Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

I agree with MRS. But there's no seabed "problem". A treaty is just
another NIMBY "political obstacle", not substantially different than
Nevada, and changeable if/as the world becomes more informed about the
role of nuclear vs global warming, 10 billion population vs fossil
fuels, etc. etc., with some interest in "international waste disposal
solutions." 

Also note: seabed "black smokers" discharge billions of times more
radioactivity than all of our nuclear wastes. (Re "heat": hydrothermal
vents are 100s degrees, but at ocean background temp within 10 cm of the
vertical column - it's a big ocean, esp 2000-3000 m down :-) 

Of course, we could also establish for policy purposes that one coal
plant releases more radioactivity to the environment than all HLW over
all time, even by leaving it on the surface. When are WE going to stop
pretending that n-waste is a significant problem. WE are the problem. 

The real reason we don't have seabed disposal is that we/they can't make
$billions and have massive federal bureaucracies to "manage it". :-) 

If we told people the truth about radioactivity/radiation the public
would stop supporting $100s Billions in "rad protection" for cleanup and
control. Quite a scam. :-)

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

"J. Andrew Tompkins" wrote:
> 
> Jerry,
> Seabed disposal has two major problems.  There is already an international
> treaty in place that prevents seabed (Oceanic) disposal.  Secondly, people
> in general fear disposal paths that "appear" to give up positive control of
> hazardous material.  I agree seabed disposal did seem a very attractive
> alternative, however I don't believe that alternative is still available.
> Which bring us back to "We will still need a geologic repository"
> (depository), and the sooner the better.  Until we can overcome the
> political obstacles and get our geologic repository working, we do not have
> closure on the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.  The uncertainty in
> repository start up is probably the greatest barrier to building additional
> nuclear power plants.
> 
> Andy Tompkins
> Woodstock, GA
> 
> jatalbq@mindspring.com
> 
> At 06:23 PM 11/24/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >I can't agree that we will "need" geologic disposal. Actually, there is an
> >alternative nuclear waste disposal method that would be far more economic
> >and much more safe. That alternative is oceanic disposal [not subseabed
> >disposal, but simply-- solidify the waste, take it out over a deep ocean
> >trench (> 10 km depth), and  push it overboard]. Despite many attempts, we
> >could find no credible scientific scenario where this method could result
> >dire consequnses to either human health or to the environment. Perhaps
> >someone else could identify such a scenario. You are certainly welcome to
> >try, but it would likely be an excercise in futility. While oceanic disposal
> >may be the best technological solution, it is probably the least acceptible
> >politically.  Based on the history of nuclear waste policy to date,
> >scientific considerations are unimportant  and  politics is overriding.
> >Isn't that a shame?         jjcohen@prodigy.net
> >
> >
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html