Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

Ruth,
    You are correct when you state that, "The notion of mined geologic
disposal of spent nuclear fuel was not just some scam dreamed up by DOE".
Actually, it was a scam dreamed up by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). In
the late 1950's. when they "realized" that disposal of nuclear waste needed
a policy, they set up an NAS committee to review the problem and make
recommendations. That committee was composed almost entirely of geological
scientists. There were no oceanic scientists and, more interestingly, no
health physicists included.
    It was therefore preordained that nuclear waste disposal was to be a
geological problem and that remains the case to this day. As a consequence,
oceanic disposal, which IMHO, is the safest and least expensive method for
 disposal of hazardous materials has never received serious consideration by
 official  agencies.
    In addition, it was implicitly determined by this group of geologic
scientists that nuclear waste, due to its long half-life components,  posed
a
problem of unprecedented duration requiring the complete containment of
deadly radioactivity for time periods that human institutions were incapable
of assuring. From a scientific standpoint this precept is nonsense, but it
has
been reflected in regulations  and is so deeply imbedded in the public mind
that it is unlikely to be displaced by facts and logic.
    Anti-nukes are not the only groups responsible for the current mess we
are in. "Scientists" making judgements outside of their field of expertise
must also share the blame.   jjcohen@prodigy.net




-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace


>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 disposal 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




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