Re: Yucca Mountain articles

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Theodore S Bohn wrote:

> Have any studies ever been conducted on the leakage potential
> of the many underground nuclear tests conducted in the same
>  basic area?  Wouldn't these wastes also have the probability of
>  polluting future underground water supplies or are they considered
>  exempt?  This waste isn't even containerized.  Maybe we ought to
> be digging those tests holes up and sorting those atoms.

Right on.  If those who oppose the Yucca Mtn. site were rational, they
would say the same thing.  But, they are only attacking the burial
site.  Wonder why?  Perhaps some of us on radsafe should ask the DOE to
explain why it is not doing as you suggest (only slightly
tongue-in-cheek).  

About 20 years ago I suggested the use of the Nevada Test Site as a long
term burial site for high level waste exactly because of the existing
contaimiation from the nuclear explosive tests.  At that time the excuse
was that we didn't want to mix weapons with civilian nuclear
activities.  I guess that idea has long since gone away, at least for
this application.  

However, you are correct: there is a lot of radioactive material already
burried without any controls at NTS.  The addition of more, in
essentially the same kind of geological location only adds to what is
already there (although it adds a lot).  It is illogical to requre the
expenditure of billions to contain the additional material while doing
nothing about what is already there.  Logically one would either not
spend so much on the additions, or do something about what is already
there to make it as "safe" as what is being added.  Anyone want to bring
this up to Clinton or the DOE at this time?  Or is there something wrong
with my "logic."  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html