[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Anti-nuke clamor"
OK so we'd have done an EIS on Lyons or some other site, or on West Valley
expansion, or maybe no EIS at all. Maybe I'd be doing risk assessments on
transporting SNF to reprocessing plants instead of to a repository (that's
what I am doing). Maybe I'd have a job instead on the chemistry of
reprocessing.
To use an analogy: the Clean Air Act created a lot of employment opportunity
in dispersion modeling and hazards assessment, as well as regulation. It
took a certain amount of clamor to get the Act, and it may be that in recent
years some of the standards have gone too far, but the U. S. did need to
regulate and control industrial air pollution, and got that control. There
is work for dispersion modelers whether the particulate standards are PM10
or PM2.5 or just total particulates. Similarly, there is radioactive waste,
even HLW, from reprocessing spent fuel. I'm not even sure the volume per kW
of power produced is less. Hence there is still a need for disposal
planning, transportation planning, packaging, performance assessment, and
all the rest of it. If there is no underground storage, there is
above-ground storage, which also requires environmental assessment. Unless
NEPA and OSHA and the Atomic Energy Act are repealed (unlikely) there will
continue to be a need for environmental assessment (and by the way, even if
there were absolutely no thermal power generation of any sort, the
environmental impacts of other sources like direct solar conversion and
hydroelectric dams would need to be assessed.)
Personally, I'm kind of sorry I responded. The argument "the anti-nukes are
responsible for creating your job ... no they aren't ... yes they are ... no
they aren't ...yes they are ..." is hardly constructive or enlightening.
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:44 PM
Subject: "Anti-nuke clamor"
>Ruth,
> I hate to disagree, but I'm afraid your job has been completely
>dependent on "anti-nuke clamor". Were it not for the anti-nukes, this
>country would likely have been reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel at
places
>like Barnwell, West Valley, and Morris, IL for the last 30 years. We would
>have been emplacing the resultant nuclear waste in salt mines at Lyons, KS.
>The cost of electricity would be considerably lower, and we would have
never
>heard of Yucca Mountain,
> Were it not for the anti-nukes, the country might even have become
>totally rational, and we would be disposing of nuclear waste in the ocean.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:52 AM
>Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project
>
>
>>Just to set your mind at rest, Jim, although I am currently working on the
>>Yucca Mountain project, I never even thought that my job depended on
>>anti-nuke clamor. If the anti-nukes weren't there, we would still be
>>investigating the environmental impact of the Yucca Mountain repository
>>(because NEPA requires it, among other reasons), it would be the same job,
>>but would be a lot more pleasant and, I expect, would involve more effort
>on
>>science and less on "communicating with the public." I never meant to
>imply
>>that we shouldn't communicate, only that lack of communication or the
>>inability to do so is such a commonly used excuse for being anti-nuke that
>I
>>am tired of it and question its sincerity.
>>
>>and on another topic: could we please stop re-fighting World War II?
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>
>>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>>Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:42 AM
>>Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project
>>
>>
>>>Ruth,
>>>
>>>I agree with you about that part of the msg, but it is helpful the
>>>presentation acknowledges that there is a large internal conflict between
>>>those who promulgate the idea that all radiation is hazardous (ICRP and
>>>Greenpeace, to support political agendas and massive gov't funds for no
>>>possible health benefit), and those who have considered the scientific
>data
>>to
>>>see that there is NO support for the LNT, even where it must be seen if
it
>>>were true (except some that explicitly manipulate or misrepresent data).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html