Re: GAO Report on Spent Nuclear Fuels

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>]

August 14, 2003



The terminology "spent nuclear fuel" is really misleading to Congress and

the general public. It sounds as if used fuel is expended and useless. In

fact, there is as much or more fissile material in used fuel rods as in new

fuel rods. Most U.S. used nuclear fuel could be re-used without processing

in a CANDU reactor. 



Anyway, the fact that used fuel should be reprocessed is not understood by

most, especially when it is called "spent nuclear fuel".



Can we change the terminology?



Otto 

**********************************************

Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP

Center for Health & the Environment

(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) 

University of California, Davis, CA 95616

E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu

Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140

***********************************************

************************************************************************

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/