❌

Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Today β€” 23 December 2024Main stream

I spent a week buying every meal from an app that saves food from being wasted. Despite some letdowns, I was impressed.

23 December 2024 at 01:21
Too Good To Go lets users buy unsold food for a third of the original price.
Too Good To Go lets users buy unsold food for a third of the original price.

Too Good To Go

  • The Too Good To Go app aims to help consumers save money and reduce food waste.
  • I tried it for a week to see how much I could save.
  • I found it was most useful for fresh produce, but the pastries weren't always great.

Everything is expensive right now. It's rare that I ever leave the grocery store having spent less than I wanted to.

I've heard of apps like Too Good To Go, which sell surplus food at a discount, but never gone much further than signing up.

To test it out, I spent a week in early December only buying food from the app. I wanted to see if it was a viable way of saving money, sticking to a budget, and learning to be a bit more flexible with my cooking.

I also want to be more mindful about the groceries I buy and, unfortunately, sometimes waste.

Too Good To Go's CEO, Mette Lykke, told me in a recent interview that the app now operates in 19 countries across North America, Europe, and Australia, and covers 170,000 stores.

Lykke said the company hopes to inspire people "to make that the first step in a journey toward having a more responsible relationship with food."

"If we look at the state of the planet and the climate crisis, then it's pretty clear that something needs to change," Lykke said.

It was fun trying out new places in my city, London. While the pastries I received were hit-and-miss, the fresh produce from local stores was a real highlight.

Monday

Monday was largely spent figuring out the platform. I found that its map feature was the best way to find local cafΓ©s and stores.

I saw that an expensive cafΓ© on my local high street offered pastries, so I opted for that β€” Β£3.90 ($4.95) for a blueberry muffin, chocolate chip cookie, and slice of banana bread.

Three pastries bought with Too Good To Go
Pastries from my first Too Good To Go parcel.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

After the sugar rush I was still hungry, so I chose a bag of sandwiches and pastries from my local Costa Coffee for Β£3.50 ($4.44).

I got a slightly stale pan au raisin and two sandwiches β€” one seasonal turkey feast, and a BLT which my boyfriend took for lunch the next day.

Too Good To Go sandwiches and pastries
Sandwiches and a pan au raisin.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

In total, I spent Β£7.40 ($9.39) on items worth at least Β£22.90 ($29.08), so the week was off to a good start.

Tuesday

On Tuesday, I switched things up by trying out fresh produce from a couple of local stores. They offered "surprise bags" of groceries for Β£4 ($5.08) each.

While I was slightly overwhelmed with what to do with it all, it was an absolute hit with my boyfriend, who is always thrilled to be met with a culinary challenge.

One of the bags had Padron peppers, garlic, tomatoes, mushrooms, radishes, and beets. I also received three packets of pita bread, a sourdough baguette, a fruit bar, some buttermilk, and fresh herbs.

The multivitamin patches were a curveball, which I have to admit I didn't try.

Too Good To Go grocery bag
A load of fresh produce from a local grocery store.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

In the other bag, I got a melon, some Greek yogurt, lettuce, butter, rainbow chard, and sausages.

Too Good To Go grocery bag
More groceries.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

The sausages went in the freezer, but almost everything else was used to make a pasta sauce, roasted peppers, sauteed mushrooms, buttermilk pancakes, and basil oil. The beets got pickled.

The only thing we ended up having to waste was the watercress, which was already looking past its best.

In total, I spent Β£8 ($10.16) on items worth at least Β£24 ($30.48).

Wednesday

Tuesday's groceries went further than expected, so I bought another pastry bag to satisfy my snackiness during the day.

I'm not convinced the sourdough loaf and pastel de nata (which I squashed) I got for Β£4.09 ($5.19) truly had a full sale value of Β£12 ($15.24), but they were both pretty good.

The server recommended putting the loaf in the freezer and toasting the slices, which was a great tip that lasted me the rest of the week.

Too Good To Go bread and
Bread and (squashed) pastel del nata from a local bakery.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

Thursday

I knew I was out for dinner with friends on Thursday so I picked up some Starbucks pastries on the way. This was the biggest letdown of the experiment.

Throughout the week, I realized that several cafΓ©s don't offer anything until quite late in the day, by which time the food has been sitting out for hours. This makes sense from their perspective, but it does mean that some of the food isn't at its best.

But for Β£2.50 ($3.18), a muffin, cookie, cinnamon bun, and cheese stick is certainly better than nothing.

Too Good To Go Starbucks
Even more pastries.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

In total, I spent Β£2.50 ($3.18) on items worth at least Β£7.50 ($9.52).

Friday

I'd been eyeing up a nearby Bangladeshi restaurant all week, so knowing I had a night in alone on Friday, I went for the Β£4.09 ($5.19) curry bag they were offering.

I got a few bhajis, some chicken and rice, two veggie curries, more rice, some okra, and what I thought was probably cabbage.

It was all good and spicy, though the bhajis were slightly stale.

Too Good To Go curry bag
A curry bag from a local restaurant.

Lindsay Dodgson/Business Insider

In total, I spent Β£4.09 ($5.19) on items worth at least Β£12 ($15.24).

The results

For the whole week, I spent Β£26.08 ($33.11) on Β£78.40 ($99.54) worth of food.

Not every bag felt like amazing value. But some, especially the grocery bags, were genuinely impressive.

The experience taught me a lot about how to be flexible. I'm now committed to focusing less on "use by" dates on food and sticking to the safety assessment Lykke taught me β€” "look, smell, taste, don't waste" β€” before throwing things out.

My advice for anyone downloading Too Good To Go is to use it with foresight. The app is great for saving money for those on a strict budget who are OK with some compromises.

Too Good To Go is available in huge stores in the UK (such as Asda) and the US (including Whole Foods), so there are plenty of places to try.

Lykke told me the nice thing about Too Good To Go is you don't have to give anything up, and she's right. From a quick scan of my area, there is bubble tea, ice cream, Turkish food, burgers, doughnuts, and more. You don't get to choose exactly what you want, but as long as you don't mind a bit of a surprise, it's worth a try,

"You actually get good food, it's a good deal, and you do something good," Lykke said. "It's win-win for businesses, for consumers, and for the planet."

Read the original article on Business Insider

Before yesterdayMain stream

EPA gives thumbs up to California’s new gas-powered car sale ban

18 December 2024 at 15:20

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved California’s plan to phase out and ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035. ABC News reported the EPA gave California the waivers it needed to enact the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations (ACC II) devised and approved by the California Air Resources Board in 2022.

The EPA also approved California’s plan to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in order to reduce the amount of smog in the air. The state will require an initial 75 percent reduction in NOx pollution followed by a 90 percent reduction a few years later.

The ACC II provides a year-to-year blueprint for phasing out the selling of combustion-engine vehicles. The plan sets a 2026 deadline by which 35 percent of the state’s car sales must be electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or models with hydrogen fuel cells. Then by 2030, the electric vehicle sale threshold rises to 68 percent before reaching its ultimate 100 percent sale requirement by 2035. Consumers and dealerships will still be able to buy, sell and drive used ICE and hybrid cards until the ACC II. California Air Resources Board chair Liane Randolph estimated the ACC II could lead to a 50 percent drop in pollution by 2040.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed the decision and ACC II in a statement as evidence that β€œCalifornia can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/epa-gives-thumbs-up-to-californias-new-gas-powered-car-sale-ban-232048688.html?src=rss

Β©

Β© Mario Tama via Getty Images

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 16: Motorists drive cars and other vehicles during the late afternoon commute on December 16, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal over whether fuel producers have legal footing to challenge California’s nation-leading vehicle emissions standards. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The Hanford Site is America's most contaminated nuclear location. See photos of its long, toxic past.

17 December 2024 at 06:29
A grayish-white building with a tall circular chimney and dirt and roads surrounding it
Workers demolish a decommissioned nuclear reactor at Hanford in 2011.

Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

  • The Hanford Site is the most polluted area in the US, though cleanup started decades ago.
  • Estimates say it will take decades more and up to $640 billion to finish the job.
  • The site just received record funding for cleanup, but the next administration may not follow suit.

Sitting on 586 square miles of desert in Washington, the Hanford Site has the most radioactive and chemical contamination in America.

Buried in storage tanks beneath the ground are 56 million gallons of radioactive waste. Many of them are leaking.

In the late 1990s, Washington's then-governor, Gary Locke, called Hanford "an underground Chernobyl waiting to happen," the Associated Press reported.

As part of the Manhattan Project, Hanford produced the plutonium to build Fat Man, the atomic weapon that was detonated above Nagasaki at the end of World War II, and for the United States' nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.

In 1989, after years of dismissing concerns about contamination, the site's management finally said the site needed to be cleaned up. But cleaning up nuclear waste is difficult. It can't be burned or buried. Soon, a waste management plant will turn the waste into glass, which can be stored away for thousands of years. It's a slow, costly process.

Yet time is of the essence. The longer the contaminated materials are left untreated, the worse they become. Plus, natural disasters could spread the site's contamination.

Here's how Hanford became so toxic.

Hanford is built on a desert in Washington, spread over 586 square miles.
An aerial view of several industrial buildings separated by roads and dirt fields
An aerial view of the Hanford nuclear site from 1995.

Department of Energy/Handout via REUTERS

During the Manhattan Project in the mid-1940s, Hanford was one of three main sites where thousands of workers developed and built the world's first atomic bombs.

The government wanted both secrecy and security and chose an isolated location, away from cities on the East Coast. It's about 150 miles southeast of Seattle.

The Columbia River passes Hanford to the north and the east by a few miles, and it's downstream from two dams.
The Columbia River with a bridge stretching across and surrounded by dirt on either side
The Columbia River flows under the Vernita Bridge near the Hanford Reach National Monument.

Elaine Thompson/AP

The government wanted the site to be close to dams for electricity and near the river so it had a source of liquid to cool the reactors. The rural setting meant the operation would have to displace fewer people.

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation began operating on September 26, 1944.
Large industrial buildings against a desert backdrop with smoke pouring from some areas
What was then known as the Hanford Engineering Works, in 1945.

Hulton-Deutsch/Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis via Getty Images

The government purchased the land in 1943 and gave about 2,000 locals, many of them farmers and Indigenous people, 30 days to leave, The New York Times reported.

One resident, Annette Heriford, later said the government paid far less than the land was worth, per the Atomic Heritage Foundation (AHF).

The first reactor took 11 months to build, and the majority of the 51,000-person workforce did not know what they were working on.
A group of people walk between buildings in front of a bus in the 1940s
Workers arriving at the Hanford Site in August 1945.

AP Photo

They understood their work was related to the war effort, but the site's role in building a nuclear weapon was top secret.

The area experienced swift growth in just a couple of years.
An African American man in a striped jumpsuit, glasses, and a hat holds a tire
A worker repairing an inner tube at the Hanford Site, circa 1944.

US Department of Energy/US War Department/National Park Service

There were so many workers that Hanford and nearby Richland swelled with thousands of new residents. Most were white men, but Hanford also employed Black, Indigenous, and Latino workers, in addition to white women, according to the National Park Service.

Hundreds of new buildings went up to accommodate the growing population, including banks, grocery stores, and cafeterias.

Some of these places were integrated, while others were segregated. Restaurants in the area barred Black workers from entering, Cascade PBS reported.

To keep the nuclear complex secret, the government barred trespassers and set up a buffer zone.
Sandy cliffs along a river
The White Bluffs near the Hanford Site.

Greg Vaughn /VW PICS/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The area stretched along the Columbia River, covering hundreds of acres.

The B Reactor was the first large-scale nuclear reactor ever built.
A group of people, mostly men and mostly wearing hats, pose in two lines, with the first line crouching
Scientists, including Leona Marshall Libby, one of Hanford's few female scientists in the 1940s.

Department of Energy/National Park Service

It was the B Reactor that produced the first plutonium in the United States. The first supply of plutonium was delivered to the Army on February 2, 1945, just four months after the reactor began operating.

No one fully understood plutonium's effects on humans, wildlife, and the environment at the time.
A sign on a metal fence reading "radiation danger zone keep out"
An early warning sign at the Hanford Site.

US Department of Energy/National Park Service

The physicians working at Hanford reportedly knew radiation could cause illness, and they used dosimetry devices to monitor workers' exposure. They would wear badges containing photographic film that would develop an image of the protective case when exposed to radiation.

Hanford's plutonium was used in the Trinity test, the first detonated nuclear bomb.
A large fireball plumes upward from the desert
The Trinity Test, the first ever detonation of a nuclear device at Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1945.

Jack Aeby/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Fat Man, the nuclear bomb that was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945, also contained Hanford's plutonium.

The bomb killed an estimated 50,000 people in Nagasaki, The BBC reported. Another 135,000 people died in Hiroshima, Japan, where the US dropped a uranium bomb a few days earlier.

Suddenly, Hanford's purpose was no longer a secret.
A woman painting a sign while sitting at a large desk by a sign that says "Danger: He is listening! Keep Hanford Business to yourself."
A Hanford worker paints a sign circa 1945 to 1955.

US Department of Energy/National Park Service

On August 6, 1945, Spokane, Washington, residents awoke to the news that Hanford was one of the secret sites responsible for the atomic bombs.

"Tongues wagged, workmen talked, nearly every truck driver who passed that way had his pet theory," The Spokane Daily Chronicle reported at the time. "Many may have guessed the correct answer. But still the riddle of Hanford remained β€” and the secret was kept."

After World War II, there was a brief production hiatus. But in 1948, plutonium became a priority again.
A worker in a white jumpsuit works on a large piece of equipment that reads metallographic cell
A scientist in protective clothing operates a polishing grinder at Hanford Site in 1957.

AP Photo/Ed Johnson

This time it was to supply the US with a nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Six more reactors were built by 1955. Production continued into the late 1980s.

When the plant was up and running, using nine nuclear reactors and five reprocessing plants, it produced about 65% of the plutonium used by the US government.
A large cement structure with rubble inside
The Hanford Test Reactor, which was shut down in 1972.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

The reactors weren't all built at once but over a 20-year period from 1943 to 1963.

Hanford produced 67 metric tons of plutonium in all.
Three people in protective jumpsuits, gloves, and face masks work with nuclear material
Employees at the Hanford nuclear reload a camera used to photograph the inside of a radioactive tank.

FPG/Archive Photos/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

That's a little less than the weight of 10 African elephants. Fat Man contained less than 14 pounds of plutonium, according to the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

The site was responsible for a large part of the 60,000 nuclear weapons the US had made by 1987.

By the 1950s, scientists understood much more about the effects of radiation.
Workers in white jumpsuits, black boots, and face masks use handheld equipment near a wooden structure
Emergency Radiation Team members from Hanford use equipment for measuring levels of radioactive contamination in 1958.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Some serious accidents and secret human experiments showed how deadly radiation sickness could be, according to the AHF. US officials suppressed information about how the bombs were causing severe illnesses and deaths in Japan, according to JSTOR.

In 1954, Life Magazine profiled Hanford employee Homer Moulthorp, who had created plastic suits to combat radiation sickness.

His friends referred to it as "Homer's Hideous Hallucination." Before that, the employees had to wear heavy clothing that had to be buried after being used once.

To learn more about radiation sickness, scientists conducted tests on rats, cats, dogs, cows, sheep, pigs, and alligators.
A scientists uses a piece of equipment on a sheep to measure radiation levels
A scientist at the Hanford Site conducting radiation experiments on a sheep in 1957.

AP Photo/Ed Johnson

The researchers were trying to determine radiation's effects on people. In 2007, 40,000 tons of dead animals and manure were uncovered from trenches in Hanford, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported. Most of the waste was manure, contaminated with radioactive strontium-90.

Decades of plutonium manufacturing left behind an enormous amount of nuclear waste.
Two workers in white jumpsuits and hard hates near barrels of yellow, dirt-covered low-level Class A commercial nuclear waste
Employees check barrels of low-level nuclear waste with a Geiger counter at the Hanford Site in 1988.

Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Even producing a small batch of plutonium would result in a huge amount of contaminated waste.

In 1985, a newspaper story about a nearby community dubbed "death mile" detailed the high rates of cancer among farming families living near Hanford.
A gray-haired man holds a tool with a large clump of grass
Activist Tom Bailie in 1988.

Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

In a story for the Spokesman-Review, farmer Tom Bailie described the town of Ringold, Washington, about 11 miles southeast of the Hanford Site, as having unusually high rates of cancer.

The story's reporter, Karen Dorn Steele, later found the government had conducted a test in 1949 to learn more about how the radioisotope Iodine 131 moved through the air, per NPS. Thousands of Hanford Downwinders, as they called themselves, filed lawsuits against the government. All the lawsuits have since been either dropped or settled.

In 1989, the Tri-Party Agreement was signed to clean up the area.
A worker in a hard hat looks through an open door at a nuclear fuel storage room
A worker looks through the open door of a storage room for nuclear fuel in 1988.

Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Washington State Department of Ecology signed the agreement.

"It was at the end of the Cold War that the site's mission shifted from production of plutonium and that material to environmental cleanup," Ryan Miller, a communications manager for the Washington State Department of Ecology, told Business Insider.

By then Hanford was no longer making plutonium. Reactors started shutting down in the mid-1960s; the last one closed in 1987. It was exclusively a massive environmental hazard that needed to be cleaned up.

Despite the agreement, what would follow would be a slow, often halting, attempt to clean up Hanford, at a cost of $2 billion or more a year.
Workers in white jumpsuits stand in a steel structure
Workers remove fuel from the core of the Hanford test reactor in May 1972.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

There are a host of challenges when it comes to cleaning up Hanford, from contaminated buildings and groundwater to leaky storage tanks holding radioactive waste.

Officials don't even know where all the contaminated material is.

In the '40s and '50s, working with radioactive material was still new, so much of the nuclear waste was improperly disposed of.
A worker on top of a truck holding a large drum of nuclear waste
A worker at the Hanford Site removes a lid from a canister holding sealed containers of low-level radioactive waste in 1979.

AP Photo/Mason, File

"One of the biggest challenges, at least back in the '80s when cleanup started, was documentation," Miller said. The agencies worked to figure out the scope of the problem, but they were hampered by poor record-keeping. "There's a kind of shroud of secrecy over the Hanford Site, especially during World War II," he added.

When Hanford first produced nuclear waste, workers buried contaminated clothes and tools in the desert, without recording the locations, The Daily Beast reported in 2013.

Hanford had different processes for different wastes: Slightly contaminated liquids went into ponds, solid waste was buried, and some gases were released into the air.
Trucks and other heavy machinery in a large dirt pit
A landfill for discarding contaminated soil, building materials, and debris at Hanford in 2005.

Jeff T. Green/Getty Images

Across the reserve, there were nearly 1,700 waste sites.

During the production years, workers would dump barrels of waste and contaminated groundwater into unlined trenches, Miller said. The agencies have addressed over 1,350 sites so far, he added.

Solid waste can be anything from contaminated tools to clothing to broken equipment.
Workers in white jumpsuits work with shovels in front of a bulldozer
Employees work on a tank farm at the Hanford Site in 2013.

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File

Liquid waste is usually contaminated water or sludge, which is described as having the same consistency as peanut butter.

Inspectors found 85 square miles of contaminated groundwater in the 1990s.
A large blue machine with circular tanks in a building with a rounded ceiling
A pumping system at the Hanford Site runs groundwater through charcoal filters to clean it.

Michael Macor/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

The contaminated groundwater had a footprint larger than Boise, Idaho. Hanford set up pump-and-treat facilities to treat the water and then re-inject it back into the ground, Miller said. So far, the facilities have treated over 32 billion gallons of groundwater.

In 2017, the EPA said contaminated groundwater was flowing freely into the Columbia River. The river's hundreds of thousands of gallons of water help dilute the uranium, tritium, and other substances that seep in, according to Washington's Department of Ecology.

Most concerning is the highly radioactive waste that was stored in 177 storage tanks, each holding between 55,000 and 1 million gallons.
A large industrial structure with cylindrical towers and smaller structures surrounding them
A double-shell tank farm containing six underground tanks at the Hanford Site in 2005.

Jeff T. Green/Getty Images

The first 149 tanks were built with a single layer of steel. In 1968, officials developed a new double-shelled model, storing waste in 28 of them.

Altogether, the tanks contain twice the radioactivity released by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Russia, The Atlantic reported. By 1989, 68 of the 149 tanks had leaked 900,000 contaminated gallons into the ground.

"This waste poses, arguably, the largest kind of cleanup effort being done at the Hanford site, and one of the biggest risks," Miller said.

In 2010, Robert Alvarez, a former Energy Department official, said the amount of plutonium buried at Hanford could fuel 1,800 bombs, as reported by The New York Times.

In 1998, Hanford managers said they had been wrong to describe the tank leaks as insignificant for decades.
Industrial buildings, pipes, and machinery with hills in the background
A technician works in a containment area at Hanford 1997.

Brownie Harris/Corbis via Getty Images

It was only after a million gallons of waste had leaked into the ground that the DOE said more information was necessary, The New York Times reported in 2010. A year earlier, a contractor fired an employee who voiced concerns about the issue "too vigorously."

"A lot of those tanks were built in the '40s, '50s, '60s," Miller said. "So all the tanks are well past their design life."

In 2013, new leaks were discovered in several underground tanks. While management already knew that one tank was leaking at a rate of up to 300 gallons of waste every year, the discovery that five more were also leaking was especially concerning, CBS News reported.

In 2002, work began on a tank waste treatment plant, which is key to cleaning up Hanford.
Many steel drums stacked on top of each other in rows near a dirt mound with electrical wires behind
Low-level radioactive waste in containers are put into trenches that are then covered in dirt.

MICHAEL MACOR/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

The treatment plant will turn the waste from the deteriorating tanks into glass, which can then be stored more safely for several thousand years. This process, known as vitrification, is expected to begin with some of the low-activity, less radioactive waste next year.

Once the vitrified waste is stored in steel containers, workers will dispose of the low-activity glass at a Hanford landfill, which has been engineered with barriers, Miller said.

There's currently no facility in the US capable of storing high-level waste long-term, so that too will stay at Hanford for the time being.

Radioactive cesium and strontium were removed from the underground tanks, put into capsules, and stored underwater.
Canisters are neatly lined up on a  metal shelving system
Cesium and strontium capsules are stored in water at the Hanford Site.

US Department of Energy via AP Photo

Strontium-90 is also called a "bone seeker" because it acts similarly to calcium β€” accumulating in bones β€” while increasing the risk of cancer.

Concerned about earthquakes, the DOE decided the capsules needed to be moved. In the next year or so, the agencies will start transferring them to dry storage, Miller said.

Seven of the nine nuclear reactors are in interim safe storage.
A aerial view of many buildings that are part of a nuclear reactor next to a river
The N Reactor on the Columbia River at the Hanford Site in 1988.

Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

The nine reactors presented a challenge, Miller said, because they had big footprints. Workers removed hazardous materials and demolished supporting infrastructure and facilities.

In addition to the reactors, nearly 2,000 contaminated buildings covered the Hanford Site. The agencies have demolished almost half of them.

The reactors were sealed off, also known as being "fully cocooned."
A metal building with a slanted roof on one side and no windows or doors
A protective enclosure or cocoon covers the former K East Reactor building at the Hanford Site.

US Department of Energy

Crews demolished parts of the reactors, then encased the rest in giant steel structures. They will remain like this for at least 75 years, until radiation falls to a safe level and workers can dismantle the structures, though the method for full disposal isn't yet known.

One reactor still needs to be cocooned β€” scheduled to be completed by 2032 β€” while another will remain standing.

Reactor B is now a national monument that visitors can tour.
A green control panel with many switches and gages and a wooden chair in front
The control panel for the Hanford nuclear site's B Reactor in 2008.

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File

The B Reactor was the world's first full-scale plutonium production reactor. Instead of being cocooned, it was turned into a National Historic Landmark in 2008. Some areas are still radioactive but visitors don't have access to them, according to the tour's safety sheet.

As many as 15,000 people visit the National Historical Park at Hanford each year. Most visitors to the site don't need to wear dosimeters or other special equipment.

The former buffer zone is now called Hanford Reach and is home to dozens of species.
Green grass, a river, and hills that look pink as the sun sets
Rattlesnake Mountain near the Hanford Site.

Greg Vaughn/VW PICS/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Instead of farmers and ranchers developing the land, it's been left untouched for over 75 years, and wildlife has boomed. In 2000, President Bill Clinton made the 195,000-acre area a National Monument.

Today, the Reach is an important habitat for the region's vegetation and wildlife.
A herd of elk in front of a tall industrial building with a cylindrical tower
A herd of mule deer near one of Hanford's reactors in 2001.

Michael Macor/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

There are herds of elk and mule deer. Chinook salmon breed in stretches of the river in autumn, and it's home to an abundance of birds, including burrowing owls, Swainson hawks, and sagebrush sparrows.

Not all animals are thriving, though. The agencies have found issues with radioactive wasp nests, fruit flies, and rabbits.

When radioactive rabbit droppings were found in the area, it was protocol to set traps to kill contaminated rabbits, The Seattle Times reported.

Recently, some populations, like the ground squirrels and burrowing owls, have been declining and specialists aren't sure why.

Adventure companies bring kayaking tourists by Hanford Reach on the Columbia River.
Kayakers on a river with industrial buildings on the shore
Kayakers on a tour organized by the Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science, and Technology near the B Reactor at Hanford in 2008.

Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As for radiation on and in the river, health officials said fish tested for radiation posed no health risk.

Earlier this year, Hanford workers pumped out contaminated water nearby that threatened to leak into the river, according to the Tri-City Herald.

Though Hanford stopped producing plutonium decades ago, the surrounding areas continued to feel the effects of the nuclear waste.
A woman holds her arm above her head looking at a man in a circular device used for pulmonary function tests
A former Hanford worker who has COPD during a pulmonary function test in 2017.

Helen H. Richardson/Denver Post via Getty Images

In 2000, wildfires threatened the complex, and Washington's Department of Health reported a rise in plutonium levels in the area, thought to be spread by dust and ash.

Some Hanford workers say they have lung-related illnesses, like COPD or cancer, that they attributed to the time at the site, OPB News reported in 2016.

Radioactive tumbleweeds rolling across the site also caused issues in the early 2000s.
Aerial view of Hanford Reach National Monument and of its native sagebrush-sand habitat.
Tumbleweed is an invasive weed that pushes out native plants near the Hanford Site.

GeoStock/Getty Images

When affected Russian thistle decayed and broke from its roots, the radioactive tumbleweeds could roll for up to 4 miles and spread a year's dose of radiation, The Washington Post reported.

In 2017, a tunnel storing radioactive waste collapsed.
A large hole in a dirt mound in an open dirt-covered area with some trucks and equipment nearby
A 20-foot wide hole over a rail tunnel at the Hanford Site in 2017.

Department of Energy/Handout via REUTERS

Hanford radiation experts said if it had been a windy day, radioactive particles could've blown around and made the situation much worse.

The DOE's own experts had warned the tunnels might collapse for decades, KING 5 reported in 2017. The EPA said more tunnels would collapse as the equipment deteriorated.

Hanford's 11,000 workers are still at risk.
Workers in white jumpsuits and gas masks inspect an object with Geiger counters
Workers at the tank farms on the Hanford Site measure for radiation and the presence of toxic vapors in 2004.

AP Photo/Jackie Johnston, File

In 2016, 61 employees were exposed to vapors from leaking tanks, two years after a report found a "causal link" between the vapors and lung and brain damage.

A 2021 Washington State Department of Commerce survey of over 1,000 current and former Hanford workers found that 57% had been exposed to hazardous materials.

This June, firefighters responded to a fire not far from the Hanford site.
A satellite image showing the Hanford Site and the Two Fork Fire that was blazing nearby
A satellite image from June 2024 shows the heat shows a fire near the Hanford nuclear site.

Reuters

The area is prone to wildfires and possible earthquakes.

The last big earthquake in the area was in 1936, but another sizable one could release radiation. That's what happened with the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011.

In the next five years, Hanford could start turning low-activity waste into glass.
A goldish cylinder with a green substance inside
A container of glass poured at Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

US Department of Energy

Miller said Hanford is on track to start the vitrification process in the summer of 2025. Workers have already started making test glass.

But not all the waste will undergo vitrification. Instead, some will go through a different process, grouting, which makes the waste more like cement than glass. It's less expensive and quicker, but the method hasn't been as thoroughly tested as vitrification, Cascade PBS reported.

The grouting plans are part of a new Holistic Agreement between the EPA, DOE, and Washington State Department of Ecology.
A worker in blue coveralls, a hard hat, and safety glasses next to silver drums in an industrial building
Drums containing waste at the Hanford Site in 2005.

Jeff T. Green/Getty Images

While the agencies say the deadlines haven't changed, the agreement does update the Tri-Party Agreement.

Some stakeholders, like local tribes and environmental groups, said the agencies didn't include them in the meetings about the new plans, OPB News reported.

The Department of Energy wanted to dispose of all of the underground waste by 2052, but that's unlikely.
A road surrounded by grass and a bright yellow sign reading Caution: Radiolcically controlled area entry requirements: general employee radiological training
A sign warning about a radiologically controlled area at the Hanford Site in 2005.

Jeff T. Green/Getty Images

New estimates are closer to 2069 or later. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office estimated the price to clean up Hanford at between $300 billion and $640 billion. The office put the timeline at a vague "decades."

It's unclear how the next Trump administration will handle Hanford.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump attempted to cut funding for Hanford's cleanup during his first term.

Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images

In March, President Joe Biden gave Hanford its highest cleanup budget yet, $3.05 billion. Things could change under the next administration.

During his first term, President Donald Trump proposed cutting Hanford's budget and floated the idea of reclassifying high-level waste as less dangerous to lower costs, per The Los Angeles Times.

Miller said less funding could ultimately make cleaning up Hanford longer and more expensive.

"Every year that Hanford cleanup is underfunded, that can actually push the ultimate lifespan of the project out further," he said. "It could actually balloon the cost by tens of billions of dollars if it's not funded appropriately now."

Environmentalists won't stop fighting for the cleanup, but they know the waste will long outlive them.
The Hanford nuclear reactor with a tall cylindrical structure behind a chain link fence
The B Reactor at the Hanford Site in 2005.

Jeff T. Green/Getty Images

Tom Carpenter, executive director of the watchdog Hanford Challenge, told The Atlantic in 2018 that the majority of Hanford's waste was going nowhere. "Hanford is going to be a national sacrifice zone for hundreds of years," he said.

Sources used for this story include the Hanford Site, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the US Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Parks Service, the Atomic Heritage Foundation, the Government Accountability Office, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

This story was originally published on September 23, 2019, and updated on December 17, 2024.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn’t matter

By: Beth Mole
16 December 2024 at 14:23

Editors of the environmental chemistry journal Chemosphere have posted an eye-catching correction to a study reporting toxic flame retardants from electronics wind up in some household products made of black plastic, including kitchen utensils. The study sparked a flurry of media reports a few weeks ago that urgently implored people to ditch their kitchen spatulas and spoons. Wirecutter even offered a buying guide for what to replace them with.

The correction, posted Sunday, will likely take some heat off the beleaguered utensils. The authors made a math error that put the estimated risk from kitchen utensils off by an order of magnitude.

Specifically, the authors estimated that if a kitchen utensil contained middling levels of a key toxic flame retardant (BDE-209), the utensil would transfer 34,700 nanograms of the contaminant a day based on regular use while cooking and serving hot food. The authors then compared that estimate to a reference level of BDE-209 considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's safe level is 7,000 ngβ€”per kilogram of body weightβ€”per day, and the authors used 60 kg as the adult weight (about 132 pounds) for their estimate. So, the safe EPA limit would be 7,000 multiplied by 60, yielding 420,000 ng per day. That's 12 times more than the estimated exposure of 34,700 ng per day.

Read full article

Comments

Β© Getty | Grace Cary

❌
❌