Re: Fw: Russian Waste Repository

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

You still need to dispose of the radwaste from reprocessing.  You still need 

to dispose of the radwaste from reprocessing.  You still need to dispose of 

the radwaste from  reprocessing.....


Many disposal "ideas" look good until they begin to be examined closely.  

Yucca Mountain "looked good" because it was in a desert, the repository would 

be above the aquifer, and the local volcanic activity was extremely old.  

That's why it was chosen to be characterized (no, it was not just some evil 

DOE whim).  However, when any site is characterized, and any "idea" 

investigated, essentially all that one finds out is what's wrong with it, not 

what's good about it.  The latter is why the site or "idea" was chosen for 

investigation in the first place.


Without making either a pro-Yucca Mountain or an anti-Yucca Mountain argument 

myself, I'd like to find out why all you RADSAFERs seem to be so opposed to 

the Yucca Mountain characterization.  Don't tell me it's the cost!  In terms 

of government waste, $8 billion in 20 years, or an average of $400 million 

per year, is right there with other government waste, and will probably turn 

out to be maybe $9 billion in 50 years and maybe $10 billion in 100 years.  

The cost would probably have been cut by about 1/3 were it not for 

government-funded anti-nuke opposition -- an unintended consequence of the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act.


Moreover, how do you define "waste?"  A lot of good research has been done on 

Yucca Mountain, a great deal of geologic knowledge has been gained, 

performance assessment was invented and refined for this project, we have 

learned a great deal about handling and transporting very radioactive 

materials safely, and we have learned a good deal about the behavior of the 

waste itself.  And a lot of other research I am unfamiliar with.


If you don't like Yucca Mountain, and don't like mined geologic disposal, 

write to your member of Congress to repeal the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

 If you want sub-seabed disposal, get Congress to pass a law reviving the 

project.  But I would suggest not using public opposition as a rationale.  

The so-called "public" -- actually the anti-nuke activist groups -- are going 

to come out in force no matter what you suggest.    




Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com