"The Hanford inventory includes 53 million gallons of waste from plutonium processing stored in underground tanks, nearly 2,300 tons of spent fuel, four and a half tons of plutonium, 25 million cubic feet of solid waste, and 38 billion cubic feet of contaminated soil and groundwater. In a storage pool I look at the nation's most lethal single source of radiation excepting reactor cores—1,936 steel cylinders containing cesium and strontium covered by 13 feet of water. When a technician switches off the lights, radiation from the cylinders puts on a light show of royal blue."

Link

"Most of Hanford's reactors were shut down in the 1960s but nuclear waste still remains at the site. Parts of the 560 square mile (1,450 sq. km) site are highly contaminated. More than 40 billion gallons (151 billion litres) of contaminated water were dumped directly onto the soil and there have been radioactive leaks from storage ponds and tanks. About 11,000 workers work to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil. They have to dig up ten million tons of contaminated soil and dispose of some 54 million gallons (204 million litres) of radioactive waste from 177 underground tanks of which about a third were reported as leaking in 2001. Cleanup to a nationally accepted level will likely take until 2030 and cost $50 billion at least [3]"

Link

Questions for debate.

1) Does this show that environmental oversight is a good thing?

2) Should the government work to compensate victims of radioactive leaks?

1) Does this show that environmental oversight is a good thing?

Well does anyone think otherwise? What this also clearly shows is that the worst polluter, all things being equal, will always be the “regulator” (if that entity is involved) – in this case the government. If this was done by a company lots of executives would be in jail. As it is no one, that I know of, was ever held reaponsible.