Fw: [ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo

[jjcohen]

----- Original Message -----
From: jjcohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>; George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo


> I certainly agree with your comments. When I proposed deep
> oceanic disposal of nuclear waste, I did not have spent fuel in
> mind. It is a shame that since Pres. Carter's unfortunate decision,
> nuclear waste and spent fuel have been considered synonymous.
> The only sensible policy would be to reprocess spent fuel,
> recover useful fissionable nuclides and  fission products,
> and then, dispose of the residual waste into the deep
> ocean trenches.
> Jerry Cohen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo
>
>
> >
> > For those of us who see expanding nuclear power as necessary
> > for the continuation of civilization into the distant future, there is a
> > powerful argument against seabed disposal of spent fuel: with
> > today's thermal reactors, 95+% of the energy in the original fuel
> > is still there
> >
> > Currently available fast-reactor technology can extract that energy.
> > To dump it into the ocean would be unconscionable.
> >
> > When we finally have a rational nuclear energy deployment, and
> > only the true waste -- the fission products -- has to be disposed
> > of, then let's put it on the ocean floor, where it belongs.
> >
> > For now, let's let the Greens carry the day on this one, and be
> > thankful that we have the Law of the Sea to protect us from ourselves.
> >
> >          George Stanford
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > At 08:25 AM 4/15/2005, James Salsman wrote:
> > Douglas Minnema wrote:
> >
> > >...  The United States along with most other nations signed the London
> > >Convention in October, 1993, banning until the year 2018 the disposal
of
> > >radioactive materials at sea....
> >
> > I think the National Academies' report of 6 April clearly suggests the
> > need to immediately abrogate from that agreement.
> >
> > We have withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 so we
> > can build a missile defense system which has, to put it mildly, failed
> > essentially all of its recent tests, not to mention being plagued with
> > cost overruns and accusations of test rigging misconduct.  Surely the
> > clear and present threat of nuclear waste dump ignition is enough to
> > get out of the London Convention.  Anyone can get a complete list of
> > all the nuclear waste disposal ponds from the Internet Archive.
> >
> > Are the responsible officials going to act on this immediately, or
> > will they leave those of us near the dump ponds as sitting ducks?
> >
> > Who will join me in a 10 CFR 2.206 petition to the NRC on this matter?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > James Salsman
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> > http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> > http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>