Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Sorry Ted, I don't agree with you because the anti nuclear people have raised
the red herring of "There's no place to put the waste," and then do everything
they can to prevent any nuclear waste disposal facility from ever being built or
operated (vis. Ward Valley).  They do that so they can continue to tell the
public that there is no safe place to put the waste.  The public remains afraid
of things nuclear largely because of that anti nuclear statement.  We can't
afford not to have new nuclear waste facilities and they can't afford to have
them.  So far, except for WIPP, they are winning. Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net

Ted Rockwell wrote:

> >. It would be good to get some letters congratulating
> the editor for getting it right.
>
> Otto:
>
> The writer's heart was in the right place, and that deserves kudos.  But I
> don't think we should buy the idea that it is dangerous to leave the waste
> right where it is--for decades, if necessary.  Or to make other, simple
> arrangements.  Even some leading anti-nukes (e.g. Cochran of the NRDC) have
> agreed that there is no safety issue here.  The utilities are correct that
> there are legal and financial problems, and they should be resolved.  But
> why leave our fate in the hands of DOE??
>
> I see no reason to get all that stuff on the road to Nevada, with protesters
> throwing themselves in front of the trucks, and the people carrying out the
> operation (DOE) having announced that they will kill many people by the
> trivial radiation doses to by-standers.  DOE and NRC are also saying that it
> is not clear that the Yucca Mtn specs can ever be met.
>
> Until we get that settled, we should not move a thing.  Moving the fuel
> while continuing to advocate LNT and limitless ALARA will cause chaos.
> Let's set a reasonable spec, and then decide what to do.  I see no reason to
> put it under ground--and lots of reasons not to.  We've set ourself an
> unattainable goal--and an unnecessary one.  We should set a reasonable spec,
> then develop a program to meet that spec.  It's a simple engineering
> problem.  If we can dispose of and store large quantities of poisons with
> infinite half-life, it should be no more difficult to handle small
> quantities of poisons that eventually die out.
>
> This is not a question of "what the public will buy."  We can't expect the
> public to feel good about radiation while we're pushing LNT and ALARA.
> We've got to straighten out our mess, before blaming it on the public.  We
> may have trouble getting the public to buy the new story, but I've always
> argued, "When all else fails, try the truth."
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

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