John Oliver on the problem with nuclear waste

On the latest Last Week Tonight, John Oliver described the serious issues with nuclear waste in the United States

As John Oliver introduced it this week, nuclear waste is “the worst type of garbage for raccoons to get into.” While you’d be hard-pressed to argue against this, the truth is that the issue of nuclear waste products is a little more serious than irradiated raccoons in your trash.

Right now, there are more than 71,000 tons of nuclear waste and more than 100,000 gallons of toxic liquid waste. If that wasn’t enough, about one out of every three Americans live within 50 miles of nuclear waste.

What’s the big deal? After all, nuclear plants are a significant part of the United States power grid, with 99 reactors in 30 states. For one, nuclear waste remains toxic for a long, long time. For instance, plutonium 239 has a half life of 24,000 years. It takes about 10 half lives for plutonium to become relatively harmless—or, in the case of plutonium 239, about 240,000 years. So, what are we supposed to do for the next few millennia while we wait for the toxic byproducts of nuclear energy to become less harmful?

Where did this issue begin?

First of all, how did we get into this situation? As with many half-thought out ideas, it began with a certain sense of panic. In this situation, it has a lot to do with World War II. You see, the U.S. rushed into developing nuclear weapons during the conflict in order to defeat the Axis Powers. John Oliver recalled those hazy, golden days where Americans generally agreed that Nazis were a bad thing.

At any rate, this rush to develop nuclear weapons and, later, to develop nuclear fuels into an energy source meant that there was practically no plan to deal with radioactive waste. The off-the-cuff plans developed after the fact were hardly anything to be proud of.

For a while, the military just dumped barrels of radioactive waste into the ocean, including a considerable amount off the coast of New Jersey. If the barrels didn’t sink, the military simply strafed them with machine gun fire. Fun!

Still, that was better than the other plan of shooting the waste into space. Just as well that it didn’t happen, since it turns out that launching rockets carries a non-zero chance of failure. If a rocket loaded with nuclear waste had happened to malfunction, massive amounts of radioactive material could have been released into the atmosphere.

Radioactive alligators and other problems

Even the partially thought-out plan of storing it in the ground has its flaws. Take the Savannah River Site, for example, where waste has leaked into the South Carolina groundwater. At least you can get a tiny, scared laugh from one man unemotionally explaining that the site is now home to radioactive alligators.

Oh, and those gators have names—Tritagator and Dioxinator—derived from tritium and toxic dioxin, two of the waste compounds released by the plant. Is it wrong to be just a little delighted by this fact, even in the face of serious environmental impacts?

Unfortunately, it’s not just alligators who are affected by poorly contained nuclear fuel. Residential communities have been dealing with the effects of radioactive contamination as well. And it’s not just dramatic stories like those found in Chernobyl or the Fukushima Daiichi power plants. Rather, some communities are affected by a more silent though no less serious source of radioactivity.

For example, people in communities in North St. Louis County in MIssouri have been affected by stored nuclear waste left over from the Manhattan Project. When we say “affected,” we mean that a significant number of people have been stricken with cancer, apparently from contaminated groundwater.

The U.S. has built a repository for “low level” waste in New Mexico. However, it hasn’t built a similar containment facility for the more dangerous high level waste. That means it’s just sort of hanging out where it’s been produced. That’s awkward, to say the least, considering that many of the facilities that produce nuclear waste are not designed to contain it.

The Hanford Site

For example, the Hanford Site has produced more than two-thirds of plutonium used by the U.S. It also stores more than 56 gallons of toxic waste underground. There are so many issues at this Washington state facility that it’s one of the most contaminated places in the Western hemisphere.

Problems at Hanford have included explosions, over a million gallons of leaks, and releases of toxic gas. The site has paid more than one billion dollars in worker’s comp related to illnesses and injuries caused by the waste. Their storage tunnels are eroding, thanks in large part to the radiation contained within. Hanford costs the DOE about 2.5 billion a year, or 10 percent of the department’s budget.

A brief and terrifying interlude

Hey, if all of this is getting you down, take heart that you (probably) don’t have the creepy doll-related problems suffered by John Oliver. Where is that unnerving, underlit Felicity doll, by the way?

Even if you don’t live near a plant with the dubious honor of “most contaminated place in the Western Hemisphere”, you’re likely within driving distance of nuclear fuel. Spent fuel pools, where used nuclear control rods are cooled and stored, are filling up with nuclear fuel with, as you have now guessed, little in the way of a long-term storage plan.

30 years ago, Congress actually passed a law—1982’s Nuclear Waste Policy Act—designating Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a storage site for high-level nuclear waste.

However, other Nevada residents were pretty against the plan. Senator Harry Reid, the recently retired Nevada senator, helped to shut down construction at Yucca Mountain. He wanted managers to leave the waste where it is. “If you’re smart,” he said, “what you would do is leave the thing where it is.”

No, seriously, what should we do with all of this nuclear waste?

However, the scientific consensus is that Harry Reid’s plan is, to turn a phrase, really bad. Most nuclear scientists agree that it’s better to move the waste to a more stable site that’s designed to deal with long-term nuclear storage. Some sites are in less than ideal places, such as near geologic faults and in tsunami zones.

Now, this is a complicated subject that often requires extensive knowledge. As Oliver said, “I’m not a nuclear scientist, I just have the face of one”. Certainly, an 18-minute segment on a late night cable show is now really enough time to explore the intricacies of nuclear power and the issues associated with its waste products.

Still, it’s hard to feel entirely secure, even when U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry says he feels pretty good about it—though his Dancing With the Stars appearance does not inspire confidence. Neither does his lack of experience or initial doubt that his department should even exist.

Next: John Oliver considers North Korea on Last Week Tonight

A 1977 news report recovered by Last Week Tonight is eerily similar to Oliver’s report. Though, this time around, it metaphorically grapples with radioactive cows instead of radioactive alligators. When reporters asked for realistic solutions, experts said it would happen in the 1980s.

Awkward, to say the least. It turns out that, despite the predictions of scientists included in the 1970s report, we haven’t made much progress. We haven’t done much in 40 years and, regardless of how much experience you have as a nuclear scientist, that’s cause for concern. As Oliver said, “We’ve already waited way too long to resolve this issue.”