Re: Public hearings started Mar 11, AEC

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Jeremy Whitlock writes,

> On Sun, 17 Mar 1996 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote [on the cost of deep 
> geological disposal in Canada]:
> 
> > To justify it, it would be necessary to consider:  when the $13B is primarily
> > being spent in those 90 years; the generation/value of the electricity
> > associated; and the cost-increase/dose-reduction compared to leaving the fuel
> > in above-ground storage. (I don't mean that you should be responsible for the
> > numbers or their justification.) 
> 
> Don't forget long-term security.  Dose-reduction is probably comparable 
> to above-ground dry storage, under appropriate long-term monitoring and 
> maintenance -- and there's the rub.

Agreed. 

Though based on hazard analysis of the actual rad inventories and heat, in the 
70s we found and argued that, once heat is reduced (when depends on container
design), there is negligible risk just backfilling a site and walking away (in 
an area not useful), consistent with practices for disposing of low density,
low risk, toxic materials, if we just include the radioactivity inventory and
pathway analysis for materials, especially if comparing the "discharge" to
natural radioactivity. How much "security" do we pay for burying a lead pipe?
on a basis identical other "toxic wastes", esp if we compare waste form? 

A Sierra Club book, "Electric Wars" correctly pointed out that (paraphrasing
from memory) 'once the heat generation is reduced, nuclear wastes are no
different than other toxic wastes produced by our industries'. Maybe we could
get them to train our nuclear industry about hazard analysis!?  :-) 

Other than that "nuclear can afford it", why don't we at least start
TECHNICALLY with quantifying hazards on a fundamentally comparable basis - and 
NOT by the fallacious "hazard index" type processes that put orders of
magnitude differences on radioactive vs other physically equivalent
toxic/cancinogenic/mutagenic materials? and fail to consider waste forms, AND
health effects of the materials, AND their contribution to natural
radioactivity. (Like the US National Academy of Sciences report that the Pu
input to the site would be a small increase to natural alpha radioactivity if
poured in liquid form into the Colorado River, but then we accept/demand
ratcheting of site limits to the estimated lifetime inventory of Pu, in a site 
20 miles away with an equivalent "uphill" gradient to the river, from a water
table, that moves ?inches/year?, that would disperse any discharge by ?10^?,
that is ?100m? below the site, in which if the Pu were poured as a liquid, it
would go ?10sm? in how many centuries?, etc etc. But industry is making $$ at
this misrepresentation to the public; like being well-paid to dig your own
grave, and taking the job (of course our managements, measured in manhours &
$$/quarter, will continue to be "very successful", and have high level
corporate and government jobs, when the nuclear professionals are flipping
burgers! 

And this is BEFORE considering that radiation at <10s cSv acute, and 100s cSv
is clearly shown to have NO adverse public health consequences, with
substantial data indicating that background radiation is essential to life and 
increases at a few multiples of background are beneficial, and decrements from 
natural background are debilitating. 

Thanks, Jeremy,

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health