Liam Dunn period 5 1-26-18Was Hanford worth the health and ecological risk? Hanford Washington is a small town that had a flood of workers come to it in 1943 to construct the Hanford Nuclear Complex. The Hanford Nuclear Complex was part of the Manhattan Project to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. While Hanford was a very important step in winning the war, was it worth the health and ecological risk? I don’t think Hanford was worth the risk, it ruined the wildlife habitat, it contaminated the surrounding areas and has contaminated its workers.One reason is that Hanford has ruined the habitat around it, from the US department of energy, “between 150 and 300 gallons of radioactive material might be seeping from an underground storage tank.” There are 177 tanks at Hanford full of waste, and some of them are single shelled. These tanks are not in good condition. According to Wikipedia ” Hanford is one of the most contaminated nuclear sites in the United States.” There is very little of the habitat left from before Hanford. Another reason is that Hanford has contaminated the areas around it, according to Wikipedia, “many early safety procedures were inadequate, and government documents have confirmed that Hanford operations released significant amounts of radioactive material into the air and the Columbia River.” There are radioactive elements in the air and in the Columbia river that could have spread many miles.The third reason is that the workers could be contaminated. King 5 news reported that radiation had spread out of the clean up area and into the parking lot, contaminating the cars. “eight had plutonium particles on them – four personal cars and four government vehicles.” They also said that two of the workers with contaminated cars drove them home, Spreading the radioactive materials. With 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge still at Hanford, seeping into the ground it will not leave soon. Those are the reasons why Hanford was not worth the health and ecological risk.