Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Provided courtesy of Jim Tripodes:

Published Monday, July 10, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News

EDITORIAL

The opinion of the Mercury News

Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

Problem is near critical mass, but California lacks the leadership to 
do anything about it  

RADIOACTIVITY is dangerous. Radioactivity is everywhere. 
Radioactivity is too hot an issue to even deal with. True, true and, 
sadly, also true.  

For years, the nation has been stymied in the development of disposal 
sites for radioactive waste. We want the benefits of the atom -- from 
electricity generation to miracle drugs and medical diagnostics -- 
but we can't agree on what to do with the leftovers.  

Individual states have responsibility for accommodating radioactive 
materials at the less-hazardous end of the spectrum. In California, a 
disposal site has been identified, exhaustively studied, approved and 
tested in court. But it's being held hostage by politics.  

Meanwhile, nuclear wastes are accumulating in laboratories, on 
campuses, in cities and power-plant sites. What to do?  

Last year, Gov. Gray Davis appointed a booby-trapped committee to 
study the problem. By naming both distinguished nuclear experts and 
steadfast nuclear opponents, he ensured that the group couldn't reach 
any conclusions.  

The advisory group on low-level radioactive waste disposal issued its 
final report (on the Web at www.llrw.org) last week. Predictably, 
it's mush.  

Instead of recommending action, the panel, chaired by University of 
California President Richard Atkinson, compiled a laundry list of 
scientifically sound proposals and untested notions. What a 
disappointing waste of time and money.  

Although charged with studying ``management and disposal'' of low-
level wastes, the panel didn't even consider disposal sites. Instead, 
several options it listed involve long-term storage.  

Those are premised on the notion that above-ground placement is safer 
than underground entombment. It's not scientifically accepted, nor 
permitted by federal law.  

The panel also suggested segregating waste by half-life, rather than 
by hazard. That idea was labeled silly in a vehement dissent by one 
scientific panel member. Nuclear wastes should be classified by the 
risk they pose, not by source.  

But nuclear power opponents promote the notion that power plant 
waste, which has a longer half-life, is inherently more dangerous 
than radioactive byproducts of the biotechnology industry, hospitals, 
research labs and government.  

In reality, the degree of radioactive hazard doesn't correspond with 
half-life. Potassium-40, present in minute amounts in the human body, 
has a half-life of 1.25 billion years. Humans also are host to bits 
of Carbon-14 (half-life: 5,730 years) and radium, thanks to the sun 
and radioactive deposits left over from the Earth's formation.  

It's the dose that makes the poison, not the half-life; low-level 
radioactive wastes carry that label because they pose relatively 
lower risk than do other radioactive wastes.  

The amount of low-level waste generated in California has drastically 
dropped in recent years, thanks in part to having no ready disposal 
site. Still, industry, government and academia in the state shipped 
30,148 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste for disposal in 
South Carolina and Utah last year. Two-thirds of that volume came 
from power plants. More radioactive waste is stored on site.  

But South Carolina and Utah are anxious to cease being the 
radioactive dumping ground for the rest of the country, which is 
understandable. Their gates are expected to close. Then what?  

California has found a disposal site in the southern desert, but 
politics has stymied the plan. The federal government has refused to 
transfer the Ward Valley land to the state, and the governor 
apparently is content with the stalemate. The site is opposed by too 
many Davis constituencies. Had he been interested in finding a 
scientifically sound solution, he would have pressed ahead in 
securing the land.  

Nuclear power opponents seek to block disposal plans for radioactive 
waste in order to increase pressure to close down power plants. There 
are legitimate concerns about nuclear power, but regulatory bodies 
exist to address them.  

Forcing the random storage of nuclear waste in California is to hold 
the state hostage in a campaign against nuclear power. It is callous 
and unfair, and dangerous. Nuclear waste doesn't belong in 
neighborhoods and workplaces. How much better to isolate it in arid, 
unpopulated land.  

A huge amount of money has been spent on studies, forums, litigation 
and delay. The pointless report by the governor's panel only 
strengthens the perception that low-level waste is an unsolvable 
problem. But it is unsolvable only because of the lack of leadership 
and political will needed to reach a solution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
Costa Mesa, CA 92626                                      

Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html