[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nuclear Waste Paradox
I wonder if all of the various issues could be metaphorically speaking put on
the table through a process of public dialogue. Thusly, an educated lay
population can think about trade-offs regarding cost, safety, distance, danger,
benefits and so forth. In this fashion trust building occurs as real risks are
revealed, as real benefits are considered, and as real costs are considered.
Given the $200-600 billion dollars slated for clean up the average thinking
citizens might think twice about what that will buy versus very expensive
solutions now planned for weapons sites. If I had a meaningful choice between
making Hanford pristine or having new schools in urban centers, new roads,
bridges, affordable housing, and affordable health care...hmmmm.
For this to work there needs to be a shared vocabulary, a range of reasonable
risks to the various types of exposure. At least in Mass. there is the
beginning of a dialogue about what is a meaningful use of KI. It is a start.
Jerry Cohen wrote:
> Bill,
> I am aware of the type of situation you describe ( I was involved in
> the Farrallon Island dumpsite flap in the early '80's), and agree with you
> that oceanic disposal of radwaste would be untenable . The point I tried to
> make is that we have an apparent paradox here in that what is most likely
> the safest and most economic method for waste disposal is also the least
> acceptable politically. Given that this is the case, I wonder why the
> government has squandered multi-megabucks on scientific & technological
> research on radwaste management methods when the results of such research
> has little or no impact on the decision process.
> jjcohen@prodigy.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wright, Bill <aqbvw@techmail.admin.ttu.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:00 AM
> Subject: RE: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?
>
> >There is no way the anti-nucs or environmentalists will let you deep six
> >anything radioactive. In middle 1980's the US Navy wanted to deep six
> >several de-commissioned nuclear missile submarines in a trench in Pacific
> >(approx 3 miles deep). All those environ. & anti-nucs howled & forced the
> >Navy to return each submarine to dry dock & cut out the Reactor Compartment
> >& barge same to Hanford & bury them. No spent fuel involved here just
> >radioactive components. So Forget about the Ocean.
> >PS I was a Nuclear Ship Superintendent at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in
> >Bremerton Washington during this timeframe. I cut up the Robert E. Lee,
> >Thomas Edison, & Ethan Allen
> >
> >Bill Wright
> >Radiation Safety Officer
> >Texas Tech University
> >Lubbock, Texas
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 6:25 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political
> >solution)?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Andrew Tompkins <jatalbq@mindspring.com>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> ><radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political
> >solution)?
> >
> >
> > >Mark,
> > >
> > >I always advocated calling it the Yucca Mtn. "Piggy Bank"
> >or "Depository".
> > >It is technically far easier to reprocess 20 year old spent
> >fuel than 1
> > >year cooled material. The option of removing it from
> >storage and
> > >reprocessing it is great if you are worried about future
> >energy supplies.
> > >You still ultimately need geologic disposal for spent fuel
> >and vitrified
> > >glass logs.
> > >
> > >Andy Tompkins
> > >Woodstock, GA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >>************************************************************************
> > >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
> >************************************************************************
> >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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html