Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

HanfordWhile many downwinders were exposed to weapons testing, millions more have been affected by radioactive fallout due to U.S. sites engaged in the production of nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power. For example, Hanford is a former nuclear weapons production site located in south central Washington state, where the Washington state Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize significant data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. Established in 1943, Hanford released radioactive materials into the air, water and soil, releases which largely resulted form the routine site’s operation, though some were also due to accidents and intentional releases. Those who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream from Hanford were all exposed to elevated doses of radiation, which are presumed to have caused increased incidents of health problems and birth defects that generated widespread public concern over the public and environmental health implications of the site.[8]

By February 1986, mounting citizen pressure forced the U.S. Department of Energy to release to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford’s operations. These reports revealed there had been huge releases of radioactive materials into the environment that contaminated the Columbia River and more than 75,000 square miles (190,000 km2) of land. In particular, it made clear downwinders exposure to plutonium, which was produced in nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The reactors used large amounts of water from the river for cooling, which caused materials in the river water to become radioactive as they passed through the reactor. The water and the radioactive materials it contained were released into the river after passing through the reactors, thus contaminating the both groundwater systems and aquatic animals downstream as far West as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[8]

A class-action lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders against the federal government has been in the court system for many years.[9] 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.[10]

Plutonium was also separated and purified for use in nuclear weapons, which resulted in the release of radioactive material into the air. Air polluted by material from the Hanford site traveled throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and even into Canada. Further contamination filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where milk cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish; their impact was disproportionately felt by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets. The estimate of those exposed to radioactive contamination due to living downwind of Hanford or ingesting food or water that flowed downstream is as high as 2 million.

kalm wrote:

HanfordWhile many downwinders were exposed to weapons testing, millions more have been affected by radioactive fallout due to U.S. sites engaged in the production of nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power. For example, Hanford is a former nuclear weapons production site located in south central Washington state, where the Washington state Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize significant data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. Established in 1943, Hanford released radioactive materials into the air, water and soil, releases which largely resulted form the routine site’s operation, though some were also due to accidents and intentional releases. Those who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream from Hanford were all exposed to elevated doses of radiation, which are presumed to have caused increased incidents of health problems and birth defects that generated widespread public concern over the public and environmental health implications of the site.[8]

By February 1986, mounting citizen pressure forced the U.S. Department of Energy to release to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford’s operations. These reports revealed there had been huge releases of radioactive materials into the environment that contaminated the Columbia River and more than 75,000 square miles (190,000 km2) of land. In particular, it made clear downwinders exposure to plutonium, which was produced in nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The reactors used large amounts of water from the river for cooling, which caused materials in the river water to become radioactive as they passed through the reactor. The water and the radioactive materials it contained were released into the river after passing through the reactors, thus contaminating the both groundwater systems and aquatic animals downstream as far West as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[8]

A class-action lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders against the federal government has been in the court system for many years.[9] 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.[10]

Plutonium was also separated and purified for use in nuclear weapons, which resulted in the release of radioactive material into the air. Air polluted by material from the Hanford site traveled throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and even into Canada. Further contamination filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where milk cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish; their impact was disproportionately felt by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets. The estimate of those exposed to radioactive contamination due to living downwind of Hanford or ingesting food or water that flowed downstream is as high as 2 million.

Tough to find the truth with this stuff, but consider that Eastern Washington and North Idaho have some of the highest rates of M.S. and several types of cancer in the world. In the small Columbia Basin community where my wife grew up, it seems like everyone has immune system defieciencies and the cancer rates, especially among those born in the late 40's, are through the roof.

Pwns wrote:http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/ ... ns-nuclear

Since 1970
Wind Energy: 35
Nuclear Energy: 0

Probably preaching to the choir by posting this on CS, but good to bring up none-the-less if anyone has developed any doubts.

Pwns wrote:And stuff that was done with nuclear fuel in the 1940s has to do with nuclear energy in the 21st century how?

Wind energy has caused more fatalities than nuclear energy
by Pwns » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:46 am

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ns-nuclear

Since 1970

dbackjon wrote:Chizzang - the article states in the UNITED STATES.


T-man - lots of cancer clusters in farmers in central illinois.

kalm wrote:... but my wife and I both had cancer by the time we were 30.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Chizzang - the article states in the UNITED STATES.


T-man - lots of cancer clusters in farmers in central illinois.

I'm aware of many "clusters"...but 100% cross-bloodline incidence rate???

Bronco wrote:Type in your zip code and see how far way the nearest Nuke site is from your home

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nucl ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm 253 miles

Pwns wrote:http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/ ... ns-nuclear

Since 1970
Wind Energy: 35
Nuclear Energy: 0

Probably preaching to the choir by posting this on CS, but good to bring up none-the-less if anyone has developed any doubts.

Bronco wrote:Type in your zip code and see how far way the nearest Nuke site is from your home

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nucl ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm 253 miles

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:... but my wife and I both had cancer by the time we were 30.

That was God punishing you for being liberal.

Chizzang wrote:I see the FOX NEWs report is for "Americans"
So not one death from Chernoblyl....

Two Americans died in the Chernobyl event... please call FOX NEWs and add them to the tally - I haven't been able to pick a fight on this thread with my attitude yet (you people are on to me)

About the Disaster:
The Russians (who said nothing) even admitted 4,000 were dead within 21 days of the accident...

"Based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 serious cancer and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000"


wind power 35 dead in 40 years... shit that's chump change call FOX NEWS

Pwns wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I see the FOX NEWs report is for "Americans"
So not one death from Chernoblyl....

Two Americans died in the Chernobyl event... please call FOX NEWs and add them to the tally - I haven't been able to pick a fight on this thread with my attitude yet (you people are on to me)

About the Disaster:
The Russians (who said nothing) even admitted 4,000 were dead within 21 days of the accident...

"Based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 serious cancer and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000"


wind power 35 dead in 40 years... shit that's chump change call FOX NEWS

Sorry Chizzy but the word "American" wouldn't fit in the subject line. I'm well aware about the Chernobyl disaster. What I want to know is what a meltdown from a primitive, dilapidated reactor in Russia in 1980s has to do with nuclear energy in America 2011. Ditto with Kalm's example about poor usage of nuclear fuel in the 1940s when the science of nuclear fission was new. The science and technology has improved light years since Chernobyl. I can agree that nuclear energy has to be tightly regulated, but it's still the best non-carbon energy source by far.

Chizzang wrote:I see the FOX NEWs report is for "Americans"
So not one death from Chernoblyl....

Two Americans died in the Chernobyl event... please call FOX NEWs and add them to the tally - I haven't been able to pick a fight on this thread with my attitude yet (you people are on to me)

About the Disaster:
The Russians (who said nothing) even admitted 4,000 were dead within 21 days of the accident...

"Based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 serious cancer and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000"


wind power 35 dead in 40 years... shit that's chump change call FOX NEWS

Pwns wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I see the FOX NEWs report is for "Americans"
So not one death from Chernoblyl....

Two Americans died in the Chernobyl event... please call FOX NEWs and add them to the tally - I haven't been able to pick a fight on this thread with my attitude yet (you people are on to me)

About the Disaster:
The Russians (who said nothing) even admitted 4,000 were dead within 21 days of the accident...

"Based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 serious cancer and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000"


wind power 35 dead in 40 years... shit that's chump change call FOX NEWS

Sorry Chizzy but the word "American" wouldn't fit in the subject line. I'm well aware about the Chernobyl disaster. What I want to know is what a meltdown from a primitive, dilapidated reactor in Russia in 1980s has to do with nuclear energy in America 2011. Ditto with Kalm's example about poor usage of nuclear fuel in the 1940s when the science of nuclear fission was new. The science and technology has improved light years since Chernobyl. I can agree that nuclear energy has to be tightly regulated, but it's still the best non-carbon energy source by far.

Probably preaching to the choir by posting this on CS, but good to bring up none-the-less if anyone has developed any doubts.