Talk:Savannah River Site

Contamination?
Isnt there some controvercy over this site? Does it need cleaning up or something?--x1987x 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a nuclear site, of course there's controversy (see Yucca Mountain). Independent observers can't exactly verify contamination, though... and since the site is already there, developed, and in a red state, who's really going to care? -- A l e x W C o v i n g t o n  (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It does need a decent amount of formatting work to make it easier to read. --AnthonyA7 04:36, 2 January 2006 (EST)

Clean-up or Wikifying
I spent about 3-4 hours yestereday cleaning up and Wikifying this article. But it still needs much more! I strongly question whether the time-line section needs to be so detailed and so lengthy ... especially the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, which have each turned into lengthy essays rather than a chronological timeline. Would anyone object if I severely trimmed those three years?? - mbeychok 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be better left intact. See LANL


 * Thanks for your extensive edits of Sept. 19, 2006. Please sign your name when commenting on a Talk page such as this.  All you have to do is put four tildes at the end of your comment, like this ~, and your comment will automatically be signed and dated. - mbeychok 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removing clean-up tag
After discussion with Wikipedia administrator Tom Harrison on his Talk page, I did an extensive cleanup, consolidation and shortening of the Timeline section. Although the cleanup I did is probably not perfect, I think it is more than enough to justify removing the cleanup tag on that section and I will do so. - mbeychok 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work. I tidied up the tenses. --Guinnog 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - mbeychok 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many square miles?
How large is this site? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WSRC
The acronym WSRC is mentioned 4 times in the article, but never defined. --205.254.147.8 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Answer: Westinghouse Savannah River Co. I added it to the article, with a reference. Desertroad (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
There should be some mention that the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility that is being built near Aiken, South Carolina is highly controversial, and highly expensive - costs could be as high as $30 billion before it is fully operational in 2040 [only $4.5 billion has been spent as of 2016. See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/politics/half-built-nuclear-fuel-plant-in-south-carolina-faces-test-on-its-future.html -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Really?
This needs to be seriously edited. I work at the site and this gives away to much info about what goes in there and what's stored there. People don't think before they do things. Sheesh 174.215.150.167 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither the non-operational status of the reactors nor the presence of the tritium facilities and its use are classified at all. Local news often carries articles about the Tritium facilities since so many of the area's engineers are employed on site, including myself. The page about tritium also mentions the Tritium Extraction Facility and its use in hydrogen bombs. I'll revert the edit removing those details because they're an important part of understanding what is and is not still active on site. KiraLiz1 &#124; she/her 18:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)