[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Upcoming ABC "It's your money" segm



Sandy Perle wrote, correctly:
 
> Robin Siskels wrote:
> 
> > ABC will most likely emphasize that the government has spent billions of
> > dollars without producing either storage or permanent repository facilities
> > for nuclear wastes since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 initiated the
> > program.  
> 
> And this would be an accurate assessment. A prime example of where 
> politics and science do NOT mix! A sad commentary on government and 
> technology.

I'd only suggest that this true statement applies to *all* of DOE, EPA, and
NRC, in their specific programs and analyses and documents that misrepresent
the nature and technical analysis of the "risks", and includes our industry
representatives, like EPRI, who see this and use this only as a way of feeding 
at the gov't trough. (See, eg, Chris Whipple's dishonest article in Scientific 
American with a cover on 'is isolation for 10,000 years enough? with
"analyses" to 1 million years for potential "releases" from the repository,
ignoring the millions of times greater "releases" from natural radioactivity.
And EPRI knows LLR is not harmful. Yet Shelly Novick of the Sierra Club in his 
book "The Electric Wars" said, to the effect that: 'it's hard to see how high
level rad wastes are any more hazardous than other poisons produced by
industry, once their internal generation of heat is reduced, well within one
human lifetime". Perhaps we should take lessons in technical integrity from
the Sierra Club (at least Sheldon Novick :-)    The American Physical Society
study report (1977?) on the impossibility of wastes returning to the biosphere 
in a concentration significant to health stills applies, but thats not a good
way to con the public. 
    Of course, if they also realized that we must never dispose of the fuel
values in spent fuel to meet the sustainable energy needs of our grandchildren 
in a massively growing world, Yucca Mountain expenditures would be even more
ludicrous!? 

> ------------------
> Sandy Perle

Thanks, Sandy.

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