In January, the state of Washington wrote to the Department of Energy to let them know how worried they were about radiation levels at the heavily contaminated Hanford Site. The letter let the DOE notes that far from dropping, radiation levels around the plant, and dangers to workers, were increasing.
Since [December], more than 270 workers concerned about their health have requested bioassays to test for radioactive exposure. Results released so far have covered 109 workers and found that two tested positive for having inhaled or ingested radioactive particles.
Clearly the letter had an impact, because the new Trump budget goes out of its way to address the long-critical problems at Hanford.
The Trump administration is proposing a $230 million cut in cleanup spending at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in fiscal 2019.
The budget request released on Monday cuts $61 million from the budget for Hanford's Office of River Protection, and $169 million from the U.S. Department of Energy's Richland Operations Office.
Subjecting Washington to extra radiation is, of course, right in line with the cuts Trump’s already made, or intends to make, to environmental programs of all kinds, But it might seem that Hanford—which was for years the source of plutonium used in America’s nuclear arsenal—might get a little extra attention from the guy who wants to spend over $1 trillion dollars on new bombs.
Those savings for Hanford will be needed elsewhere.
The Trump administration on Friday called for the development of two new types of nuclear weapons to better deter potential adversaries, in a reassessment of the current arsenal that critics slammed as increasing the likelihood of nuclear conflict.
Those new weapons include lower-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons designed for those occasions when the US wants to give someone a “bloody nose” ranging up to about the size of the one delivered at Hiroshima. And while adding hundreds of pricey “battlefield nukes” to the arsenal might seem like a prescription for mushroom clouds:
Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan on Friday disputed that argument, which has been widely expressed since a draft of the document leaked last month. …
“Some will say that any additional capability, no matter how measured, increases the chances of using on of these weapons,” Shanahan told reporters. “On the contrary, it is the exact opposite.”
Shanahan contends that having a new argument-ender for the battlefield somehow decreases the chance that we’ll use the weapons, as opposed to … how likely we are to use it when we don’t have it. This makes sense, somehow. Especially considering how judicious Trump has been in breaking out big weapons so far.
When the so-called Mother of All Bombs was first tested, in 2003, the largest conventional weapon in the United States arsenal set off a mushroom cloud visible for twenty miles. … The moab was compared to a small nuclear weapon. ...
Fourteen years after it was deemed ready to use, the U.S. unleashed the moab for the first time in combat on Thursday, at 7:32 p.m., against an isis affiliate in Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province, along the border with Pakistan.
With the new bombs, Trump won’t have to worry about something “comprable” to a small nuclear weapon. Because he’ll have small nuclear weapons.
But communities across the country might want to think twice before they bid on fulfilling that particular contract.
With nearby communities now populated by nearly 250,000 people, the unknown long-term effects of contamination, particularly of the groundwater, are particularly worrisome, despite official assurances.