[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CBC news: Nuclear waste on the Great Lakes
Thanks very
much for your answer Ruth !
-------------------------------------------------------
On the less
serious side -- just so we know what else might possibly be coming out of the US
Congress (Kucinich, Markey, etc.) and the media -- what other FEASIBLE
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES HAD TO BE CONSIDERED ? -- any chance we'll be seeing
horror stories about ballistic missiles delivering SNF to Yucca
Mountain ? ...how about Goodyear blimps ? ...covered wagons drawn by horses
perhaps ? ....pannier-equipped bicycles ?
Jaro
Here we have a wonderful
example of media distortion and fear-mongering
In a message dated 5/1/02
10:19:38 AM Mountain Daylight Time, frantaj@AECL.CA writes:
WASHINGTON - A proposal by the United States could see nuclear
waste carried across Lake Michigan by barge, a plan the Canadian government
does not seem to know about.
Under a new program likely to become law this
summer, nuclear waste from the U.S. will be stored in a cavern dug out of
Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
Hey, the "law" was enacted 20 years
ago!
I
t will be shipped by truck or rail, raising concerns from major
U.S. cities along the route who fear a collision or derailment could lead to a
leak.
But the U.S. Department of Energy also announced plans to ship
thousands of tons of nuclear waste from reactors on the shores of Lake
Michigan to transfer sites on nearby railroads.
No.
This is a (dare I say deliberate?) distortion of what is in the Yucca
Mountain EIS. Because ALL FEASIBLE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES HAD TO BE
CONSIDERED) barge transportation is included in Appendix J. The EIS says
(p J-75): "DOE has determined that while this [barge] scenario would be
feasible, it would not be practical. The number of shipping casks and rail
casks would be greater by a factor of 5 than for the mostly rail scenario and
the additional cost to the program would be more than $1 billion. In
addition, the truck-casks-on-railcars would lead to the hgighest estimates of
occupational health and poublic health and safety impacts, most coming from
rail-traffic-related facilities.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com