Terry’s Take on Nuclear Energy
Welcome to the world of Terry Torgerson’s editorial cartoons, where the power of visual expression merges with incisive yet pithy commentary on local matters. With a keen eye for detail and a knack for encapsulating the essence of current events, Torgerson will be delivering a fresh perspective on predominantly local issues through his intricate illustrations approximately every week.
[By Terry Torgerson]
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
It is astonishing the amount of radioactive waste that is presently stored so close to the coast and earthquake fault zones. It’s difficult to consider future development of nuclear power as an energy source when there is no good solution for the present waste issues. Internet search states some 37 tons stored by old Humboldt Bay plant.
And in SF Bay Area, there remain disposed tons of nuclear waste on Treasure Island, Hunters Point Shipyard (under the low-cost housing built there), offshore in the ocean near the Farallone Islands, and along the Berkeley-Richmond shoreline.
With the exception of the farallon Island site, which may contain spent fuel from nuclear powered naval vessels, not a single one of those sites contains nuclear waste generated by a nuclear power plant.
Treasure Island: Formerly a U.S. Navy base, Treasure Island was used for nuclear warfare training and decontamination exercises. This led to contamination with radioactive materials, including radium-226 and cesium-137. Cleanup efforts have been ongoing, but concerns about residual contamination persist.
Hunters Point Shipyard: This site housed the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, where ships exposed to nuclear tests were decontaminated. The area became contaminated with various radionuclides. Despite extensive cleanup efforts, debates continue regarding the thoroughness of decontamination, especially in areas designated for housing development.
Farallon Islands: Between 1946 and 1970, approximately 47,500 barrels of radioactive waste were dumped into the ocean near the Farallon Islands. The exact locations and conditions of these barrels are largely unknown, raising environmental concerns.
Berkeley-Richmond Shoreline: There is no substantial evidence of nuclear waste disposal along the Berkeley-Richmond shoreline. While industrial activities have led to various environmental issues in the area, significant nuclear waste disposal has not been documented.
Thanks. There is waste from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory stored in a bunker across from the swimming pools and Witter Rugby Field above Cal Memorial Stadium.
Having worked in both locations and evaluating radiological hazards, your statements lack specificity regarding the amount of residual radioactivity currently found in both locations. Most radioactivity is at very low levels (near background levels) and poses no direct health hazards. The state of California wrongly expects residual radioactivity to be removed to less than established background levels, which is impossible. All of California has primordial radioactivity (uranium and daughters such as Radium from the granite in the soils). Externally brought-in landfills used at Treasure Island and Hunters Point contained natural/primordial Radium and Uranium byproducts.
If you’re an expert in radiation activity please explain the non terrestrial isotopes to the people .
What is the reason for the fenced off areas on Treasure Island and East Bay? High radiation levels; higher than background and naturally occurring.
What?! A nuclear powered naval vessel is powered by nuclear power plant, albeit one portable. The source of waste passing through and buried under Hunter’s Point and on Treasure Island is unknown afaik. Do you have more information? Also, what is “a good solution for the storage of nuclear material stored locally”? Thanks in advance…
Not much since the Feds don’t have anything to do with it anymore.
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2021/11/18/pgande-reactor-officially-decommissioned-nuclear-waste-not
A loooooong read, with many links:
https://44feetabovesealevel.com/
There is actually a good solution for the storage of the nuclear material stored locally. PG& E doesn’t want to pay for it, but it exists.
This is from Sea Grant. A left wingnut anti nuke climate change advocate business. Yes business, non profit, but they all take a salary. Millions of donation dollars go to their salaries of the ”experts” every year. While they stew fear.
”The water in Humboldt Bay is projected to rise three feet over the next four decades, Marlow notes. That’s enough so that during King Tides, low-lying areas around the spent nuclear fuel site will flood, leaving the site completely surrounded by water.”
BULLSHIT!
I doubt we see three inches.
https://ca seagrant.ucsd.edu/news/s pent-nuclear-fuel-sits-crumbling-california-coastline-so-what-do
notice the ”edu” in the address?
I remember my early visits to Morro Bay as a tourist, and seeing the signs in all the hotels and restaurants that if you heard sirens, tune into a specific AM radio frequency for news. I was thinking it was for tsunami warnings. Until I asked a local. It was really for potential radiation leaks at Diablo Canyon. Having been built on top of an earthquake fault, it was known to the locals as “shake and bake”.
On this is you I would have to say Terry is a moron.
It seems like, since nuclear has been around now for half a century, scientists should be figuring out how to run them safely.
If we just ban them, we may never learn how to do it right…
Maybe it’s worth a shot.
The waste is an issue though.
That’s probably where the research should go.
How to safely recycle it or something.
It’s already stored safely. Please learn how to use google.
¹0 yards for unnecessary rudeness.
He did say “please”…..
try 80 years. And yes new engineering and technology can make safe systems. Just look at all the US navy ships that use it. In 1953 the US Naturalist was the first. Jimmy Carter was a nuke engineer in the Navy.
Lol how stupid do you have you have to be to not realize that nuclear energy produced safely stored waste, solar and wind produce toxic waste that’s wrecked the local environment where their metals are mined, and that there’s no way to stop global warming without nuclear energy. I love how you guys pretend to care about the environment but still think nuclear is just green sludge coming from a barrel with a danger sign.
Its nice someone made a good choice to buy Nuke Power for us. The ecofreaks on the board thought they could pull off a no vote.
the answer to waste is modern breeder reactors , they use spent waste as 75percent of their fuel and use it so efficiently that it reduces said waste by 85 percent the waste from modern reactors have half lives of 300 years verses 10 ‘s of thousands of years . Meaning that with the building and use of modern reactors we are getting a resource use from prior waste product and reducing the harm to the planet all in one shot . As for safety of these reactors engineers have attempted to make one melt down and they simply could not even when over riding all safety and cooling features the reactor simply shut down without going into meltdown
While nuclear energy has great potential this cartoon is dead on right. I used to be for it now I am opposed. Why PG&E ………………………………
There’s a young man named Kyle Hill on youtube who discusses everything Nuclear. While he’s a little silly and jokes around a lot, his info is spot on and he covers disasters and explains why and how anything actually went wrong. He’s very pro nuclear because modern techniques make the materials, energy extraction, and storage of the less toxic wastes far safer than they used to be. And the methods are getting exponentially safer. IF and ONLY if proper protocol is followed, it can be remarkably safe. I would want to be assured that everything is followed to the letter and above board, personally.