by Wyoming Liberty Group

Who can predict what will happen in a thousand years? Or tens of thousands of years?

Better yet, what will happen in fifty years?

No one, of course, can reliably say what will happen in the future—and yet, that is one of the chief questions that comes up when political and business forces talk about making Wyoming a storage site for spent nuclear fuel.

The storage of nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for thousands of years, comes with some inherent and catastrophic risks. Among the obvious ones, if nuclear waste leaks out of, or escapes from, storage:

--People can be exposed to highly radioactive material that can cause cancer and other serious health problems, such as brain tumors, thyroid disease and additional life-threatening conditions.

--Groundwater can be contaminated, which can wipe out plants and animals in vast areas.

--Terrorists can use the material, if captured, to build nuclear weapons.

There are countless other scenarios that could create harm if nuclear waste is accidentally released from storage, such as exposing workers at a nuclear power plant to radiation.

Experts have long acknowledged these risks. There really isn't a debate about it. At some point, whether in the near future or after thousands of years, the steel canisters that store nuclear waste may very well corrode, releasing radioactive material into the groundwater.

Another basic risk: The longer nuclear waste is stored before it's moved to another plant, the more likely workers could be exposed to harmful radiation, experts say. And then there's this hazard: If nuclear waste is not monitored closely enough, that waste may very well end up accidentally being exposed to people.

This isn't just theory.

There have been accidental leaks of nuclear waste at storage sites in the United States and abroad.

Indeed, we don't have to look too far to find such a catastrophe: at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the southeastern part of the state of Washington. In fact, there have been several nuclear leaks at Hanford.

In 2013.

Yet again in 2021.

And, experts believe, just last year, once more.

It's bad enough that a nuclear leak occurred at this nuclear facility. But more than once?

And we're talking about gallons of nuclear waste. Every day.

Hanford has been labeled the most contaminated nuclear waste site in the nation. And the concern—"fear" may be the better word—is that the leak of toxic waste from underground storage tanks into the soil could reach the Columbia River.

Which would be unthinkable.

The release of this dangerous nuclear waste didn't take thousands of years, just in case the obvious needs to be stated. Some of these tanks are about 80 years old. They are a residue from World War II when the site produced refined plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project, before dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Hanford remained a site for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons for many years afterwards.

Compounding the problem of the leaks was another fundamental problem. It's been reported that, for many years, Hanford drew water from the river to cool its reactors and then sent the water back to the river without treating it.

The cleanup of the site is expected to cost somewhere between $300 billion to $640 billion, making it one of the worst environmental disasters in the world and one of the largest environmental cleanups on the planet.

Or, to let others put it in stark terms, it's been called "the costliest environmental remediation project the world has ever seen and, arguably, the most contaminated place on the entire planet," according to journalist Joshua Frank in his book, Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America.

Moreover, the cleanup is projected to take decades.

Meanwhile, it's hard to get a straight answer about the toll of the Hanford toxic leaks. Yes, authorities are worried that the leaks pose a threat to fish and wildlife. Nearby Native American communities are concerned that the toxic leaks may be impacting salmon in the river. What's more, there have been reports of people experiencing high rates of cancer and thyroid disorders. In addition, there have been reports of high rates of leukemia found in children in nearby communities.

Granted, Hanford is just one example. But there are others. And the question is: Is this a risk worth taking for Wyoming?