Re: A real solution

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

See comments and questions below.

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:

> Hi Cousin Jerry,
>
> This is a good question and one I've thought about alot.Looking backwards, we
> had no business as a country allowing this much nuclear waste to be produced
> without a plan to get rid of it.

That also is true of any toxic waste.  Therefore, should we shut down all coal fired
electrical generating plants because the toxic chemicals in coal ash are not
sequestered forever from the human environment lest humans be poisoned by them?
What about all other toxic chemicals that have no "permanent" disposal site(s)?  And
which do not have half lives, but live forever.  If we do not allow nuclear waste,
what is the rationale for allowing any other toxic waste?  If there is a rationale
allowing other toxic waste, why does it not apply to nuclear waste?

> The Federal Government certainly has a
> responsibility for not following through on a solution. Nuke power companies
> paid their money into the waste fund in good faith, and are now stuck with
> overflowing spent fuel pools.

And many American taxpayers still pay into the fund.

> Now, bearing in mind that I'm no scientist (as has been pointed out on this list
> and in private emails), here's my thoughts on waste. For now, I support the
> position of NIRS and Public Citizen that nuke waste stay where it is, and that
> we stop generating any more until we know what to do with it.

See my comment above.  By the way, would you please explain to me the logic that
says, we've got a lot now that we don't know how to handle so we must not generate
any more?  If what we have is already unacceptably hazardous, but has not caused any
harm, why is a little more a problem?  Or even a lot more?

> After all, Yucca
> Mountain, the storage place of choice, has many problems, including chances of
> volcanic eruptions over a 10,000 year period.

I would be much more worried about the effects of the volcano than any radioactive
waste that might be released.  Volcanos do release great quantities of radioactive
material normally.  What's a little more.  Would radsafers out there who know,
please repeat the quantitative amount of radioactive material estimated to have been
released by Mt. St. Hellens?  I've forgotten.

> That's where I'm at right now - just be polite in shredding these thoughts!

Was I polite enough?  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net


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