191
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
191 points (98.0% liked)
collapse
514 readers
214 users here now
Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So they looked at a known nuclear waste disposal location and they are surprised they found leaking nuclear waste.
At least nowadays the nuclear waste is stored in nearly indestructible stainless steel and concrete canisters and not some unsuitable steel barrels, thrown in the ocean.
There’s an area of the Irish sea where they machinegunned the barrels when they would not sink. Boggles the mind it does.
Who dumped it there?
Based on the article, several nations used the area for dumping waste in the late 40s through the 60s
Oddly they call out France specifically but nobody else.
Based on the nuclear material found it's likely weapons test waste.
Probably because France conducted the survey
One mention of the French dumping over 46,000 barrels in the late '60s.
Yes, but storing this amount of barrels in such a way must be crazy expensive. I guess thats why they prefer to toss it into the ocean
I think it's more that we (officially) didn't know any better. It's not like we started storing it safely in land based disposal sites, then took a brief break to dump it in the ocean, and then came back to land based. For instance, this is what the US Navy did with part of the first Seawolf, SSN-575. Nowadays we weld up the reactors and bury them in Eastern Washington. Absolutely more expensive to do it this way, and also an incredible amount safer. The rules and regulations we abide by today are built on the learning from mistakes made during the 50s.
Here's the referenced bit for anyone curious:
Nah, people knew better... they just didnt care. We're talking about the same people that smoked abestos filtered cigarettes and filled their cars with leaded gas.
Asbestos is an amazing mineral. It is phenomenal as a fire retardant material, which is why it got so widespread. It took time and studies for us to truly understand exactly what the repercussions to using it are, and then implement appropriate controls (and phase it out). Similar with leaded gasoline (although maybe less so, depending on how complicit the oil companies were).
In any case, with all three of these things, it's not like we instantly knew how bad for us and the environment they are and how to appropriately handle them. There's a very constant iterative process to improving safety standards. Those barrels were likely dumped in the sea because we knew the contents could be harmful to humans. We neglected the environmental impacts because those weren't as highly prioritized, studied, or cared about. Processes change over time, and huge progress is seldom realized overnight.
Just like the oil companies knew about the effects of burning oil would have on the global climate. The Abestos industry absolutely knew the dangers for a very long time. So again. They do not care if it means less money to be made.
Would love to see proof of this, rather than just conjecture.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/14/archives/suit-weighs-liability-on-asbestos-peril-to-workers-precedent-on.html
I see a lot of "allegedly" in that article without any resolution. The government claims the companies knew since the 30s, but they say otherwise, and the article doesn't seem to include proof either way. I'm not surprised the government would allege that either, as the alternative is yet more evidence of how poorly run NNSY was (and frankly still is).
As an anecdote, we still find asbestos on ships built in that era. It'll be another several decades until we stop finding it.
Obviously a article on a new lawsuit would say 'allegedly' because the case was still ongoing at the time...
Also, it shouldnt suprise anyone the government from trying to shift blame when they knew it was dangerous long before then as well. Simply they could no longer keep covering up the huge mess they made. Doesnt mean their facts were wrong, but simply omitted themselves from them.
https://www.asbestos.com/featured-stories/cover-up/
Considering its still legal in some applications...
Not knowing better about two unrelated things means they did know better about a third, unrelated thing?
All the examples were well known to be dangerous by the early 1900s. If we were talking about late 19th century, sure we can say it was plain ignorance... but 1950's? Theres no excuse.
Sometimes you gotta compare multiple risks. Like, for example, lung irritation caused by asbestos, compared to, say, the lung irritation that comes with dying in a fire. Or the value of getting more than two miles to the gallon while needing to replace half your engine every hundred miles.
Its really not. You make a concrete cylinder and chuck it in. Granted, its a bit more complicated, but its really not anymore so than a normal building.
Radiation is most efficiently blocked by mass, dont need special materials or fancy construction.