poisoning, produced its first plutonium on November 6, 1944.[29] Plutonium was produced in the Hanford reactors when a uranium-238 atom in a fuel slug absorbed a neutron to form uranium-239. U-239 rapidly undergoes beta decay to form neptunium-239, which rapidly undergoes a second beta decay to form plutonium-239. The irradiated fuel slugs were transported by rail to three huge remotely operated chemical separation plants called "canyons" that were located about 10 miles (16 km) away. A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products. This first batch of plutonium was refined in the 221-T plant from December 26, 1944, to February 2, 1945, and delivered to the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico on February 5, 1945.[30]

Two identical reactors, the D-Reactor and the F-reactor, came online in December 1944 and February 1945, respectively. By April 1945, shipments of plutonium were headed to Los Alamos every five days, and Hanford soon provided enough material for the bombs tested at Trinity and dropped over Nagasaki.[31] Throughout this period, the Manhattan Project maintained a top secret classification. Until news arrived of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, fewer than one percent of Hanford's workers knew they were working on a nuclear weapons project.[32] General Groves noted in his memoirs that "We made certain that each member of the project thoroughly understood his part in the total effort; that, and nothing more."[33]

[edit] Technological innovations

In the short time frame of the Manhattan Project, Hanford engineers produced many significant technological advances. As no one had ever built an industrial-scale reactor before, scientists were unsure how much heat would be generated by fission during normal operations. Seeking the greatest margin of error, DuPont engineers installed ammonia-based refrigeration systems with the D and F reactors to further chill the river water before its use as reactor coolant.[34]

Another issue the engineers struggled with was how to deal with radioactive contamination. Once the canyons began processing irradiated slugs, the machinery would become so radioactive that it would be unsafe for humans ever to come in contact with it. The engineers therefore had to devise methods to allow for the replacement of any component via remote control. They came up with a modular cell concept, which allowed major components to be removed and replaced by an operator sitting in a heavily shielded overhead crane. This method required early practical application of two technologies that later gained widespread use: Teflon, used as a gasket material, and closed-circuit television, used to give the crane operator a better view of the process.[35]

[edit] Cold War expansion
Decommissioning the D-Reactor

In September 1946, the General Electric Company assumed management of the Hanford Works under the supervision of the newly created Atomic Energy Commission. As the Cold War began, the United States faced a new strategic threat in the rise of the Soviet nuclear weapons program. In August 1947, the Hanford Works announced funding for the construction of two new weapons reactors and research leading to the development of a new chemical separations process. With this announcement, Hanford entered a new phase of expansion.[36]

By 1963, the Hanford Site was home to nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River, five reprocessing plants on the central plateau, and more than 900 support buildings and radiological laboratories around the site.[2] Extensive modifications and upgrades were made to the original three World War II reactors, and a total of 177 underground waste tanks were built.[2] Hanford was at its peak production from 1956 to 1965. Over the entire 40 years of operations, the site produced about 63 short tons (57 t) of plutonium, supplying the majority of the 60,000 weapons in the U.S. arsenal.[2][3]

[edit] Decommissioning

Most of the reactors were shut down between 1964 and 1971, with an average individual life span of 22 years. The last reactor, the N-reactor, continued to operate as a dual-purpose reactor, being both a power reactor used to feed the civilian electrical grid via the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) and a plutonium production reactor for nuclear weapons. The N-Reactor operated until 1987. Since then, most of the Hanford reactors have been entombed ("cocooned") to allow the radioactive materials to decay, and the surrounding structures have been removed and buried.[37] The B-Reactor has not been cocooned and is accessible to the public on occasional guided tours. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992,[38] and some historians advocate converting it into a museum.[39][40] B reactor was designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service on August 19, 2008.[41][42]
Weapons Production Reactors[43] Reactor name Start-up date Shutdown date Initial power
(MWt) Final power
(MWt)
B-Reactor Sep 1944 Feb 1968 250 2210
D-Reactor Dec 1944 Jun 1967 250 2165
F-Reactor Feb 1945 Jun 1965 250 2040
H-Reactor Oct 1949 Apr 1965 400 2140
DR-Reactor Oct 1950 Dec 1964 250 2015
C-Reactor Nov 1952 Apr 1969 650 2500
KW-Reactor Jan 1955 Feb 1970 1800 4400
KE-Reactor Apr 1955 Jan 1971 1800 4400
N-Reactor Dec 1963 Jan 1987 4000 4000

[edit] Contemporary Hanford
Highway sign on a road entering the Hanford Site

The United States Department of Energy assumed control of the Hanford Site in 1977. Although uranium enrichment and plutonium breeding were slowly phased out, the nuclear legacy left an indelible mark on the Tri-Cities. Since World War II, the area had developed from a small farming community to a booming "Atomic Frontier" to a powerhouse of the nuclear-industrial complex.[44] Decades of federal investment created a community of highly skilled scientists and engineers. As a result of this concentration of specialized skills, the Hanford Site was able to diversify its operations to include scientific research, test facilities, and commercial nuclear power production.

Some of the facilities currently located at the Hanford Site:

* The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, owned by the Department of Energy and operated by Battelle Memorial Institute
* The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a national research facility in operation from 1980 to 1992 (in cold standby as of 2007[update])
* LIGO's Hanford Observatory, an interferometer searching for gravitational waves
* Columbia Generating Station, a commercial nuclear power plant operated by Energy Northwest.

[edit] Site tours

According to the Department of Energy website, there are tours of Hanford. Dates are posted on a website and are limited to U.S. citizens. Tours are expected to bring up to 2,000 people to the site. Many sites including Reactor B are visited during the tour.[45]

[edit] Environmental concerns
The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where radioactivity was released from 1944 to 1971

A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies (1,900 TBq) of radioactive material into the Columbia.[46] These releases were kept secret by the federal government.[4] Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[47]

The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia.[4] Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the "Green Run" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days.[48] Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[4]
Salmon spawning in the Hanford Reach near the H-Reactor

Beginning in the 1960s, scientists with the U.S. Public Health Service published reports about radioactivity released from Hanford, and there were protests from the health departments of Oregon and Washington. By February 1986, mounting citizen pressure forced the Department of Energy to release to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford’s operations.[4] The Washington State Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. HHIN reports concluded that residents who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream were exposed to elevated doses of radiation that placed them at increased risk for various cancers and other diseases.[4] A class-action lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders against the federal government has been in the court system for many years.[49] The first six plaintiffs went to trial in 2005, in a bellwether trial to test the legal issues applying to the remaining plaintiffs in the suit.[50]

[edit] Cleanup era
Image of the surface of waste found inside double-shell tank 101-SY at the Hanford Site, April 1989

In 1989, the Washington Department of Ecology, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy entered into the Tri-Party Agreement, which provides a legal framework for environmental remediation at Hanford.[8] The agencies are currently engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. The cleanup effort is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridor for other uses, converting the central plateau to long-term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future.[51] The cleanup effort is managed by the Department of Energy under the oversight of the two regulatory agencies. A citizen-led Hanford Advisory Board provides recommendations from community stakeholders, including local and state governments, regional environmental organizations, business interests, and Native American tribes.[52] In recent years, the federal government has spent about $2 billion annually on the Hanford project.[53] About 11,000 workers are on site to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil.[5] Originally scheduled to be complete within thirty years, the cleanup was less than half finished by 2008.[53]
Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped in Hanford's K-East Basin

While major releases of radioactive material ended with the reactor shutdown in the 1970s, parts of the Hanford Site remain heavily contaminated. Many of the most dangerous wastes are contained, but there are concerns about contaminated groundwater headed toward the Columbia River. There are also continued concerns about workers' health and safety.[53]

The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater.[54] As of 2008[update], most of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8 million U.S. gallons (10,600 m3) of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons (100,000 m3) of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks.[5] That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. The revised deadline is 2040.[53] Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. gallons (1 billion m3) of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks.[55] As of 2008[update], 1 million U.S. gallons (4,000 m3) of highly radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River. This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule.[5] The site also includes 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste.[55]
Grand opening of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)

Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe.[56][57] The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site. Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant, which is currently estimated to cost approximately $12 billion. Construction began in 2001. After some delays, the plant is now scheduled to be operational in 2019, with vitrification completed in 2047. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.[53][58]

In May 2007, state and federal officials began closed-door negotiations about the possibility of extending legal cleanup deadlines for waste vitrification in exchange for shifting the focus of the cleanup to urgent priorities, such as groundwater remediation. Those talks stalled in October. In early 2008, a $600 million cut to the Hanford cleanup budget was proposed. Washington state officials expressed concern about the budget cuts, as well as missed deadlines and recent safety lapses at the site, and threatened to file a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Energy is in violation of environmental laws.[53] They appeared to step back from that threat in April after another meeting of federal and state officials resulted in progress toward a tentative agreement.[59]

[edit] Historic photos

Cooling water retention basins at the F-Reactor


Underground tank farm with 12 of the site's 177 waste storage tanks


Inside one of the waste storage tanks


Inside the PUREX facility

View of the central plateau from Rattlesnake Mountain


The government town of Richland in the early days of the site


Hanford workers lining up for paychecks


Hanford scientists feeding radioactive food to sheep

Testing a sheep's thyroid for radiation


Cold War-era billboard


"Atomic Frontier Days" parade in Richland


The Fast Flux Test Facility

[edit] References

1. ^ "B Reactor". United States Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/about/breactor.htm. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
2. ^ a b c d e f "Hanford Site: Hanford Overview". United States Department of Energy. http://www.hanford.gov/?page=215. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
3. ^ a b "Science Watch: Growing Nuclear Arsenal". The New York Times. April 28, 1987. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFD71F38F93BA15757C0A961948260. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
4. ^ a b c d e f "An Overview of Hanford and Radiation Health Effects". Hanford Health Information Network. http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/overview.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
5. ^ a b c d "Hanford Quick Facts". Washington Department of Ecology. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/hanfordfacts.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
6. ^ Harden, Blaine; Dan Morgan (June 2, 2007). "Debate Intensifies on Nuclear Waste". Washington Post: p. A02. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7951-2004Jun1.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
7. ^ Dininny, Shannon (April 3, 2007). "U.S. to Assess the Harm from Hanford". Seattle Post-Intelligencer (The Associated Press). http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/310247_hanford04.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
8. ^ a b Schneider, Keith (February 28, 1989). "Agreement for a Cleanup at Nuclear Site". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2DF1230F93BA15751C0A96F948260. Retrieved on 30 January 2008.
9. ^ "The Columbia River at Risk: Why Hanford Cleanup is Vital to Oregon". oregon.gov. 2007-08-01. http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
10. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
11. ^ Seelye, Katharine (June 10, 2000). "Gore Praises Move to Aid Salmon Run". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E7D61E3FF933A25755C0A9669C8B63. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
12. ^ "Site Map Area and Description". Columbia Riverkeepers. http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/sitemap.htm. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
13. ^ Lewis, Mike (April 19, 2002). "In strange twist, Hanford cleanup creates latest boom". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/67172_boom19.shtml. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
14. ^ "Hanford Reach National Monument". HistoryLink.org: The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History. http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7438. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
15. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
16. ^ Hanford Island Archaeological Site (NRHP #76001870) and Hanford North Archaeological District (NHRP #76001871). "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2007-01-23. http://www.nr.nps.gov/. (See also the commercial site National Register of Historic Places.)
17. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
18. ^ Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd Ed. ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p. 16–22. ISBN 0803271018.
19. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.10. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
20. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
21. ^ Gerber, Michele (1992). Legend and Legacy: Fifty Years of Defense Production at the Hanford Site. Richland, Washington: Westinghouse Hanford Company. p. 6.
22. ^ Franklin, Matthias (January 14, 1987). "Hanford Engineer Works, Manhattan Engineer District: Early History". Speech to the Technical Exchange Program.
23. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
24. ^ Oldham, Kit (2003-03-05). "Construction of massive plutonium production complex at Hanford begins in March 1943". History Link. http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5363. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
25. ^ Thayer, H. (1996). Management of the Hanford Engineer Works in World War II. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
26. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.21–1.23. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
27. ^ Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd Ed. ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p. 35–36. ISBN 0803271018.
28. ^ a b Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.15, 1.30. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
29. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.22–1.27. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
30. ^ Findlay, John; Bruce Hevly (1995). Nuclear Technologies and Nuclear Communities: A History of Hanford and the Tri-Cities, 1943-1993. Seattle, WA: Hanford History Project, Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington. p. 50.
31. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.27. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
32. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.22. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
33. ^ Groves, Leslie (1983). Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. New York, NY: Da Capo Press. p. xv.
34. ^ Sanger, S. L.. Working on the Bomb: an Oral History of WWII Hanford. Portland, Oregon: Continuing Education Press, Portland State University. p. 70.
35. ^ Sanger, S. L.. Working on the Bomb: an Oral History of WWII Hanford. Portland, Oregon: Continuing Education Press, Portland State University. interview with Generaux.
36. ^ Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943-1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.42–45. ISBN 1-57477-133-7.
37. ^ "Cocooning Hanford Reactors". City of Richland. 2003-12-02. http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/richland/hanford/index.cfm?PageNum=12. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
38. ^ NRHP site #92000245. "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2007-01-23. http://www.nr.nps.gov/. Retrieved on 2008-04-06. (See also the commercial site National Register of Historic Places.)
39. ^ "B-Reactor Museum Association". B Reactor Museum Association. January 2008. http://www.b-reactor.org. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
40. ^ "Big Step Toward B Reactor Preservation". KNDO/KNDU News. 2008-03-12. http://www.kndu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8007629. Retrieved on 6 April 2008.
41. ^ Chemical & Engineering News Vol. 86 No. 35, 1 Sept. 2008, "Hanford's B Reactor gets LANDMARK Status", p. 37
42. ^ "National Historic Landmarks Program - B Reactor". National Park Service. August 19, 2008. http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1219850799&ResourceType=Structure. Retrieved on 2009-01-05.
43. ^ "Plutonium: the first 50 years: United States plutonium production, acquisition, and utilization from 1944 through 1994". U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html#ZZ16. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
44. ^ Hevly, Bruce; John Findlay (1998). The Atomic West. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
45. ^ Nuclear tourism: Hanford lures visitors - US and Canada - MSNBC.com
46. ^ "Hanford History". Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. http://www.wpsr.org/history/. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
47. ^ "Radiation Flowed 200 Miles to Sea, Study Finds". The New York Times. July 17, 1992. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D8173FF934A25754C0A964958260. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
48. ^ Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd Ed. ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p. 78–80. ISBN 0803271018.
49. ^ Hanford Downwinders Litigation Website. Downwinders.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
50. ^ McClure, Robert (May 21, 2005). "Downwinders' court win seen as 'great victory'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/225306_downwinders21.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
51. ^ "Hanford Site Tour Script" (PDF). United States Department of Energy. October 2007. http://www.hanford.gov/hanford/files/PublicTourScript.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
52. ^ "Hanford Site: Hanford Advisory Board". United States Department of Energy. http://www.hanford.gov/?page=397. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
53. ^ a b c d e f Stiffler, Lisa (March 20, 2008). "Troubled Hanford cleanup has state mulling lawsuit". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/355924_hanford21.html. Retrieved on 8 May 2008.
54. ^ Wald, Matthew (January 16, 1998). "Panel Details Management Flaws at Hanford Nuclear Waste Site". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3D71638F935A25752C0A96E958260. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
55. ^ a b Wolman, David (April 2007). "Fission Trip". Wired Magazine: p. 78.
56. ^ Hanson, Laura A. (November 2000). "Radioactive Waste Contamination of Soil and Groundwater at the Hanford Site" (PDF). University of Idaho. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
57. ^ Gephart, Roy (2003). Hanford: A Conversation About Nuclear Waste and Cleanup. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. ISBN 1-57477-134-5.
58. ^ Dininny, Shannon (September 8, 2006). "Hanford plant now $12.2 billion". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/284334_hanford08.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2007.
59. ^ Stiffler, Lisa (April 3, 2008). "State steps back from brink of Hanford suit". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/135723.asp. Retrieved on 8 May 2008.

[edit] External links
Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Hanford Site

* Official Hanford website Department of Energy.
* Hanford Challenge Hanford watchdog group, based in Seattle.
* Hanford News Current news from the Tri-City Herald.
* Hanford Site Environmental Report Detailed annual report on radioactive concentrations measured at the Hanford Site.
* Atomic Heritage Foundation Historic Preservation of Manhattan Project Sites at Hanford.
* B Reactor Museum Association A collection of Hanford-related documents from a group fighting to preserve the B-100 Reactor at Hanford.
* Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak 2008 New Scientist report.
* Heart of America Northwest Hanford watchdog group, based in Seattle.
* The Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues Annotated bibliography for the Hanford Site.

[show]
v • d • e
Manhattan Project
Project Sites
Hanford Engineer Works · Oak Ridge, Tennessee · Los Alamos, New Mexico · Berkeley Radiation Laboratory · Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory · Trinity Test Site · Project Alberta · Project Ames · Dayton Project

Administrators
Vannevar Bush · Leslie Groves · Robert Oppenheimer · Franklin Delano Roosevelt · Harry Truman
Scientists
Hans Bethe · Arthur Compton · Enrico Fermi · Richard Feynman · Klaus Fuchs · Ernest Lawrence · Emilio Segrè · Glenn Seaborg · Leo Szilard · Edward Teller
Related Articles
Timeline of the Manhattan Project · History of nuclear weapons · Nuclear weapons and the United States · S-1 Uranium Committee · Chicago Pile-1 (Nuclear Energy) · X-10 Graphite Reactor · Y-12 National Security Complex · Operation Alsos · Smyth Report · 509th Operations Group · Fat Man · Little Boy · Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (debate)
[show]
v • d • e
Nuclear technology
Science
Physics · Fission · Fusion · Radiation (ionizing) · Nucleus · Safety · Chemistry · Engineering
Fuels
Fertile material · Thorium · Uranium (enriched • depleted) · Plutonium · Deuterium · Tritium · Isotope separation
Power
Reactor technology · Economics · Propulsion (rocket) · Fusion · Isotope thermoelectric (RTG)
Fission
reactors
by
moderator
Water

Pressurized (PWR) · Boiling (BWR) · Supercritical (SCWR) · Heavy (PHWR · CANDU)
Carbon

Pebble bed (PBMR) · Very high temperature (VHTR) · RBMK · Magnox · AGR
Li / Be

Molten salt (MSR)
None
(Fast)

Breeder (FBR) · Liquid-metal-cooled (LMFR) · Integral (IFR) · SSTAR
Generation IV (Gas (GFR) · Lead (LFR) · Sodium (SFR))
Medical
Imaging

Positron emission (PET) · Single photon emission (SPECT) · Gamma camera · X-ray
Therapy

Radiation therapy · TomoTherapy · Proton · Brachytherapy · Boron neutron capture (BNCT)
Weapons
Topics

History · Design · War · Race · Explosion (effects) · Testing (underground) · Delivery · Proliferation · Yield (TNTe) · Pop culture
Lists

States with nuclear weapons · Nuclear tests · Nuclear weapons
Waste
Disposal

Fuel cycle · Spent fuel (pool • cask) · Repository · Reprocessing · Transmutation
Types

Reprocessed uranium • Isotopes of plutonium · Minor actinide · Fission product (LLFP) · Activation product
Featured article
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site"
Categories: Featured articles | Benton County, Washington | Columbia River | Environmental disasters in the United States | Geography of Washington (U.S. state) | History of Washington (U.S. state) | Manhattan Project | Military facilities | National Register of Historic Places in Washington (U.S. state) | Nuclear history of the United States | Nuclear weapons infrastructure of the United States | Radioactive waste repositories | Tri-Cities, Washington | United States Department of Energy facilities
Hidden categories: Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2007 | All articles containing potentially dated statements | Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2008
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

* العربية
* Deutsch
* Español
* Français
* Italiano
* Nederlands
* Português
* Русский

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 30 January 2009, at 18:08.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

14 July 2008: Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak

Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak

* 14 July 2008
* Magazine issue 2664. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuels and The Nuclear Age Topic Guides

ONE of "the most contaminated places on Earth" will only get dirtier if the US government doesn't get its act together - clean-up plans are already 19 years behind schedule and not due for completion until 2050.

More than 210 million litres of radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks at Hanford in Washington State. Most are over 50 years old. Already 67 of the tanks have failed, leaking almost 4 million litres of waste into the ground.

There are now "serious questions about the tanks' long-term viability," says a Government Accountability Office report, which strongly criticises the US Department of Energy for delaying an $8 billion programme to empty the tanks and treat the waste. The DoE says the clean-up is "technically challenging" and argues that it is making progress in such a way as to protect human health and the environment.

The DoE's plan, however, is "faith-based", says Robert Alvarez, an authority on Hanford at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. "The risk of catastrophic tank failure will sharply increase as each year goes by," he says, "and one of the nation's largest rivers, the Columbia, will be in jeopardy."

The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report.
Issue 2664 of New Scientist magazine

* From issue 2664 of New Scientist magazine, page 7. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Browse past issues of New Scientist magazine

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Time for Treasury to Walk the Walk

Time for Treasury to Walk the Walk

Will the Need to Fund Trillions in Spending
Burst the Bubble?

Dear A-Letter Reader,

So it begins.

2008 was the year of big promises for the U.S. government. Trillions in bailouts, emergency lending programs and otherwise free money buoyed the financial system and may have helped prevent a disastrous collapse of the world economy.

But now, in 2009, it’s time to pay the piper.

Even before funding Obama’s proposed US$900 Billion stimulus plan, the U.S. government will need to raise some US$1.5 – 2.5 trillion before the end of fiscal year 2009 (September 30th) to keep up with the spending plans of Congress and the Treasury. To make that possible, the Treasury is re-introducing the seven-year-note and doubling the number of 30-year auctions planned for ’09. It may also start monthly auctions of all of its benchmark securities.

And now the floodgates are officially open. According to today’s Financial Times, the US government announced plans for a U.S. $67 Billion debt sale in February, the first of many enormous auctions. As new sales come online, investors are wondering whether the flood of Treasury securities will drive interest rates up. Is all this issuance going to take a toll on prices?

Some are even wondering whether this might be the beginning of the end for a Treasury Bubble…
Mr. T’s Wild Ride

In the last year, while most investments simply plummeted, Treasuries have been on hell’s hayride. As investors waffled back and forth between the need for a safe haven and the sheer magnitude of U.S. debt issuance in store for 2009, Treasury yields reached historic lows (and – in turn – prices reached historic highs).



After peaking in mid-June, yields on the 10 and 30-year Treasury bond bottomed in late December, tumbling by 49% and 47% respectively. In between those dates, Lehman Brothers collapsed, global credit came to a standstill, and Bernanke unleashed a horde of emergency lending programs and lip service about buying up the long end of the curve to keep rates low.

But since mid-December, yields have surged back up – gaining 40% and 43% on the ten and thirty-year bond – on concerns about 2009’s funding obligations and rising deficits in the U.S.

While this bounce in yields – from 2% in December to 2.95% now – might seem like a major move, keep in mind that there’s definitely still room for more upward movement. Yields could gain another full percentage point and still settle under 52-week highs.
Calling the Giant’s Bluff

In the December issue of our flagship publication, The Sovereign Individual, Investment Director Eric Roseman took a position on Treasuries…one that’s returned over 32% since mid-December.

Using the ProShares Ultrashort 20+ Yr ETF (ticker symbol TBT), Eric took a short position on Treasury debt, citing the increasing size of Treasury offerings and the decreasing appetite for Treasuries worldwide…

“The writing is on the wall,” Eric said in December, “Betting against long-term Treasury bonds over the next 3-5 years is as close to a sure thing as we can get in this volatile market. Remember – market risk has not been eliminated. Rather, it has been transferred from the global banking sector to national governments.”

“To expand credit and fund bank liabilities,” Eric went on, “they will embark on a massive global fund drive – and put upward pressure on U.S. Treasury yields. When they ultimately succeed, the resulting nemesis won’t be deflation, but aggressive inflation.”

“This process won’t transform itself overnight. But as the desperate issuance of debt grows, I expect inflation to make a formidable comeback, probably starting in 2010 or 2011. I have no doubt that over the next 12 months, the U.S. long-term Treasury market will face higher interest rates.”
…But Keep your Eyes Open

While interest rates are on the rise and the market is looking like it might balk at the flood of new issuance on the way in 2009, the climate is still incredibly volatile.

We believe that Treasury yields are headed up in the long-term and likely to spike again in the short-term, but there’s an immense amount of government interest in keeping them low for the time being. Low rates are crucial to recovery, as they can keep mortgage rates low and – in turn – minimize the damage to the U.S. real estate market…the epicenter of the crisis.

To that end, Bernanke has repeatedly mentioned buying up the long end of the curve…a maneuver that seems to generate less and less of a response each time he mentions it. But the U.S. government has demonstrated its willingness to do anything and everything to keep this crisis under control, so for now this is more of a short-term trading opportunity than a long-term investment strategy…and traders should proceed with caution.

TBT is a double-inverse ETF, meaning that it provides twice the inverse of the daily performance of the Lehman Brothers 20+ yr Treasury Index. So it can be especially volatile, ranging between a 52-week high and low of about US$75 and US$35.51. Make sure to keep a 25% trailing stop in place.
Special Offer
$592 Trillion Phantom Economy Blows as Latest Demon Derivative Unwinds
The worst demon derivative to date is about to whip down Wall Street…leveling what little is left! Over 700 banks (with trillions of dollars in assets) will come crashing to the ground. Hundreds of hedge funds will collapse. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. And another $20 trillion will be wiped off global stock markets. But this one bombed out investment will soar two to ten fold as the world comes undone. Find out the entire story from the investment group who eerily predicted the current crisis “to a T!”…

Click here to learn more

Minimizing Hidden Forex Fees

"While offshore banks provide access to many investments you simply can't buy in the United States, or only buy with great difficulty, you'll pay for the privilege." Wealth Preservation & Tax Consultant Mark Nestmanntold us recently, "And nowhere is that truer than when you purchase securities denominated in foreign currencies. But you'll never know it unless you do some digging and then negotiate with your foreign bank to reduce those charges."

"For instance, last spring a Turkish lira-denominated bond that I hold through my Austrian bank account matured. The bank credited my account for the interest. Since my base account is denominated in euros the bank converted the lira to euros. It charged me a commission (outlined on a statement) of the lira equivalent of EUR 9 to convert the equivalent of a little under EUR 1,000 from Turkish lira to euros."

"That's perfectly fair. But what the bank didn't disclose was that the foreign exchange rate they used for the currency conversion was about 1.5% above the prevailing inter-bank rate. That resulted in an undisclosed debit of around EUR 90."

"I'm not complaining that I didn't get the inter-bank rate. As a retail customer, I understand that I won't have access to inter-bank rates for small forex transactions. It's also possible that the inter-bank rate fluctuated substantially on the day that the bank made the conversion. However, I think that they bank should have disclosed this to me, and they didn't."
Mark went on to explain a few ways that you could minimize these hidden fees...

"First, if you're purchasing securities from your foreign account, try to stick to securities denominated in your base currency unless you have a compelling reason to purchase securities in another currency. (In my case, the opportunity to buy AAA-rated Turkish bond with an 18% annual interest rate was such a reason.)"

"Second, if you do change currencies, ask your account representative how far above the inter-bank rate you can expect to pay for the conversion. You're likely to pay a higher premium for relatively "exotic" currencies like the NZD than for more mainstream currencies like the euro or Swiss franc."

"Third, if you're conducting a really large transaction—say, above US$100,000—it's fair to ask the bank to conduct it at or at least very close to the inter-bank rate. The worst they can say is "no." If they do say no, ask them to at least document on your statement how far above the inter-bank rate the forex exchange was conducted."

"Incidentally, if you're a U.S. taxpayer, you can't deduct these hidden debits on your tax return. You have to add them to your basis in that security, and then use that higher basis to reduce whatever capital gain—or increase whatever capital loss—you have upon sale or redemption."
Utilities Showing Relative Strength in ‘09

While they may not be as exciting as tech companies or derivatives, Investment Director Eric Roseman recently pointed out the promising performance in an otherwise nightmarish year for equities...

"With the Dow Jones Industrials Average down 8.5% this year, one of the few areas of the market posting any gains at all is the Dow Jones Utilities Average or DJUA, up 1.6%."

"Though it's still too early to confirm a primary bull market trend for this sector, utilities might emerge as a leader if stocks finally escape the wrath of this relentless bear. That's because utilities are heavily regulated in most states and underwent a major legislative overhaul years ago - something that awaits the financial services sector after years of fat profits and excessive bonuses."

"One caveat for utilities is the trend in credit spreads, or the difference between the interest rates yielded by utility bonds versus benchmark Treasury bonds."

"These spreads have widened sharply over the last 60 days and indicate utilities might run into severe headwinds ahead of major expansion plans and funding requirements amid a tight credit environment."
"Still, if the DJUA breaks its 200-day moving average, I'd be bullish on the sector."

"Staid and stodgy might be dull. But there's nothing wrong with a 4.2% annual yield and reliable earnings in a bear market. Watch the utilities."

Obama, Obama Obama.

The relationship between the President and the public has taken a rapid turn for the normal as we transition from, "The Audacity of Hope" to "The Audacity of Appointing Tax-Dodgers to what will likely be one of the spendiest administrations in U.S. government history."

Today, Legal Counsel and Former Congressman Bob Bauman shares his perspective on Obama's first few weeks in office, and what they tell us about this otherwise relatively unknown politician...

Yours in Personal Sovereignty

MATTHEW COLLINS
Special Offer
On March 30th, FDA results could make you $195,600
On March 30th, there’ll be an announcement of FDA results for a new
drug that could become the bestselling pill in the history of medicine.

One medical source says, “It could tap the largest pharmaceutical
market ever.” Even more exciting, early investors could make as
much as $195,600, overnight… by getting in immediately.

Click here for the full details.

The Audacity of Nope

By Bob Bauman


Since the election last November, (especially in the last two weeks since he took office), events are tending to make Barack Obama appear not as the agent of promised hope and change, but more like the typical Chicago politician, (Rod Blagojevich most certainly excepted).

What's more, when it comes to policy decisions and appointees, our new President appears to need more than just a little on-the-job training.
Can't Get No, Satisfaction

In 2005, most likely in order to gain the support of organized labor in his long-shot Presidential campaign, then U.S. Senator Barack Obama voted against ratification of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a harmless free trade agreement that he knew would help both Americans and our neighbors in six poor countries to our south, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.

As he candidly described his decision-making process a year later in his celebrated memoir, The Audacity of Hope, Obama knew that CAFTA posed absolutely no economic threat to the United States. The combined economies of the Central American countries were roughly the size of New Haven, Connecticut. The agreement allowed free U.S. foreign investment for six countries that badly needed it. "Over all," Obama concluded in his book, "CAFTA was a net plus."

Nevertheless, Obama admitted: "I ended up voting against CAFTA, which passed the Senate by a vote of 55-45. My vote gave me no satisfaction but I felt it was the only way to register a protest against what I considered to be the White House's inattention to the losers from free trade."
Politics, Pragmatism, Not Principle

During the raucous, two-year battle for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, both Senators Hillary Clinton and Obama dumped all over various aspects of free trade, pandering for votes from nervous workers and union bosses with trash talk about American jobs being shipped overseas by greedy global companies with their headquarters in tax havens.

Both candidates, paying their union dues, also opposed ratification of other free trade treaties with our strongest South American allies, Columbia and Panama - and both went to extremes, even claiming they would re-negotiate the NAFTA treaty between the U.S., Mexico and Canada (although one of his campaign advisors said Obama didn't really mean that...and got fired for his impolitic admission).

As a Senator from Illinois, Obama even went further, co-sponsoring Michigan Senator Carl Levin's pet hate project, The Anti-Tax Haven Act, a bill that would allow the U.S. Treasury to control, and even ban, offshore private capital flows and investments by Americans. This nonsense comes at a time when the U.S. government desperately needs foreign capital and offshore investors to finance Obama's trillion dollar deficits.
Will the Real Obama Stand Up?

In the next few weeks, President Obama gets the opportunity to cast another vote on American protectionism - this one with truly global importance - and his decision will reveal whether he will once again honor the political demands of labor union bosses at the expense of the best interests of the majority of Americans.

Last week, in passing the so-called "stimulus" legislation, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives included a "Buy American" requirement that seeks to protect iron and steel (roughly 0.5% of U.S. GDP).

The U.S. Senate bill now being debated provides protection for "all manufactured goods" (roughly 14% of GDP). But both the House and Senate bills leave the final decision to Mr. Obama, giving the President authority to grant waivers, in whole or in part, to any country he wants.

Importance of Free Trade

As I have explained before at length, underpinning the Sovereign Society's advice concerning offshore banking, asset protection and profitable foreign investments is an important freedom that too many Americans take for granted - the unfettered ability to move capital, goods and services across international borders with a minimum of government interference - in other words, free trade.

Historically, free trade has been a winner for America and the world. Undeniable proof shows that, on balance, free trade creates more U.S. jobs than it harms. But it is always easier to point to jobs lost through foreign competition than jobs created from exports.

But there really may be some of that "hope" about which candidate Obama spoke so eloquently. He may be backing away from his past pandering and the Democrats' "Buy American'' legislative clause - which has produced major alarm among America's key trading partners all over the world.

In an interview with Fox News Channel, the president acknowledged it would be a mistake to send a protectionist message in the current global economic climate. "I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we're just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade,'' he said.

Perhaps Mr. Obama does believe in real change - at least changing wrong past political positions. He even hinted that he would seek to remove the Buy American provisions from the legislation.
History Lesson

Yesterday the European Union warned the U.S. government against worsening the global recession by adopting a "Buy American" policy that they think could lead to a trade war.

No doubt EU officials had in mind the onerous 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that, in the opinion of many economists, was a direct cause of the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from a 1929 high, to the depressed levels of 1932. Most see that act as a major contributing factor to the severity of the Great Depression and a U.S. unemployment rate as high as 25%, that persisted for nearly decade

Other then the Presidential remarks quoted above, the administration has not yet stated an official position on the "Buy American" clause. But as usual, Vice President Joe Biden didn't get the word. In an interview last week, Jumpin' Joe said, "I think it's legitimate to have some portions of 'Buy American' in it."

Good Advice

Let's hope the freshman President will carefully study history and take the advice he was given by Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's U.S. Treasury secretary, when Obama asked advice on his 2005 CAFTA Senate vote - and on what he should tell "the Maytag workers in Galesburg" who feared that free trade agreements with low-wage countries would cost American middle class jobs.

Mr. Rubin gave this sage advice, "There is one thing [to] tell the workers in Galesburg that is certain. Any effort at protectionism will be counterproductive, and it will make their children worse off in the bargain."

And that same advice discredits the proposed Obama/Levin restrictions on the free movement and investment of capital offshore in this highly interdependent world of ours.

Americans are now caught in a financial twilight zone. For your own sake, we urge you to join the Sovereign Society today and open the door to safe and secure offshore asset protection and investing - while you still can. We welcome you.