Talk:Hanford Site
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanford Site article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Hanford Site is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Hanford Site is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suggestions for the next featured article review
[edit]Missed the featured article review last January, but here are some thoughts on how the article could be strengthened:
- There is no detailed map of the Hanford site. The current map shows areas, but provides limited correlation between areas and facilities.
- The article mentions that "Hanford engineers produced many significant technological advances," but does not cite many, and the ones it cites are puzzling. That section of the article goes on to mention "ammonia-based refrigeration systems" which already existed prior to the war as well as use of Teflon as a gasket material, and use of closed-circuit television for operation (Teflon and closed-circuit television were not invented at Hanford, although they were applied there). No mention is made of inventions actually innovated at Hanford like:
- the pulsed column, without which the aqueous-based reprocessing (i.e., PUREX flowsheet reprocessing) was extremely difficult.
- the reactor containment building - first used at the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR) at Hanford and effective in containing an accidental release, articles from this experience informed later NRC standards. Such a containment was reconfirmed at Three Mile Island to be effective in protecting the public and is common to all modern reactor designs.
- A fair amount of effort went into describing the reactor technology. No significant mention is made of the batch reprocessing technologies which were developed in the B, U & T plants, in the REDOX facility, or in the PUREX plant (notably the first such in the world to use the PUREX flowsheet).
- The reader was informed that "...many of the early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate." No discussion provides insights into the fact that these were new technologies created under wartime conditions with no existing safety or environmental standards. No mention is made of the influence that the experience and data from Hanford had on developing such standards.
- Much is made of the early reactors - no doubt in part due to the fine work by the B Reactor Museum Association. There are passing mentions of later production reactors - there were significant differences in function and technology which are worthy of more detailed mention. One test reactor, FFTF, gets passing mention, while another, PRTR, received no mention whatsoever.
- No mention is made of the plutonium finishing plant and its major cold war era role in preparing weapons material.
- No mention is made of the fuel fabrication facilities.
Someday when you have an urge to update this, these are topics which might warrant consideration. Skål -Williamborg (Bill) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Washington Governor Comment on Leak Discovered at the Hanford Site Misleading
[edit]The end of the environmental concerns quotes Washington's governor as saying the leak discovered poses no immediate threat, but the quote is taken out of a complete sentence and out of context, implying the threat is minimal.
The actual segment of the Governor's statement as cited by CNN reads: "This is an extremely toxic substance, and we have to have a zero-tolerance policy for leaks of radioactive material into the ground and potentially groundwater of the state of Washington," Gov. Jay Inslee said.
He stressed that the leak poses no immediate public heath risk but said that fact should not be an excuse for complacence.
"At the same time that I am making clear that this is a long-term, very significant concern of the state of Washington; it is not a short-term concern," he said. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/washington-tank-leak/index.html 76.0.12.98 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Lead too long
[edit]This article needs attention; the current lead seems to be more than twice as long as when it was originally promoted, calling into question whether it should remain featured in this state, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
FARGIVEN
[edit]Yes, it is. More importantly, the article has not been maintained current. As one example, the site is now on its fifth five-year review, but the article still contains text about cleanup cited to 2013 and 2014. As there has been no response to the February post above, I am listing the article at WP:FARGIVEN, notice of Featured articles needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, recent scholarly sources need review for 1c, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thin Man
[edit]I have clarified a point with regard to Thin Man.
The gun-type weapon would have worked (and still would) with a high enough grade of Plutonium, similar to the virtually pure Pu-239 that Glenn Seaborg had produced in February 1941 using a particle accelerator to produce a beam of deuterons. But that was not a practical way of producing enough Pu-239 for weapons, and the neutron-produced Plutonium that the Hanford reactors produced was contaminated with other isotopes of Plutonium. That's what made Thin Man impractical. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The Choice of Words for "Plutonium Processing Canyons"
[edit]- I was curious and this seemed to be due to how they looked from the inside, narrow and tall like a Canyon
- May be worth elaborating on this in the article and/or writing it as i did in this comment's title
- https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/CanyonFacilities
--Eric Lotze (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
National Historic Landmark sourcing, NRHP docs
[edit]Current footnote #57 used to support fact of Reactor B being designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL), on August 19, 2008. The link at the National Park Service is now dead, as are, I think, its whole series of one-page summaries on NHLs, gone in recent major changes at the NPS webpages system.
Here at the Wayback machine is a a copy of what used to be at that link.
To document the date there is also a compendium of weekly NPS announcements for NRHP (and NHLs)National Register of Historic Places 2008 Weekly Lists which shows the date of NHL.
Usually for NHLs there is a NHL nomination document which justifies both the NHL designation and also National Register of Historic Places listing. Note this was previously registered on the National Register (on April 3, 1992, which date can be verified too): [1]
References
- ^ J. C. Chatters (November 11, 1989). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Hanford B Reactor / 105-B". National Park Service. Retrieved September 25, 2022. With accompanying five photos
There is additional nomination of it for the NHL program, with PDF document available at NARA, 202 pages in total, which downloads slowly:
References
- ^ Miehele S. Gerber; Brian Casserly (February 2007). National Historic Landmark Nomination: B Reactor / 105-B. NARA. PDF also includes diagrams, photos, clippings, and correspondence.
If only the date of listing, with no reasoning, is wanted, then either the "weekly listings" or the original link to summary (but updated with archived copy of the page) does that.
But I think the National Historic Landmark Nomination: B Reactor should be referenced as it provides reasoning for NHL designation, and it does also document the date of NHL listing on its page 48:
DESIGNATED A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK August 19, 2008
--Doncram (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Environmental disasters and migration
[edit]The relationship between environmental disasters and Migration 197.239.5.218 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Legal framework for waste disposal
[edit]I don't know if I'll have time to work on this, but the legal framework for disposal of waste is unclear. The article says the tri-party agreement provided the legal framework (and it does), but the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is also relevant. (Our article on that isn't very good!). And other laws.
Legal classification of waste has been contentious and there's a lot of coverage about it. For example, the DOE announced plans to reclassify a lot of the waste as low-level waste to save money on cleanup.Larataguera (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Hanford Site page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Hanford Site" page.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics History of the Manhattan Project featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- FA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- FA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- FA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- FA-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- FA-Class history of science articles
- High-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- FA-Class Superfund articles
- High-importance Superfund articles
- WikiProject Superfunds articles
- FA-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- FA-Class United States History articles
- Unknown-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- FA-Class Washington articles
- High-importance Washington articles
- WikiProject Washington articles
- FA-Class Eastern Washington task force articles
- Top-importance Eastern Washington task force articles
- Eastern Washington task force articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- FA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Related-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- FA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Related-importance
- FA-Class Oregon articles
- Mid-importance Oregon articles
- WikiProject Oregon pages
- FA-Class Science Policy articles
- Mid-importance Science Policy articles