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

Sellafield's loss, nuclear's gain -Reply

Reading the clip from the following article that Sandy posted...

>>> Quoting from Friday, January 15, 1999 Published at 12:04

Sellafield's loss, nuclear's gain....  

... As a senior nuclear industry official remarked to me recently: 
"Reprocessing makes no sense at all - unless you want to make 

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

What doesn't make sense is disposing (loose term) of fuel elements
with only 3% burn up -- which is the current practice in the U.S.  The
uranium mining companies love it, but instead of only having to
worry about fission product disposal, you've got to account for
actinide half-lives as well.

If the enviro's are in favor of recycling, but oppose reprocessing (i.e.,
nuclear fuel recycling)... me thinks they speak with forked tongue. 
When the US policy against reprocessing first arose, it stemmed
from a pipe-dreamed non-proliferation concern.  Now some 30 odd
nations have nuclear energy and reprocessing technologies -- most
surpassing US technology.
We need to wake up and smell the neutrons... nuclear fuel recycling
is the most responsible thing to do if you want to ensure national
energy cost stability.

Proposed Slogan:  Nuclear Power.... If you're into recycling and
worried about global warming... then you're gonna love this!

'Have a great day,
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html