Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

As you yourself said, Mr. Rockwell, "When all else fails, try the truth."
So let's start with the truth about RAM transportation.  No other hazardous
material on the road is transported with as many PHYSICAL safeguards and
safety precautions as radioactive materials (read 10 CFR 71 or 49 CFR 178
for testing and other details).  The record of safe transportation of RAM
transported in Type B casks -- spent nuclear fuel and other very radioactive
stuff -- is unparallelled: 90 accidents in 30 years (about 5 since 1990) and
not a single release of radioactivity or cask damage or breach.  You can
consult either the DOT or DOE database of hazardous materials transportation
for confirmation of this claim.

The putative dangers of RAM transportation are a red herring dangled by the
anti-nukes and the state of Nevada.  The claims of the dangers have been
refuted repeatedly, and the refutation upheld in Federal court.

The notion of mined geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel was not just
some scam dreamed up by DOE to dump on the State of Nevada.  It was a plan
arrived at after considerable thought and analysis (viz. USGS Circular 779
and the 1980 GEIS on disoposal of commercially generated nuclear waste) and
was (surprise, surprise) initially supported by Sierra Club and other
environmental organizations -- until they saw political capital in opposing
it.

So please get your story straight.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace


>>. 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,
>



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