Re: US nuke regulators criticized for false safety methods

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

This is exactly what I and others predicted several years ago would happen.  A
basic anti nuclear tenet is:  get rid of nuclear power plants because there is
no place to put the waste.  When Yucca Mt.. was proposed, the antis simply
couldn't have that happen because their basic tenet would evaporate.  When
nuclear plants' spent fuel storage get constipated and the government won't
honor its agreement to take the spent fuel (notice I don't call it waste), and
fuel storage racks have been densified as much as they can, what is a plant to
do except store on site.  But, and this is the brilliance of the anti's
strategy, now the antis can go after each site individually and get it shut
down because of the supposed safety problems with the stored on site spent
fuel.  It isn't gall; it's their strategy to complain that the "presence of
the stored spent fuel increases the risk at the power plants."

That's why we must have Yucca Mt. and, before that, monitored retrievable
storage at Yucca Mt.  Hopefully the next President will eliminate some of the
bureaucratic obfuscation and delay for both of those projects.  And only one
of the candidates for President might do that.  Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net

Hank wrote:

> I find it interesting that the Union of Concerned Scientists  has opposed
> and helped to block fuel reprocessing in this country leading to the need
> for extensive onsite storage of spent fuel and DOE efforts to site a
> disposal facility for spent fuel to compound a problem they helped to
> create. Now they have the gall to complain that the presence of the stored
> spent fuel increases the risk at the power plants.
>

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