[ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Wed Dec 10 21:55:13 CST 2008

Dec. 10

         I prefer to have it done on a state by state basis so that the 
states can decide whether or not they want reactors within their 
boundaries.  If they don't, so be it.  They can pay for it by not using 
electricity from reactors that are sited in other states.

         Why is it impossible to deal with spent fuel?  Remove it from the 
reactor, put it in a cooling pond, and let it set for the requisite period 
of time.  What is difficult about that?  True, since I don't work in the 
field I'm probably missing quite a bit.  I know many cooling ponds are 
getting full, however the solution to that (of course) is re-processing.

Steven Dapra

At 05:12 PM 12/10/08 -0800, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
>I think this needs to be handled nationally, not on a state-by-state
>basis.  It also needs to be handled on a "real science" basis, not on
>the half-truths to out-right lies that the anti-nuke crowd uses (nor
>should stupid things like "electricity will be so cheap it won't be
>worth metering" from the pro side be allowed to stand).
>The first thing that needs to be established is that spent fuel is
>impossible to deal with.  Yes, it needs to be cooled for the first 5-10
>years, and it will be radioactive enough to require attention to detail
>for maybe 100 years or so.  But folks; it really is pretty robust stuff.
>It does not dissolve in water.  It gets less radioactive over time, to
>the point after a couple hundred years where it is a greater tripping
>hazard than radiological hazard.  The idea that it needs to be
>safeguarded for longer than recorded history is silly, and should not be
>allowed to stand.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:37 PM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
>At 11:23 AM 12/10/08 -0800, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
> >I look forward to the HUGE consternation in Nevada when the Feds say,
> >"Fine, you win" and cancel all programs, studies, grants, etc.,
> >connected with Yucca Mountain, other than what is needed to weld the
> >doors shut and bulldoze dirt in front of it.
>          And the consternation (and whatever may come along with it)
>will serve Nevada right.
>          Any state that has a nuclear power plant within its boundaries
>should store its own spent fuel, not shove it off onto another state.
>Congress should cancel Carter's brainless 'no-reprocessing' order and
>re-processing should proceed apace based on contracts between reactor
>owners and operators and the re-processing company (or companies).
>States with reactors should devise a method of refusing to sell power to
>non-nuclear states.  Let the no-nuke states burn coal or cat tails, or
>erect vast wind farms.  A dose of self-sufficiency would be good for
>Steven Daprs
>sjd at swcp.com

More information about the RadSafe mailing list