[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "More Research Needed," Researchers Say
Hi Bob,
Deadlines have at least one irrefutable redeeming virtue: THINGS
END!!! (g)
Correct, mistaken, indifferent; YM is long over due ....
Cheers,
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
============================
BobCherry@AOL.COM wrote:
> When I researching for my doctorate and accumulating data hand over
> fist, my thesis adviser came in one day and said, "You have enough
> data, Bob. It is time to write it up." I think of that when I see
> articles like the following.
>
> bobcherry@aol.com
>
> Study Criticizes Yucca Assessment
>
> By H. JOSEF HEBERT
> .c The Associated Press
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - A decision on Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear
> waste dump should be postponed until more is known about its geology
> and how man-made barriers will perform over thousands of years, an
> independent study of the proposed site says.
>
> ``A project of this importance ... should not go forward until the
> relevant scientific issues have been thoughtfully addressed,'' two
> researchers argue in an article to be published Friday in Science
> magazine.
>
> The study maintains that politics has overtaken science as the Bush
> administration has approved the Nevada site for the storage of 77,000
> tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste without, they argue, a final
> decision on its design, nor certainty as to the long-term performance
> of the mountain or the devices being used to contain the waste.
>
> ``In the face of the scientific uncertainties about the site there is
> a surprising sense of urgency to move forward,'' wrote Rodney Ewing, a
> geologist at the University of Michigan, and Allison Macfarlane,
> director of the Yucca Mountain Project at the Massachusetts Institute
> of Technology.
>
> When President Bush announced in February he would go ahead with the
> waste site, he called the decision a ``culmination of two decades of
> intense scientific scrutiny.'' His energy secretary, Spencer Abraham,
> has said repeatedly he is convinced the science shows the waste can be
> stored at Yucca Mountain safely.
>
> Nevada, invoking a provision of a federal nuclear waste law, has
> blocked Bush's decision. But Congress will vote later this year on
> whether to override the Nevada objection.
>
> Both Ewing and Macfarlane in interviews described themselves as
> generally pro-nuclear and said they would support the Yucca Mountain
> site for waste storage if it is shown to be suitable scientifically
> for holding material that will remain highly radioactive for more than
> 10,000 years.
>
> But they wrote that under pressure from the nuclear industry, politics
> has become the primary driver of the decision and the science
> ``continues to be only a marginal consideration.''
>
> ``The present sense of urgency is driven not by an understanding of
> the properties of the Yucca Mountain site, but rather by larger scale
> policy decisions concerning nuclear power and national security,''
> they wrote.
>
> They maintained in the interviews that wastes for the short term could
> remain at reactor sites in 31 states without posing safety risks. Even
> if Yucca Mountain were opened, thousands of tons would still be at
> reactors awaiting shipment, noted Ewing.
>
> Today there is about 40,000 tons of used reactor fuel kept at
> commercial power plants in 31 states, with the amount growing by 2,000
> tons a year.
>
> Macfarlane, who along with Ewing, is editing a book of articles by
> scientists on various technical issues involving Yucca Mountain, said
> she decided to weigh in on the issue now because in the debate in
> Congress lawmakers appear that ``they don't care about the science.''
>
> ``Some of the important issues haven't been addressed,'' said Ewing, a
> member of the American Nuclear Society. The society, whose members are
> nuclear professionals, is on record supporting the Yucca Mountain
> site, concluding that its features will protect public health and
> safety.
>
> But Macfarlane and Ewing said that in the past eight months three
> government agencies have raised serious questions about the scientific
> review of Yucca Mountain. Among them were a nuclear waste advisory
> panel that concluded the technical basis for approving the site was
> ``weak to moderate'' and another advisory group that questioned the
> reliability of computer models in evaluating risks posed by the
> long-term waste storage at the Yucca site.
>
> ``The current understanding of the performance of the engineered
> barriers and the geological processes of the mountain falls far short
> of that required to make a substantive evaluation of the safety of the
> repository,'' they wrote in Science.
>
> ``With further study,'' they concluded, ``Yucca Mountain may be judged
> to be an adequate site for the disposal of nuclear waste (but) ... to
> move ahead without first addressing the outstanding scientific issues
> will only continue to marginalize the role of science.''
----------------------------------
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to
burn the flag. Charles M. Province
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/