I think a lot of people formed their opinions about nuclear power based on either bad 50's/60's sci-fi (if we use nuclear power giant ants or Godzilla will be created and attack us) or based on what they see on The Simpson's (if I set foot in a nuclear plant when I come home I will glow in the dark).
I think you're spot on. By the way, do I detect a reference to "Them!", one my favorite silly sci-fi films, in your post above?
The near-abandonment of nuclear power was one of the stupidest things this country did in the 20th Century. Nuclear power is certainly not without its problems, but the enemies of it did nothing but ensure another 100 years of utilizing technologies with far greater problems. Our continued use of coal and oil are in large part the result of the efforts of foes of nuclear power. The ultimate irony is that the evidence people offer against nuclear power looks quite silly when compared to the realities of the devestation of coal, oil and even the beloved "renewables".
The point you're glossing over is about having our politicians vested in one kind of power, especially one that is known to have many problems with pollution and health side effects. We can't rely on nuclear power forever and should be seeking aggressively renewable alternatives. But like the oilmen cronies of Bush, we can't trust our politicians to be square with us and put what's in our best interests first if they are being bought by the nuclear industry and mold their policy to better suit the needs of the nuclear power industry over the needs of the people. We've seen this happen time and time again. They keep on pushing fossil fuels, coal, nuclear as the only way until we are in a huge mess and have to work 10 times as hard to get out of it. We will be the ones dealing with the problems after they've squeezed every last dime they could out of selling the nuclear industry to us as the best, most safe and efficient way and they will continue to neglect newer more sustainable pursuits until their backs are against the wall. It's a huge problem
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The point you're glossing over is about having our politicians vested in one kind of power, especially one that is known to have many problems with pollution and health side effects.
This is a bizarre statement since it was politicians that did much to stand in the way of nuclear power over the past 40 years. Are politicians only "vested in one kind of power" when they're disagreeing with you?
Politicians are currently vested in many energy sources. Oil, biofuels, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, hydro...the list goes on and on and a politician's vested interest is rarely logical or technical, at least in terms of actual energy challenges. If anything, the nuclear industry has been the least successful in attracting political support.
We can't rely on nuclear power forever and should be seeking aggressively renewable alternatives.
Who is "we"? You should be seeking whatever you think think is best! Since when are these things mutually exclusive? I think both avenues should be available to those who wish to produce and consume power.
The fact of the matter is that "renawable alternatives" are not in any position to satisfy the world's thirst for energy. That does not mean they shouldn't be persued and that they shouldn't be persued aggressively by those who wish to invoke them. However, nuclear energy has been in a very good position to power this world more cleanly and more cheaply than our current methods for 2 generations now.
But like the oilmen cronies of Bush, we can't trust our politicians to be square with us and put what's in our best interests first if they are being bought by the nuclear industry and mold their policy to better suit the needs of the nuclear power industry over the needs of the people.
Who are "the people"? Is the "nuclear industry" not "the people"? Were those who lobbied, bought and traded politicians over the years in the fight against nuclear power "the people"? Are the vast majority of people in this country who now believe that nuclear power should be utilized "the people"? Or are "the people" and "the needs" whatever you happen to determine to be correct or incorrect at any given point in time?
We've seen this happen time and time again. They keep on pushing fossil fuels, coal, nuclear as the only way until we are in a huge mess and have to work 10 times as hard to get out of it.
Absolutely! Don't forget biofuels and ethanol, too! Ever wonder why they do this and why the results are often times so disastrous?
We will be the ones dealing with the problems after they've squeezed every last dime they could out of selling the nuclear industry to us as the best, most safe and efficient way and they will continue to neglect newer more sustainable pursuits until their backs are against the wall. It's a huge problem
Then why not simply tell them to get out of the way and let "the people", in its true meaning, decide the best route for themselves??? I'm all for ending the days of nuclear lobbying and political horsetrading. The fact of the matter, abook, is that if you got the politicians out of the way, there would be a new nuclear power plant going up somewhere in this country every few months, very much at the behest of consumers who are seeking greater access to cheaper energy.
This is a bizarre statement since it was politicians that did much to stand in the way of nuclear power over the past 40 years. Are politicians only "vested in one kind of power" when they're disagreeing with you?
Yes, much like you, I tend to focus on the things I disagree with and support the things I do agree with.
So why have the politicians stood in the way of nuclear power for so long? Have anything to do with the pollution, health effects or that we have no real solutions for disposal? But now it's being sold as a proper response to global warming and everyone eats that up so the politcians have their 'in'.
Politicians are currently vested in many energy sources. Oil, biofuels, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, hydro...the list goes on and on and a politician's vested interest is rarely logical or technical, at least in terms of actual energy challenges. If anything, the nuclear industry has been the least successful in attracting political support.
I never said any different. Obama is heavily funded by the nuclear power industry which makes me feel he will direct his policy based on their support and has already been accused of as much.
Again, if nuclear power is so super fantastic then why have they been so unsuccessful at attracting this political support?
Who is "we"? You should be seeking whatever you think think is best! Since when are these things mutually exclusive? I think both avenues should be available to those who wish to produce and consume power.
Here I mean people who have traditionally spoken out against nuclear power (liberals) but now think it's a-okay because their selected candidate is funded by the industry. Don't you see that as a bit backwards? Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent us and not us take on whatever they think? Politicians have been wonderful at selling shitty ideas to the people. i was hoping that trend would start changing at some point.
The fact of the matter is that "renawable alternatives" are not in any position to satisfy the world's thirst for energy. That does not mean they shouldn't be persued and that they shouldn't be persued aggressively by those who wish to invoke them. However, nuclear energy has been in a very good position to power this world more cleanly and more cheaply than our current methods for 2 generations now.
Renewable energy hasn't been pursued as aggressively as it could be, not even close. Instead Washington keeps making money off band aid type solutions that can not last, stalling as long as they can to make a buck and call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the most effective or efficient way to run a country.
Who are "the people"? Is the "nuclear industry" not "the people"? Were those who lobbied, bought and traded politicians over the years in the fight against nuclear power "the people"? Are the vast majority of people in this country who now believe that nuclear power should be utilized "the people"? Or are "the people" and "the needs" whatever you happen to determine to be correct or incorrect at any given point in time?
They, the nuclear power industry, are indeed people...they are people with money, power and an agenda to make more of it....and they do not have the best interests of those without money and power in mind when they
buy off these guys and dictate policy. If you can't see how it's a conflict of interest and how corruption has caused so many problems in our governments where the majority of the people's needs and interests are passed over in the
name of more profits then I really don't know what to say here.
Then why not simply tell them to get out of the way and let "the people", in its true meaning, decide the best route for themselves??? I'm all for ending the days of nuclear lobbying and political horsetrading. The fact of the matter, abook, is that if you got the politicians out of the way, there would be a new nuclear power plant going up somewhere in this country every few months, very much at the behest of consumers who are seeking greater access to cheaper energy.
The average person isn't informed enough to decide the best route, unfortunately. That's why we need government to protect the people for various reasons but it needs to be non conflicted reasons based on what we know to be the facts thus far without corporate bias.
It's just like you wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing your brain surgery. He doesn't know what he should know to make the kind of decisions needed to perform surgery.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, much like you, I tend to focus on the things I disagree with and support the things I do agree with.
Unlike me, however, you invoke certain principles and means when they're used for things you like and then reject them when they're used for things you oppose.
So why have the politicians stood in the way of nuclear power for so long? Have anything to do with the pollution, health effects or that we have no real solutions for disposal? But now it's being sold as a proper response to global warming and everyone eats that up so the politcians have their 'in'.
Very much so, yes! But not really in the way you mean. Politicians have stood in the way of nuclear power because of the fear of pollution and health effects. See, they believed pollution from nuclear power to be bad and negative health effects from nuclear power to be bad because people were afraid of those things vis a vis nuclear power. Yet, at the same time, they didn't care about the much greater pollution and much greater negative health effects from their chosen subsidized targets (oil, coal, etc). In other words, they invoked certain principles and means for things they liked and then rejected them when used for things they opposed. Pollution and health effects made nuclear power untenable. Those same things, however, were perfectly acceptable when it comes to oil or coal. The same bullshit is now happening with the renewables.
I never said any different. Obama is heavily funded by the nuclear power industry which makes me feel he will direct his policy based on their support and has already been accused of as much.
Yet the irony here is that you seem to be stating that Washington should be dictating "our" energy agenda.
Again, if nuclear power is so super fantastic then why have they been so unsuccessful at attracting this political support?
Because people were terribly afraid of nuclear power, of course. Nevermind the actual data, they said "not in my backyard".
Here I mean people who have traditionally spoken out against nuclear power (liberals) but now think it's a-okay because their selected candidate is funded by the industry. Don't you see that as a bit backwards?
Hehe...no. It's certainly hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect anything more from partisan liberals or partisan conservatives. Regardless, their earlier positions against nuclear power were just as stupid as their current position on nuclear power, so what's the difference?
Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent us and not us take on whatever they think? Politicians have been wonderful at selling shitty ideas to the people. i was hoping that trend would start changing at some point.
See, here's the thing abook -- politicians aren't just selling the ideas. Politicians are typically idea consumers as often as they are idea producers. And their primary source of ideas is either one of two things that are actually largely the same thing: the people or special interests.
Politicians sell ideas in the same way Bob Dole sells Viagra. Bob Dole isn't making Viagra, he's simply telling people what they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is.
Renewable energy hasn't been pursued as aggressively as it could be, not even close.
You could have certainly held a gun to everyone's head 5 years ago and forced them to use ethanol (something Hillary Clinton still wants to do). That would have been very aggressive and very stupid.
Instead Washington keeps making money off band aid type solutions that can not last, stalling as long as they can to make a buck and call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the most effective or efficient way to run a country.
Absolutely! Now stop looking for them to solve the problems.
They, the nuclear power industry, are indeed people...they are people with money, power and an agenda to make more of it....and they do not have the best interests of those without money and power in mind when they
buy off these guys and dictate policy. If you can't see how it's a conflict of interest and how corruption has caused so many problems in our governments where the majority of the people's needs and interests are passed over in the
name of more profits then I really don't know what to say here.
You certainly don't have to lecture me on corruption and conflicts of interest in government. I'm the first to warn people how those things will always come when you can replace value with force. I'm not justifying nuclear lobbying or political support of nuclear power. All I'm asking is that the fools in Washington and the fools on the street simply get out of the way of those who wish to construct nuclear power plants and those who want to consume nuclear power.
Profit
It's deeper than liberal mantra of profit, abook. It's profit without value. That's what Exxon gets with every government subsidy. That's what "the people" of Iowa are getting for every ear of corn mandated into a gallon of gasolene.
The average person isn't informed enough to decide the best route, unfortunately.
Hehe...really? Who gets to decide what "the average person is informed enough to decide"? You? Me? Ralph Nader? George Bush? Personally, I'll always take the risk of one fool deciding for themselves over one fool deciding for everyone.
That's why we need government to protect the people for various reasons but it needs to be non conflicted reasons based on what we know to be the facts thus far without corporate bias.
Sigh...."without bias" or "without corporate bias"?
It's just like you wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing your brain surgery. He doesn't know what he should know to make the kind of decisions needed to perform surgery.
I certainly wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing my brain surgery. Thankfully, I'm able to choose my brain surgeon.
According to the WHO (world health organization), air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone. Electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US. HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but such a thing does not exist. I think the whole idea of probability and risk management just isn't understood (or maybe just not accepted) by the general public. Not every risk is worth doing something about. And this is one of the reasons for the lack of public support of nuclear power.
The risks for nuclear power are too low to be considered worth ditching altogether, especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year. There have been NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detrimental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.
Clearly there needs to be an alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels. But there are also significant technical, envirnomental and economic issues involved. Switching to nuclear is not so simple and straightforward.
I have concerns with the disposal of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear energy does not address the current transportation infrastructure which is based on personal mobility, vis-a-vis automobiles, buses, trucks and aircraft. A large proportion of oil-based fuel is used in transportation.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Unlike me, however, you invoke certain principles and means when they're used for things you like and then reject them when they're used for things you oppose.
What's that? Faith in democracy and a more efficiently functioning government? I don't think money should be allowed to buy the governments positions on issues....I feel I have been pretty consistent about that.
Very much so, yes! But not really in the way you mean. Politicians have stood in the way of nuclear power because of the fear of pollution and health effects. See, they believed pollution from nuclear power to be bad and negative health effects from nuclear power to be bad because people were afraid of those things vis a vis nuclear power. Yet, at the same time, they didn't care about the much greater pollution and much greater negative health effects from their chosen subsidized targets (oil, coal, etc). In other words, they invoked certain principles and means for things they liked and then rejected them when used for things they opposed. Pollution and health effects made nuclear power untenable. Those same things, however, were perfectly acceptable when it comes to oil or coal. The same bullshit is now happening with the renewables.
So you view all this 'fear' of nuclear power to be without merit, then? I'm not saying that we should do away with nuclear power in the place of coal. Not once have I said that. I'm saying that to be truly interested in focusing on renewables and finding alternatives, we shouldn't allow our politicians to be bought and show bias towards this industry...especially when it's not a long term solution. Not to mention the fact that an industry with the this kind of pollution and carelessness on its record needs to be regulated not allowed to do as it pleases because we all pay when that happens. I'm not saying anything about pollution from coal or what have you is perfectly okay. Where have I said that? Other energy industries should also be regulated and scrutinized for corruption, of course.
Yet the irony here is that you seem to be stating that Washington should be dictating "our" energy agenda.
We need regulation laws and those laws should come from well informed officials without bias due to money. We need to start finding and implementing
alternatives and not have that process stalled by special interests. What's your proposal? To let the consumers dictate it? They always make the best decisions, don't they? And their decisions that have lasting effects on us all...what about those? Wouldn't you just love my freedom to pollute the air and water right beside your home if I was your neighbor? How about everyone
just start doing exactly what they want to....there will be no problems with that...
Because people were terribly afraid of nuclear power, of course. Nevermind the actual data, they said "not in my backyard".
I posted enough info to make me think twice about wanting it next door me. I suppose you'd be alright with living beside a nuclear plant? I think there is good reason to be concerned about nuclear power.
Hehe...no. It's certainly hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect anything more from partisan liberals or partisan conservatives. Regardless, their earlier positions against nuclear power were just as stupid as their current position on nuclear power, so what's the difference?
Well the point of the thread was to address the change some seem to have taken with their stance on nuclear power since their candidates have been proven to cater to the industry.
See, here's the thing abook -- politicians aren't just selling the ideas. Politicians are typically idea consumers as often as they are idea producers. And their primary source of ideas is either one of two things that are actually largely the same thing: the people or special interests.
Politicians sell ideas in the same way Bob Dole sells Viagra. Bob Dole isn't making Viagra, he's simply telling people what they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is.
Yes, I'm aware they are only selling what they are told to to keep the money rolling in their way. I didn't say it was their idea originally.
You could have certainly held a gun to everyone's head 5 years ago and forced them to use ethanol (something Hillary Clinton still wants to do). That would have been very aggressive and very stupid.
Yes, lets cut out the 'stupid' part and focus on the facts of the situation without the money doing the talking for us. If something's not working then I don't see why we should keep pushing it and banking on it instead of focusing our resources towards more sustainable solutions.
Absolutely! Now stop looking for them to solve the problems.
Stop holding them accountable? Stop expecting them to do their job? Stop expecting them to do what is best regardless of money. Now I'm aware we all have a different idea of what is 'best' but ignoring problems to make more money and maintain power is keeping us a long way from having real discourse and national debate in this country about what is really best based on the information out there. And the citizenry, in large, is just going along with what's being told to them.
You certainly don't have to lecture me on corruption and conflicts of interest in government. I'm the first to warn people how those things will always come when you can replace value with force. I'm not justifying nuclear lobbying or political support of nuclear power. All I'm asking is that the fools in Washington and the fools on the street simply get out of the way of those who wish to construct nuclear power plants and those who want to consume nuclear power.
Well I disagree with your anti-government opinions. Corporations unchecked can have just as much power and force their will on the rest of us via the power of money as the government you disdain. They can create monopolies and leave people with no choice. I don't think we can allow either to do whatever they wish...especially when their wishes affect is all and they don't seem to mind it.
It's deeper than liberal mantra of profit, abook. It's profit without value. That's what Exxon gets with every government subsidy. That's what "the people" of Iowa are getting for every ear of corn mandated into a gallon of gasolene.
Hehe...really? Who gets to decide what "the average person is informed enough to decide"? You? Me? Ralph Nader? George Bush? Personally, I'll always take the risk of one fool deciding for themselves over one fool deciding for everyone.
That's why we play an active role in civics and pay attention to what's going on, stay informed. A Democratic government can't function properly without the people keeping them in check.
According to the WHO (world health organization), air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone. Electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US. HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but such a thing does not exist. I think the whole idea of probability and risk management just isn't understood (or maybe just not accepted) by the general public. Not every risk is worth doing something about. And this is one of the reasons for the lack of public support of nuclear power.
The risks for nuclear power are too low to be considered worth ditching altogether, especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year. There have been NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detrimental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.
Clearly there needs to be an alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels. But there are also significant technical, envirnomental and economic issues involved. Switching to nuclear is not so simple and straightforward.
I have concerns with the disposal of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear energy does not address the current transportation infrastructure which is based on personal mobility, vis-a-vis automobiles, buses, trucks and aircraft. A large proportion of oil-based fuel is used in transportation.
This thread in no way is saying coal is the better way or the answer. I'm saying that we can't allow our politicians to bank on the nuclear industry for our future energy while stalling on alternatives the way with have done in the past with coal, fossil fuels, etc. And it should grab our attention when politicians are taking money and molding their policy to better fit the agenda of said industry. Because then we can not trust them to make their decisions without bias when their aim of maintaining power and receiving cash in always going to be there. These things have to start concerning us and we need to let them know we are paying attention.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What's that? Faith in democracy and a more efficiently functioning government? I don't think money should be allowed to buy the governments positions on issues....I feel I have been pretty consistent about that.
Ok, let's test that. The "renewable" energy movement, just like coal, power, and nuclear, has contributed millions of dollars to politicians in an attempt, sometimes successful and sometimes not, to "buy the governments positions on issues". Do you condemn that? Do you condemn politicians like Tom Daschle who have pushed so-called "renewable energy" as a better solution when in fact all he's doing is giving in to farmer's special interests?
So you view all this 'fear' of nuclear power to be without merit, then?
Largely, yes. Certainly nuclear power carries with it risks, but historical data shows those risks have been greatly overstated.
I'm not saying that we should do away with nuclear power in the place of coal. Not once have I said that. I'm saying that to be truly interested in focusing on renewables and finding alternatives, we shouldn't allow our politicians to be bought and show bias towards this industry...especially when it's not a long term solution.
I agree with both these points. I recognize that you're not saying that coal is a better solution, but unfortunately those are the kinds of technologies you're going to get, just like those who held similar positions to yours over the past 50 years.
Not to mention the fact that an industry with the this kind of pollution and carelessness on its record needs to be regulated not allowed to do as it pleases because we all pay when that happens. I'm not saying anything about pollution from coal or what have you is perfectly okay. Where have I said that? Other energy industries should also be regulated and scrutinized for corruption, of course. We need regulation laws and those laws should come from well informed officials without bias due to money. We need to start finding and implementing alternatives and not have that process stalled by special interests.
By whom? The very bodies you said are corrupt and bought? I absolutely agree that the nuclear industry should be regulated and scrutinized. It should be regulated and scrutinized by consumers.
What's your proposal? To let the consumers dictate it? They always make the best decisions, don't they? And their decisions that have lasting effects on us all...what about those? Wouldn't you just love my freedom to pollute the air and water right beside your home if I was your neighbor? How about everyone just start doing exactly what they want to....there will be no problems with that...
There's no such thing as a "freedom to pollute" without a corollary "freedom to aggress". I'm not suggesting that the nuclear industry should be "free to pollute". They shouldn't be. If you wish to use the force of government to hold nuclear polluters accountable, I will feel no sympathy to them. I will, however, feel sympathy towards those you deem to be polluters before they introduce any amount of pollution upon any population. Furthermore, I will feel little more than pity towards those who ensure greater pollution, greater harm, and greater cost in their fight.
I posted enough info to make me think twice about wanting it next door me. I suppose you'd be alright with living beside a nuclear plant? I think there is good reason to be concerned about nuclear power.
I'd have no problem living near a nuclear power plant. I'm already living within 50 miles of one.
Well the point of the thread was to address the change some seem to have taken with their stance on nuclear power since their candidates have been proven to cater to the industry.
The reason most of the candidates have changed their stance is because of the foolish hysteria around global warming and carbon emissions, abook, not just because of "the industry". The nuclear industry has been funding and courting politicians for decades.
Yes, lets cut out the 'stupid' part and focus on the facts of the situation without the money doing the talking for us. If something's not working then I don't see why we should keep pushing it and banking on it instead of focusing our resources towards more sustainable solutions.
I think it's silly to say that nuclear power "isn't working". There are dozens of plants in this country and hundreds around the world that work exceptionally well.
Stop holding them accountable?
No, understand that the system you're pushing makes them unaccountable.
Stop expecting them to do their job?
No, understand that they are doing their job, and that's the problem.
Well I disagree with your anti-government opinions. Corporations unchecked can have just as much power and force their will on the rest of us via the power of money as the government you disdain.
Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established structures of power and force we have today.
They can create monopolies and leave people with no choice.
Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established primary monopoly we have today.
I don't think we can allow either to do whatever they wish...especially when their wishes affect is all and they don't seem to mind it.
I'm not suggesting we allow anyone to do "whatever they wish". I'm simply suggesting we not proclaim people to be criminals before they've committed a crime.
That's why we play an active role in civics and pay attention to what's going on, stay informed. A Democratic government can't function properly without the people keeping them in check.
Hehe...but that's exactly what's happening. "The People" don't like carbon emissions abook. And they've gotten over their fear of nuclear power. "The People" are demanding solutions from those least qualified to provide them. And they're likely to get exactly what they're asking for.
Your *sighs* reek of pretension. Without any bias is fine with me.
Excellent!
As long as you have access to the best choices. Nevermind what effects your choices could have on the rest of us.
This position would have some merit if you weren't doing the same. Obviously you do not mind one person's choice affecting everyone.
This thread in no way is saying coal is the better way or the answer. I'm saying that we can't allow our politicians to bank on the nuclear industry for our future energy while stalling on alternatives the way with have done in the past with coal, fossil fuels, etc. And it should grab our attention when politicians are taking money and molding their policy to better fit the agenda of said industry. Because then we can not trust them to make their decisions without bias when their aim of maintaining power and receiving cash in always going to be there. These things have to start concerning us and we need to let them know we are paying attention.
While we need to explore many types of energy, Nuclear should be our main source. We have plenty of nuclear fuel sitting in the spent fuel pools and dry casks of every nuclear site. Jimmy Carter banned spent fuel reprocessing, so all that energy sits there. Breeder reactor technology actually creates more fuel than it uses, but is useless if we can't reprocess.
Which leads to long term storage of the spent fuel. If we could reprocess, there would be much less to store. Secondly, Yucca Mountain is the answer!!! Seismically stable, low water table, isolated, government owned land! Engineered to be safe for 10,000 years! But the NIMBY folks are holding it up. Democrats are out there playing on people's fear of what they don't understand. Instead they should be educating people on the subject.
I work in the nuclear industry, and have multiple degrees in the subject. farfromglorified seems to know what they are talking about. I haven't read everything he/she has posted, but what I have read looks spot on.
While we need to explore many types of energy, Nuclear should be our main source. We have plenty of nuclear fuel sitting in the spent fuel pools and dry casks of every nuclear site. Jimmy Carter banned spent fuel reprocessing, so all that energy sits there. Breeder reactor technology actually creates more fuel than it uses, but is useless if we can't reprocess.
Which leads to long term storage of the spent fuel. If we could reprocess, there would be much less to store. Secondly, Yucca Mountain is the answer!!! Seismically stable, low water table, isolated, government owned land! Engineered to be safe for 10,000 years! But the NIMBY folks are holding it up. Democrats are out there playing on people's fear of what they don't understand. Instead they should be educating people on the subject.
I work in the nuclear industry, and have multiple degrees in the subject. farfromglorified seems to know what they are talking about. I haven't read everything he/she has posted, but what I have read looks spot on.
In 1996, DOE found radioactive chlorine-36 at surprisingly elevated levels at the same depth within Yucca at which the waste would be buried. How did it get there? Atomic weapons testing in the South Pacific, which radioactively activated chlorine in seawater. This entered the atmosphere, blew with the wind, then fell as rain onto Yucca. In less than 50 years, that rainwater was able to percolate down through fissures and fractures caused by earthquakes at Yucca to the proposed repository rock. Such water infiltration could quickly corrode waste burial containers, releasing radiation into the underground drinking water supply in just centuries. In 1998, over 200 environmental organizations petitioned DOE to abide by its own guidelines and disqualify Yucca from further consideration. DOE ignored the petition for three years, then simply did away with the regulation that formed the basis for the petition.
DOE has admitted to the presidentially-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) that Yucca’s geology would contribute only 0.008% of the radiation isolation at the repository. 99.7% would come from artificially engineered barriers such as the burial containers. The proposal had become simply engineered waste packages that happen to be located 1,000 feet underground. The concept of deep geologic disposal has been abandoned at Yucca.
Changing the rules in the middle of the game: weakening environmental protection standards when Yucca fails to meet the original ones
In 1984, DOE established repository site suitability guidelines that would disqualify potential repository sites at which water could pass through the geology and back out into the living environment in less than 1,000 years. The Cl-36 data mentioned above revealed in mere decades or centuries, water flow through Yucca could re-enter the environment. In mid-December 2001, less than a month before DOE officially announced that Yucca was “suitable,” DOE simply removed the groundwater flow time disqualifying condition from its regulations.
In the mid-1980’s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established generic regulations for repositories. Just several years later, DOE’s studies clearly showed that Yucca could not live up to EPA’s limits for the releases of harmful radioactive gases such as carbon-14. Under pressure from the nuclear power industry and its allies in government, in 1992 Congress yet again amended the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This time, EPA was ordered to write “site-specific regulations” that would apply only at Yucca but not other proposed repositories. Thus was the problem of gaseous releases taken care of!
Due to intense political pressure from all sides, EPA took nearly ten more years before publishing its Yucca-specific regulations. Its rules were so weak that the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups immediately filed lawsuits against EPA. The regulations would apply for only 10,000 years, despite the fact that high-level radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. EPA would allow for an 11 mile (18 km) buffer zone for radiation dilution in which the Safe Drinking Water Act would not have to be enforced. Just 20 miles downstream from Yucca is one of Nevada’s most productive farming areas, including its second largest dairy which exports milk to tens of millions in several western states. Those farmers are referred to as “[radiation] dose receptors” by DOE, but anyone consuming radioactively contaminated farm products would be a “dose receptor” too. Even if such contamination did not occur, those farm products would be stigmatized.
Politics trump science: corruption of the decision-making process
In 2001, it was revealed that the law firm – Winston and Strawn -- hired by DOE to help prepare its Yucca license application was simultaneously lobbying Congress on behalf of the pro-dump industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A recent federal court decision reinforces the allegation of this conflict of interest, a finding that could delay Yucca licensing by at least several months as previous legal work must be reviewed and perhaps redone.
Just before the congressional votes in early 2002, GAO reported that 293 technical issues remained unresolved, so that a determination of Yucca site suitability would be premature and should be indefinitely postponed. The NWTRB reported to Congress that DOE’s scientific and technical performance at Yucca was “weak to moderate”.
Despite this, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in mid-2002 approved the override of the State of Nevada’s earlier veto of the Yucca proposal. George W. Bush sealed the Yucca approval with his rubberstamp in July 2002. Similar to the 1987 Screw Nevada bill, many members of Congress were happy to approve the transfer of waste from their own state to Nevada, even though Nevada has no reactors itself.
An evaluation by NEI and Exelon (the largest nuclear utility in the USA) entitled “Yucca Mountain: A multi-level campaign to win support,” revealed that a $15 million lobbying fund helped win congressional approval. Given such “Obstacles to Success” as a “Big Fat Ugly Issue, Very Bad Timing, and Serious Opposition,” how did the nuclear power industry and its allies in the Bush Administration win Yucca’s approval? Under “Why We Were Successful,” NEI and Exelon simply placed a huge dollar sign: “$”. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who led the Congressional fight against Yucca’s approval, has said that when Nevada went looking for lobbyists to argue its cause in D.C., all firms had already been hired by the nuclear power industry. In addition to this army of lobbyists, campaign contributions in the tens of millions of dollars to U.S. Representatives, Senators, and even the Bush Administration help explain how such a flawed proposal as the Yucca Mountain dump has won congressional and presidential approval. Industry PR ad campaigns across the country added to the pro-dump fervor.
More recently, revelations that whistleblowers at the Yucca Mountain Project have suffered severe harassment increase concerns about short cuts on safety. Whistleblower protections are under attack by the Bush Administration, meaning that Yucca Mountain workers concerned about public safety are even less likely to speak out than before, for fear of reprisals by DOE.
It has been known since the early analysis of this site that fractures in the rock of Yucca Mountain will allow the release of radioactive gases over time as nuclear waste decays. The primary gas will be carbon-14. It is estimated that the release of this radioactive gas will have a global impact over time that will result in 25,000 additional cancers. This fact would have prevented the site from being licensed under EPA’s nuclear waste repository standards coming into effect at that time. In 1992 Congress exempted Yucca Mountain from the EPA standard, telling them to write a special standard just for Yucca Mountain. The original standard (more or less) is on the books (though with a loop hole) for the embattled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant plutonium dump in New Mexico.
OOOOOPs! It’s Gonna Leak MORE!!! SO change the rules AGAIN!
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) own data as presented in the 1998 “Viability Assessment” shows that water moves quite rapidly through the rocks at Yucca Mountain. As soon as the containers begin to fail, radioactivity will also move rapidly – in centuries or less – to contaminate the ground water in the region. This is due to the same fractures in the rock that will allow the carbon-14 to escape.
Fingerprints demonstrating this fast flow pathway were left by fallout from the very industries that created the waste that would be sent to the site. Traces of chlorine-36 were found by DOE researchers deep in Yucca Mountain at the level where the waste would be dumped. This radionuclide is not found at these concentrations in nature.
In fact, there is only one bulk source of chlorine-36: atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the Pacific. Salt in the seawater was activated, forming the radioactive chlorine isotope. This “fell out” all over the Northern Hemisphere; it is not unique to Yucca Mountain. But its presence at repository depth proves that water has traveled there within the past 50 years, and proves a “fast flow” path for ground water travel.
Current DOE Site Suitability Guidelines state:
A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste-emplacement ground-water travel time from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment is expected to be less than 1000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel.
(960.4-2-1 Post-Closure Disqualifying Condition for Hydrology )
In November 1998, more than 200 environmental and public interest organizations sent a petition to the Secretary of Energy to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump since it clearly will fail to meet the Guidelines, and it will fail to isolate nuclear waste. Instead of acting on this petition, the DOE is currently actively attempting to change the Site Suitability Guidelines, to simply eliminate such disqualifying conditions.
A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On
Why will Yucca Mountain fail to isolate nuclear waste? Why is it fractured? The answer is very simple. This area is as seismically active as the California Bay Area. There have been more than 600 earthquakes within a 50-mile radius of the site within the last 20 years. A major jolt knocked windows out of a DOE facility in the early 1990’s. In 1998 and 1999 there have been a whole spate of tremblers, at greater frequencies than previously observed, one recently derailing a train on a proposed nuclear waste transport route.
All this shaking has fractured the relatively soft rock (tuff) that forms this low snaking ridge. There are 35 active fault lines in the area, including two that traverse the repository site itself, but the entire mass of Yucca is a sieve with tiny fractures that allow water and gas to flow.
Serpent Swimming West Among the Lava Cones
A striking feature of the Yucca landscape is a line of lava cones that extends to the west of the Mountain. The youngest cone is closest to Yucca Mountain. This is clear evidence of the possibility of a magma pocket which the earth’s crust is moving slowly across. Like the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, these lava cones are like the squirts from a subterranean pastry bag.
Further evidence supporting the presence of a magma pocket comes from research published in Science magazine under contract with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The use of global positioning satellites allows tracking of the movement of Earth’s crust. The crust at Yucca is expanding. It is also moving westward at an accelerating rate. The authors conclude that this evidence is “consistent with” the presence of a magma pocket under Yucca Mountain.
The Western Shoshone People who have rightful claim to the land at Yucca Mountain have a different name for this site. It translates: “Serpent Swimming West.” If we would listen to ancient wisdom, and pay attention to the earthquakes, we might be able to avert a major environmental catastrophe of burying nuclear waste where it will almost certainly leak.
More Evidence: HOT WATER….BOOOMMMM!?!
Analysis of gas in crystals that are abundant inside Yucca Mountain shows that these crystals were formed by HOT water welling up into the mountain from below. This is more evidence of geothermal activity. If the nuclear waste dump were to flood with hot water from below, there is a distinct possibility of explosion – either caused by steam, chemical interaction or nuclear chain reaction.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
And you believe anything your found on that site? I stopped reading your article when I saw the word "dump" in the title. I've taken undergrad and graduate level courses on rad waste. I think I will trust my education over some anti-nuke website.
Just to play devil's advocate though. Having studied all the alternative disposals, deep geological is the only viable option. If we do nothing, that fuel will sit scattered accross the country. If it's going to leak (Which I totally don't believe) at Yucca Mountain, it's going to leak anywhere. So would you rather have it spread throughout the country?
In 1996, DOE found radioactive chlorine-36 at surprisingly elevated levels at the same depth within Yucca at which the waste would be buried. How did it get there? Atomic weapons testing in the South Pacific, which radioactively activated chlorine in seawater. This entered the atmosphere, blew with the wind, then fell as rain onto Yucca. In less than 50 years, that rainwater was able to percolate down through fissures and fractures caused by earthquakes at Yucca to the proposed repository rock. Such water infiltration could quickly corrode waste burial containers, releasing radiation into the underground drinking water supply in just centuries. In 1998, over 200 environmental organizations petitioned DOE to abide by its own guidelines and disqualify Yucca from further consideration. DOE ignored the petition for three years, then simply did away with the regulation that formed the basis for the petition.
DOE has admitted to the presidentially-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) that Yucca’s geology would contribute only 0.008% of the radiation isolation at the repository. 99.7% would come from artificially engineered barriers such as the burial containers. The proposal had become simply engineered waste packages that happen to be located 1,000 feet underground. The concept of deep geologic disposal has been abandoned at Yucca.
Changing the rules in the middle of the game: weakening environmental protection standards when Yucca fails to meet the original ones
In 1984, DOE established repository site suitability guidelines that would disqualify potential repository sites at which water could pass through the geology and back out into the living environment in less than 1,000 years. The Cl-36 data mentioned above revealed in mere decades or centuries, water flow through Yucca could re-enter the environment. In mid-December 2001, less than a month before DOE officially announced that Yucca was “suitable,” DOE simply removed the groundwater flow time disqualifying condition from its regulations.
In the mid-1980’s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established generic regulations for repositories. Just several years later, DOE’s studies clearly showed that Yucca could not live up to EPA’s limits for the releases of harmful radioactive gases such as carbon-14. Under pressure from the nuclear power industry and its allies in government, in 1992 Congress yet again amended the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This time, EPA was ordered to write “site-specific regulations” that would apply only at Yucca but not other proposed repositories. Thus was the problem of gaseous releases taken care of!
Due to intense political pressure from all sides, EPA took nearly ten more years before publishing its Yucca-specific regulations. Its rules were so weak that the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups immediately filed lawsuits against EPA. The regulations would apply for only 10,000 years, despite the fact that high-level radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. EPA would allow for an 11 mile (18 km) buffer zone for radiation dilution in which the Safe Drinking Water Act would not have to be enforced. Just 20 miles downstream from Yucca is one of Nevada’s most productive farming areas, including its second largest dairy which exports milk to tens of millions in several western states. Those farmers are referred to as “[radiation] dose receptors” by DOE, but anyone consuming radioactively contaminated farm products would be a “dose receptor” too. Even if such contamination did not occur, those farm products would be stigmatized.
Politics trump science: corruption of the decision-making process
In 2001, it was revealed that the law firm – Winston and Strawn -- hired by DOE to help prepare its Yucca license application was simultaneously lobbying Congress on behalf of the pro-dump industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A recent federal court decision reinforces the allegation of this conflict of interest, a finding that could delay Yucca licensing by at least several months as previous legal work must be reviewed and perhaps redone.
Just before the congressional votes in early 2002, GAO reported that 293 technical issues remained unresolved, so that a determination of Yucca site suitability would be premature and should be indefinitely postponed. The NWTRB reported to Congress that DOE’s scientific and technical performance at Yucca was “weak to moderate”.
Despite this, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in mid-2002 approved the override of the State of Nevada’s earlier veto of the Yucca proposal. George W. Bush sealed the Yucca approval with his rubberstamp in July 2002. Similar to the 1987 Screw Nevada bill, many members of Congress were happy to approve the transfer of waste from their own state to Nevada, even though Nevada has no reactors itself.
An evaluation by NEI and Exelon (the largest nuclear utility in the USA) entitled “Yucca Mountain: A multi-level campaign to win support,” revealed that a $15 million lobbying fund helped win congressional approval. Given such “Obstacles to Success” as a “Big Fat Ugly Issue, Very Bad Timing, and Serious Opposition,” how did the nuclear power industry and its allies in the Bush Administration win Yucca’s approval? Under “Why We Were Successful,” NEI and Exelon simply placed a huge dollar sign: “$”. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who led the Congressional fight against Yucca’s approval, has said that when Nevada went looking for lobbyists to argue its cause in D.C., all firms had already been hired by the nuclear power industry. In addition to this army of lobbyists, campaign contributions in the tens of millions of dollars to U.S. Representatives, Senators, and even the Bush Administration help explain how such a flawed proposal as the Yucca Mountain dump has won congressional and presidential approval. Industry PR ad campaigns across the country added to the pro-dump fervor.
More recently, revelations that whistleblowers at the Yucca Mountain Project have suffered severe harassment increase concerns about short cuts on safety. Whistleblower protections are under attack by the Bush Administration, meaning that Yucca Mountain workers concerned about public safety are even less likely to speak out than before, for fear of reprisals by DOE.
It has been known since the early analysis of this site that fractures in the rock of Yucca Mountain will allow the release of radioactive gases over time as nuclear waste decays. The primary gas will be carbon-14. It is estimated that the release of this radioactive gas will have a global impact over time that will result in 25,000 additional cancers. This fact would have prevented the site from being licensed under EPA’s nuclear waste repository standards coming into effect at that time. In 1992 Congress exempted Yucca Mountain from the EPA standard, telling them to write a special standard just for Yucca Mountain. The original standard (more or less) is on the books (though with a loop hole) for the embattled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant plutonium dump in New Mexico.
OOOOOPs! It’s Gonna Leak MORE!!! SO change the rules AGAIN!
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) own data as presented in the 1998 “Viability Assessment” shows that water moves quite rapidly through the rocks at Yucca Mountain. As soon as the containers begin to fail, radioactivity will also move rapidly – in centuries or less – to contaminate the ground water in the region. This is due to the same fractures in the rock that will allow the carbon-14 to escape.
Fingerprints demonstrating this fast flow pathway were left by fallout from the very industries that created the waste that would be sent to the site. Traces of chlorine-36 were found by DOE researchers deep in Yucca Mountain at the level where the waste would be dumped. This radionuclide is not found at these concentrations in nature.
In fact, there is only one bulk source of chlorine-36: atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the Pacific. Salt in the seawater was activated, forming the radioactive chlorine isotope. This “fell out” all over the Northern Hemisphere; it is not unique to Yucca Mountain. But its presence at repository depth proves that water has traveled there within the past 50 years, and proves a “fast flow” path for ground water travel.
Current DOE Site Suitability Guidelines state:
A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste-emplacement ground-water travel time from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment is expected to be less than 1000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel.
(960.4-2-1 Post-Closure Disqualifying Condition for Hydrology )
In November 1998, more than 200 environmental and public interest organizations sent a petition to the Secretary of Energy to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump since it clearly will fail to meet the Guidelines, and it will fail to isolate nuclear waste. Instead of acting on this petition, the DOE is currently actively attempting to change the Site Suitability Guidelines, to simply eliminate such disqualifying conditions.
A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On
Why will Yucca Mountain fail to isolate nuclear waste? Why is it fractured? The answer is very simple. This area is as seismically active as the California Bay Area. There have been more than 600 earthquakes within a 50-mile radius of the site within the last 20 years. A major jolt knocked windows out of a DOE facility in the early 1990’s. In 1998 and 1999 there have been a whole spate of tremblers, at greater frequencies than previously observed, one recently derailing a train on a proposed nuclear waste transport route.
All this shaking has fractured the relatively soft rock (tuff) that forms this low snaking ridge. There are 35 active fault lines in the area, including two that traverse the repository site itself, but the entire mass of Yucca is a sieve with tiny fractures that allow water and gas to flow.
Serpent Swimming West Among the Lava Cones
A striking feature of the Yucca landscape is a line of lava cones that extends to the west of the Mountain. The youngest cone is closest to Yucca Mountain. This is clear evidence of the possibility of a magma pocket which the earth’s crust is moving slowly across. Like the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, these lava cones are like the squirts from a subterranean pastry bag.
Further evidence supporting the presence of a magma pocket comes from research published in Science magazine under contract with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The use of global positioning satellites allows tracking of the movement of Earth’s crust. The crust at Yucca is expanding. It is also moving westward at an accelerating rate. The authors conclude that this evidence is “consistent with” the presence of a magma pocket under Yucca Mountain.
The Western Shoshone People who have rightful claim to the land at Yucca Mountain have a different name for this site. It translates: “Serpent Swimming West.” If we would listen to ancient wisdom, and pay attention to the earthquakes, we might be able to avert a major environmental catastrophe of burying nuclear waste where it will almost certainly leak.
More Evidence: HOT WATER….BOOOMMMM!?!
Analysis of gas in crystals that are abundant inside Yucca Mountain shows that these crystals were formed by HOT water welling up into the mountain from below. This is more evidence of geothermal activity. If the nuclear waste dump were to flood with hot water from below, there is a distinct possibility of explosion – either caused by steam, chemical interaction or nuclear chain reaction.
And you believe anything your found on that site? I stopped reading your article when I saw the word "dump" in the title. I've taken undergrad and graduate level courses on rad waste. I think I will trust my education over some anti-nuke website.
Just to play devil's advocate though. Having studied all the alternative disposals, deep geological is the only viable option. If we do nothing, that fuel will sit scattered accross the country. If it's going to leak (Which I totally don't believe) at Yucca Mountain, it's going to leak anywhere. So would you rather have it spread throughout the country?
You know there are other opinions to be had on this mateer other than just yours. If you want to truly discuss this issue then you shouldn't dismiss and not address the points brought up because of the word 'dump' and then ask your own questions. Why should anyone address your questions when you couldn't bother yourself with reading points posted by them? Your opinion could just as easily be dismissed because you work for the industry...so of course you've been told everything from the pro angle. If we really wish to further the discussion there has to be a tolerance of other's opinions at least to the point where you read their replies and address them before moving on to your own points.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And you believe anything your found on that site? I stopped reading your article when I saw the word "dump" in the title. I've taken undergrad and graduate level courses on rad waste. I think I will trust my education over some anti-nuke website.
Just to play devil's advocate though. Having studied all the alternative disposals, deep geological is the only viable option. If we do nothing, that fuel will sit scattered accross the country. If it's going to leak (Which I totally don't believe) at Yucca Mountain, it's going to leak anywhere. So would you rather have it spread throughout the country?
well, here's some things you might've missed by not reading:
DOE has admitted to the presidentially-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) that Yucca’s geology would contribute only 0.008% of the radiation isolation at the repository. 99.7% would come from artificially engineered barriers such as the burial containers. T
In the mid-1980’s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established generic regulations for repositories. Just several years later, DOE’s studies clearly showed that Yucca could not live up to EPA’s limits for the releases of harmful radioactive gases such as carbon-14. Under pressure from the nuclear power industry and its allies in government, in 1992 Congress yet again amended the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This time, EPA was ordered to write “site-specific regulations” that would apply only at Yucca but not other proposed repositories.
Due to intense political pressure from all sides, EPA took nearly ten more years before publishing its Yucca-specific regulations. Its rules were so weak that the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups immediately filed lawsuits against EPA. The regulations would apply for only 10,000 years, despite the fact that high-level radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. EPA would allow for an 11 mile (18 km) buffer zone for radiation dilution in which the Safe Drinking Water Act would not have to be enforced. Just 20 miles downstream from Yucca is one of Nevada’s most productive farming areas, including its second largest dairy which exports milk to tens of millions in several western states. Those farmers are referred to as “[radiation] dose receptors” by DOE
In 2001, it was revealed that the law firm – Winston and Strawn -- hired by DOE to help prepare its Yucca license application was simultaneously lobbying Congress on behalf of the pro-dump industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A recent federal court decision reinforces the allegation of this conflict of interest, a finding that could delay Yucca licensing by at least several months as previous legal work must be reviewed and perhaps redone.
Just before the congressional votes in early 2002, GAO reported that 293 technical issues remained unresolved, so that a determination of Yucca site suitability would be premature and should be indefinitely postponed. The NWTRB reported to Congress that DOE’s scientific and technical performance at Yucca was “weak to moderate”.
An evaluation by NEI and Exelon (the largest nuclear utility in the USA) entitled “Yucca Mountain: A multi-level campaign to win support,” revealed that a $15 million lobbying fund helped win congressional approval. Given such “Obstacles to Success” as a “Big Fat Ugly Issue, Very Bad Timing, and Serious Opposition,” how did the nuclear power industry and its allies in the Bush Administration win Yucca’s approval? Under “Why We Were Successful,” NEI and Exelon simply placed a huge dollar sign: “$”. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who led the Congressional fight against Yucca’s approval, has said that when Nevada went looking for lobbyists to argue its cause in D.C., all firms had already been hired by the nuclear power industry. In addition to this army of lobbyists, campaign contributions in the tens of millions of dollars to U.S. Representatives, Senators, and even the Bush Administration help explain how such a flawed proposal as the Yucca Mountain dump has won congressional and presidential approval. Industry PR ad campaigns across the country added to the pro-dump fervor.
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) own data as presented in the 1998 “Viability Assessment” shows that water moves quite rapidly through the rocks at Yucca Mountain. As soon as the containers begin to fail, radioactivity will also move rapidly – in centuries or less – to contaminate the ground water in the region. This is due to the same fractures in the rock that will allow the carbon-14 to escape.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You know there are other opinions to be had on this mateer other than just yours. If you want to truly discuss this issue then you shouldn't dismiss and not address the points brought up because of the word 'dump' and then ask your own questions. Why should anyone address your questions when you couldn't bother yourself with reading points posted by them? Your opinion could just as easily be dismissed because you work for the industry...so of course you've been told everything from the pro angle. If we really wish to further the discussion there has to be a tolerance of other's opinions at least to the point where you read their replies and address them before moving on to your own points.
There may be other opinions, but they may not be correct. Many people used to think the world was flat, they were wrong.
I've spent 6 years studying the subject in school, and more than that working in the industry. I have truly discussed this issue many times over. You don't seem to understand that adding the word "dump" is an immediate negative sign. If they were truly unbiased, they would be discussing the "repository."
I don't care if anyone "answers my questions" because I didn't ask any questions. I did play devil's advocate for a while and technically I asked a question.... but I didn't expect an answer. I know the answer.
I was not forced in to this industry, I am not forced to stay, and I've never been "told" anything, but I have learned much. You act like we take our marching orders from the NRC! I could leave this industry today and make a very nice living doing something completely different. But I don't because I believe in the cause.
No offense, but I have nothing to gain from discussing this with anyone on a message board. I've debated this with the basket weaving majors many times back in college. What qualifies you or anyone to discuss this matter? I'm not trying to be "holier than thou," but what can you add to the discussion other than an "opinion," based on mis-information from the internet? Why should I waste my time? If you think I could change anyone's mind, you are fooling yourself. This board in particular is filled with people who blindly take their political views from their favorite band.... that is scary. I know better than to waste much of my time preaching.
There may be other opinions, but they may not be correct. Many people used to think the world was flat, they were wrong.
I've spent 6 years studying the subject in school, and more than that working in the industry. I have truly discussed this issue many times over. You don't seem to understand that adding the word "dump" is an immediate negative sign. If they were truly unbiased, they would be discussing the "repository."
I don't care if anyone "answers my questions" because I didn't ask any questions. I did play devil's advocate for a while and technically I asked a question.... but I didn't expect an answer. I know the answer.
I was not forced in to this industry, I am not forced to stay, and I've never been "told" anything, but I have learned much. You act like we take our marching orders from the NRC! I could leave this industry today and make a very nice living doing something completely different. But I don't because I believe in the cause.
No offense, but I have nothing to gain from discussing this with anyone on a message board. I've debated this with the basket weaving majors many times back in college. What qualifies you or anyone to discuss this matter? I'm not trying to be "holier than thou," but what can you add to the discussion other than an "opinion," based on mis-information from the internet? Why should I waste my time? If you think I could change anyone's mind, you are fooling yourself. This board in particular is filled with people who blindly take their political views from their favorite band.... that is scary. I know better than to waste much of my time preaching.
I didn't miss anything
Dude, you are the man!
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
There may be other opinions, but they may not be correct. Many people used to think the world was flat, they were wrong.
I've spent 6 years studying the subject in school, and more than that working in the industry. I have truly discussed this issue many times over. You don't seem to understand that adding the word "dump" is an immediate negative sign. If they were truly unbiased, they would be discussing the "repository."
I don't care if anyone "answers my questions" because I didn't ask any questions. I did play devil's advocate for a while and technically I asked a question.... but I didn't expect an answer. I know the answer.
I was not forced in to this industry, I am not forced to stay, and I've never been "told" anything, but I have learned much. You act like we take our marching orders from the NRC! I could leave this industry today and make a very nice living doing something completely different. But I don't because I believe in the cause.
No offense, but I have nothing to gain from discussing this with anyone on a message board. I've debated this with the basket weaving majors many times back in college. What qualifies you or anyone to discuss this matter? I'm not trying to be "holier than thou," but what can you add to the discussion other than an "opinion," based on mis-information from the internet? Why should I waste my time? If you think I could change anyone's mind, you are fooling yourself. This board in particular is filled with people who blindly take their political views from their favorite band.... that is scary. I know better than to waste much of my time preaching.
I didn't miss anything
Why not take the time to inform us? You have experience and knowledge, please, share it.
It's nice to balance some things out with personal experience.
I have huge concerns about the leaks from Hanford. Newspapers have reported "dead zones" near the areas of the leaks.
What does the industry do about that? I ask this earnestly.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Even though there is a power station at Hanford I don't see how the industry is responsible for the cleanup that was made from weapons production. The site started in the early 40's but the commercial reactor did not produce power until the early 80's. They did have another dual function reactor but it shut down in the 80's.
The feds, possibly the Dept of Defense or the Army Corp of Engineers, should be the ones responsible for the cleanup, not the utility who would eventually pass the costs on to the consumer.
There may be other opinions, but they may not be correct. Many people used to think the world was flat, they were wrong.
I've spent 6 years studying the subject in school, and more than that working in the industry. I have truly discussed this issue many times over. You don't seem to understand that adding the word "dump" is an immediate negative sign. If they were truly unbiased, they would be discussing the "repository."
I don't care if anyone "answers my questions" because I didn't ask any questions. I did play devil's advocate for a while and technically I asked a question.... but I didn't expect an answer. I know the answer.
I was not forced in to this industry, I am not forced to stay, and I've never been "told" anything, but I have learned much. You act like we take our marching orders from the NRC! I could leave this industry today and make a very nice living doing something completely different. But I don't because I believe in the cause.
No offense, but I have nothing to gain from discussing this with anyone on a message board. I've debated this with the basket weaving majors many times back in college. What qualifies you or anyone to discuss this matter? I'm not trying to be "holier than thou," but what can you add to the discussion other than an "opinion," based on mis-information from the internet? Why should I waste my time? If you think I could change anyone's mind, you are fooling yourself. This board in particular is filled with people who blindly take their political views from their favorite band.... that is scary. I know better than to waste much of my time preaching.
I didn't miss anything
so.....we should just shut up???
and i posted things from the department of energy....are they lying for these anti nuke groups??
you don't need to preach, just back it up w/ something of substance
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
I think you're spot on. By the way, do I detect a reference to "Them!", one my favorite silly sci-fi films, in your post above?
The point you're glossing over is about having our politicians vested in one kind of power, especially one that is known to have many problems with pollution and health side effects. We can't rely on nuclear power forever and should be seeking aggressively renewable alternatives. But like the oilmen cronies of Bush, we can't trust our politicians to be square with us and put what's in our best interests first if they are being bought by the nuclear industry and mold their policy to better suit the needs of the nuclear power industry over the needs of the people. We've seen this happen time and time again. They keep on pushing fossil fuels, coal, nuclear as the only way until we are in a huge mess and have to work 10 times as hard to get out of it. We will be the ones dealing with the problems after they've squeezed every last dime they could out of selling the nuclear industry to us as the best, most safe and efficient way and they will continue to neglect newer more sustainable pursuits until their backs are against the wall. It's a huge problem
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is a bizarre statement since it was politicians that did much to stand in the way of nuclear power over the past 40 years. Are politicians only "vested in one kind of power" when they're disagreeing with you?
Politicians are currently vested in many energy sources. Oil, biofuels, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, hydro...the list goes on and on and a politician's vested interest is rarely logical or technical, at least in terms of actual energy challenges. If anything, the nuclear industry has been the least successful in attracting political support.
Who is "we"? You should be seeking whatever you think think is best! Since when are these things mutually exclusive? I think both avenues should be available to those who wish to produce and consume power.
The fact of the matter is that "renawable alternatives" are not in any position to satisfy the world's thirst for energy. That does not mean they shouldn't be persued and that they shouldn't be persued aggressively by those who wish to invoke them. However, nuclear energy has been in a very good position to power this world more cleanly and more cheaply than our current methods for 2 generations now.
Who are "the people"? Is the "nuclear industry" not "the people"? Were those who lobbied, bought and traded politicians over the years in the fight against nuclear power "the people"? Are the vast majority of people in this country who now believe that nuclear power should be utilized "the people"? Or are "the people" and "the needs" whatever you happen to determine to be correct or incorrect at any given point in time?
Absolutely! Don't forget biofuels and ethanol, too! Ever wonder why they do this and why the results are often times so disastrous?
Then why not simply tell them to get out of the way and let "the people", in its true meaning, decide the best route for themselves??? I'm all for ending the days of nuclear lobbying and political horsetrading. The fact of the matter, abook, is that if you got the politicians out of the way, there would be a new nuclear power plant going up somewhere in this country every few months, very much at the behest of consumers who are seeking greater access to cheaper energy.
Yes, much like you, I tend to focus on the things I disagree with and support the things I do agree with.
So why have the politicians stood in the way of nuclear power for so long? Have anything to do with the pollution, health effects or that we have no real solutions for disposal? But now it's being sold as a proper response to global warming and everyone eats that up so the politcians have their 'in'.
I never said any different. Obama is heavily funded by the nuclear power industry which makes me feel he will direct his policy based on their support and has already been accused of as much.
Again, if nuclear power is so super fantastic then why have they been so unsuccessful at attracting this political support?
Here I mean people who have traditionally spoken out against nuclear power (liberals) but now think it's a-okay because their selected candidate is funded by the industry. Don't you see that as a bit backwards? Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent us and not us take on whatever they think? Politicians have been wonderful at selling shitty ideas to the people. i was hoping that trend would start changing at some point.
Renewable energy hasn't been pursued as aggressively as it could be, not even close. Instead Washington keeps making money off band aid type solutions that can not last, stalling as long as they can to make a buck and call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the most effective or efficient way to run a country.
They, the nuclear power industry, are indeed people...they are people with money, power and an agenda to make more of it....and they do not have the best interests of those without money and power in mind when they
buy off these guys and dictate policy. If you can't see how it's a conflict of interest and how corruption has caused so many problems in our governments where the majority of the people's needs and interests are passed over in the
name of more profits then I really don't know what to say here.
Profit
The average person isn't informed enough to decide the best route, unfortunately. That's why we need government to protect the people for various reasons but it needs to be non conflicted reasons based on what we know to be the facts thus far without corporate bias.
It's just like you wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing your brain surgery. He doesn't know what he should know to make the kind of decisions needed to perform surgery.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Unlike me, however, you invoke certain principles and means when they're used for things you like and then reject them when they're used for things you oppose.
Very much so, yes! But not really in the way you mean. Politicians have stood in the way of nuclear power because of the fear of pollution and health effects. See, they believed pollution from nuclear power to be bad and negative health effects from nuclear power to be bad because people were afraid of those things vis a vis nuclear power. Yet, at the same time, they didn't care about the much greater pollution and much greater negative health effects from their chosen subsidized targets (oil, coal, etc). In other words, they invoked certain principles and means for things they liked and then rejected them when used for things they opposed. Pollution and health effects made nuclear power untenable. Those same things, however, were perfectly acceptable when it comes to oil or coal. The same bullshit is now happening with the renewables.
Yet the irony here is that you seem to be stating that Washington should be dictating "our" energy agenda.
Because people were terribly afraid of nuclear power, of course. Nevermind the actual data, they said "not in my backyard".
Hehe...no. It's certainly hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect anything more from partisan liberals or partisan conservatives. Regardless, their earlier positions against nuclear power were just as stupid as their current position on nuclear power, so what's the difference?
See, here's the thing abook -- politicians aren't just selling the ideas. Politicians are typically idea consumers as often as they are idea producers. And their primary source of ideas is either one of two things that are actually largely the same thing: the people or special interests.
Politicians sell ideas in the same way Bob Dole sells Viagra. Bob Dole isn't making Viagra, he's simply telling people what they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is.
You could have certainly held a gun to everyone's head 5 years ago and forced them to use ethanol (something Hillary Clinton still wants to do). That would have been very aggressive and very stupid.
Absolutely! Now stop looking for them to solve the problems.
You certainly don't have to lecture me on corruption and conflicts of interest in government. I'm the first to warn people how those things will always come when you can replace value with force. I'm not justifying nuclear lobbying or political support of nuclear power. All I'm asking is that the fools in Washington and the fools on the street simply get out of the way of those who wish to construct nuclear power plants and those who want to consume nuclear power.
It's deeper than liberal mantra of profit, abook. It's profit without value. That's what Exxon gets with every government subsidy. That's what "the people" of Iowa are getting for every ear of corn mandated into a gallon of gasolene.
Hehe...really? Who gets to decide what "the average person is informed enough to decide"? You? Me? Ralph Nader? George Bush? Personally, I'll always take the risk of one fool deciding for themselves over one fool deciding for everyone.
Sigh...."without bias" or "without corporate bias"?
I certainly wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing my brain surgery. Thankfully, I'm able to choose my brain surgeon.
The risks for nuclear power are too low to be considered worth ditching altogether, especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year. There have been NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detrimental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.
Clearly there needs to be an alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels. But there are also significant technical, envirnomental and economic issues involved. Switching to nuclear is not so simple and straightforward.
I have concerns with the disposal of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear energy does not address the current transportation infrastructure which is based on personal mobility, vis-a-vis automobiles, buses, trucks and aircraft. A large proportion of oil-based fuel is used in transportation.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What's that? Faith in democracy and a more efficiently functioning government? I don't think money should be allowed to buy the governments positions on issues....I feel I have been pretty consistent about that.
So you view all this 'fear' of nuclear power to be without merit, then? I'm not saying that we should do away with nuclear power in the place of coal. Not once have I said that. I'm saying that to be truly interested in focusing on renewables and finding alternatives, we shouldn't allow our politicians to be bought and show bias towards this industry...especially when it's not a long term solution. Not to mention the fact that an industry with the this kind of pollution and carelessness on its record needs to be regulated not allowed to do as it pleases because we all pay when that happens. I'm not saying anything about pollution from coal or what have you is perfectly okay. Where have I said that? Other energy industries should also be regulated and scrutinized for corruption, of course.
We need regulation laws and those laws should come from well informed officials without bias due to money. We need to start finding and implementing
alternatives and not have that process stalled by special interests. What's your proposal? To let the consumers dictate it? They always make the best decisions, don't they? And their decisions that have lasting effects on us all...what about those? Wouldn't you just love my freedom to pollute the air and water right beside your home if I was your neighbor? How about everyone
just start doing exactly what they want to....there will be no problems with that...
I posted enough info to make me think twice about wanting it next door me. I suppose you'd be alright with living beside a nuclear plant? I think there is good reason to be concerned about nuclear power.
Well the point of the thread was to address the change some seem to have taken with their stance on nuclear power since their candidates have been proven to cater to the industry.
Yes, I'm aware they are only selling what they are told to to keep the money rolling in their way. I didn't say it was their idea originally.
Yes, lets cut out the 'stupid' part and focus on the facts of the situation without the money doing the talking for us. If something's not working then I don't see why we should keep pushing it and banking on it instead of focusing our resources towards more sustainable solutions.
Stop holding them accountable? Stop expecting them to do their job? Stop expecting them to do what is best regardless of money. Now I'm aware we all have a different idea of what is 'best' but ignoring problems to make more money and maintain power is keeping us a long way from having real discourse and national debate in this country about what is really best based on the information out there. And the citizenry, in large, is just going along with what's being told to them.
Well I disagree with your anti-government opinions. Corporations unchecked can have just as much power and force their will on the rest of us via the power of money as the government you disdain. They can create monopolies and leave people with no choice. I don't think we can allow either to do whatever they wish...especially when their wishes affect is all and they don't seem to mind it.
profit without value then.
That's why we play an active role in civics and pay attention to what's going on, stay informed. A Democratic government can't function properly without the people keeping them in check.
Your *sighs* reek of pretension. Without any bias is fine with me.
As long as you have access to the best choices. Nevermind what effects your choices could have on the rest of us.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This thread in no way is saying coal is the better way or the answer. I'm saying that we can't allow our politicians to bank on the nuclear industry for our future energy while stalling on alternatives the way with have done in the past with coal, fossil fuels, etc. And it should grab our attention when politicians are taking money and molding their policy to better fit the agenda of said industry. Because then we can not trust them to make their decisions without bias when their aim of maintaining power and receiving cash in always going to be there. These things have to start concerning us and we need to let them know we are paying attention.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, let's test that. The "renewable" energy movement, just like coal, power, and nuclear, has contributed millions of dollars to politicians in an attempt, sometimes successful and sometimes not, to "buy the governments positions on issues". Do you condemn that? Do you condemn politicians like Tom Daschle who have pushed so-called "renewable energy" as a better solution when in fact all he's doing is giving in to farmer's special interests?
Largely, yes. Certainly nuclear power carries with it risks, but historical data shows those risks have been greatly overstated.
I agree with both these points. I recognize that you're not saying that coal is a better solution, but unfortunately those are the kinds of technologies you're going to get, just like those who held similar positions to yours over the past 50 years.
By whom? The very bodies you said are corrupt and bought? I absolutely agree that the nuclear industry should be regulated and scrutinized. It should be regulated and scrutinized by consumers.
There's no such thing as a "freedom to pollute" without a corollary "freedom to aggress". I'm not suggesting that the nuclear industry should be "free to pollute". They shouldn't be. If you wish to use the force of government to hold nuclear polluters accountable, I will feel no sympathy to them. I will, however, feel sympathy towards those you deem to be polluters before they introduce any amount of pollution upon any population. Furthermore, I will feel little more than pity towards those who ensure greater pollution, greater harm, and greater cost in their fight.
I'd have no problem living near a nuclear power plant. I'm already living within 50 miles of one.
The reason most of the candidates have changed their stance is because of the foolish hysteria around global warming and carbon emissions, abook, not just because of "the industry". The nuclear industry has been funding and courting politicians for decades.
I think it's silly to say that nuclear power "isn't working". There are dozens of plants in this country and hundreds around the world that work exceptionally well.
No, understand that the system you're pushing makes them unaccountable.
No, understand that they are doing their job, and that's the problem.
Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established structures of power and force we have today.
Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established primary monopoly we have today.
I'm not suggesting we allow anyone to do "whatever they wish". I'm simply suggesting we not proclaim people to be criminals before they've committed a crime.
Hehe...but that's exactly what's happening. "The People" don't like carbon emissions abook. And they've gotten over their fear of nuclear power. "The People" are demanding solutions from those least qualified to provide them. And they're likely to get exactly what they're asking for.
Excellent!
This position would have some merit if you weren't doing the same. Obviously you do not mind one person's choice affecting everyone.
While we need to explore many types of energy, Nuclear should be our main source. We have plenty of nuclear fuel sitting in the spent fuel pools and dry casks of every nuclear site. Jimmy Carter banned spent fuel reprocessing, so all that energy sits there. Breeder reactor technology actually creates more fuel than it uses, but is useless if we can't reprocess.
Which leads to long term storage of the spent fuel. If we could reprocess, there would be much less to store. Secondly, Yucca Mountain is the answer!!! Seismically stable, low water table, isolated, government owned land! Engineered to be safe for 10,000 years! But the NIMBY folks are holding it up. Democrats are out there playing on people's fear of what they don't understand. Instead they should be educating people on the subject.
I work in the nuclear industry, and have multiple degrees in the subject. farfromglorified seems to know what they are talking about. I haven't read everything he/she has posted, but what I have read looks spot on.
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
taking any option off the table energy wise right now is flat out insane and unrealistic. period.
oh???
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/yuccaitaly1.htm
In 1996, DOE found radioactive chlorine-36 at surprisingly elevated levels at the same depth within Yucca at which the waste would be buried. How did it get there? Atomic weapons testing in the South Pacific, which radioactively activated chlorine in seawater. This entered the atmosphere, blew with the wind, then fell as rain onto Yucca. In less than 50 years, that rainwater was able to percolate down through fissures and fractures caused by earthquakes at Yucca to the proposed repository rock. Such water infiltration could quickly corrode waste burial containers, releasing radiation into the underground drinking water supply in just centuries. In 1998, over 200 environmental organizations petitioned DOE to abide by its own guidelines and disqualify Yucca from further consideration. DOE ignored the petition for three years, then simply did away with the regulation that formed the basis for the petition.
DOE has admitted to the presidentially-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) that Yucca’s geology would contribute only 0.008% of the radiation isolation at the repository. 99.7% would come from artificially engineered barriers such as the burial containers. The proposal had become simply engineered waste packages that happen to be located 1,000 feet underground. The concept of deep geologic disposal has been abandoned at Yucca.
Changing the rules in the middle of the game: weakening environmental protection standards when Yucca fails to meet the original ones
In 1984, DOE established repository site suitability guidelines that would disqualify potential repository sites at which water could pass through the geology and back out into the living environment in less than 1,000 years. The Cl-36 data mentioned above revealed in mere decades or centuries, water flow through Yucca could re-enter the environment. In mid-December 2001, less than a month before DOE officially announced that Yucca was “suitable,” DOE simply removed the groundwater flow time disqualifying condition from its regulations.
In the mid-1980’s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established generic regulations for repositories. Just several years later, DOE’s studies clearly showed that Yucca could not live up to EPA’s limits for the releases of harmful radioactive gases such as carbon-14. Under pressure from the nuclear power industry and its allies in government, in 1992 Congress yet again amended the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This time, EPA was ordered to write “site-specific regulations” that would apply only at Yucca but not other proposed repositories. Thus was the problem of gaseous releases taken care of!
Due to intense political pressure from all sides, EPA took nearly ten more years before publishing its Yucca-specific regulations. Its rules were so weak that the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups immediately filed lawsuits against EPA. The regulations would apply for only 10,000 years, despite the fact that high-level radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. EPA would allow for an 11 mile (18 km) buffer zone for radiation dilution in which the Safe Drinking Water Act would not have to be enforced. Just 20 miles downstream from Yucca is one of Nevada’s most productive farming areas, including its second largest dairy which exports milk to tens of millions in several western states. Those farmers are referred to as “[radiation] dose receptors” by DOE, but anyone consuming radioactively contaminated farm products would be a “dose receptor” too. Even if such contamination did not occur, those farm products would be stigmatized.
Politics trump science: corruption of the decision-making process
In 2001, it was revealed that the law firm – Winston and Strawn -- hired by DOE to help prepare its Yucca license application was simultaneously lobbying Congress on behalf of the pro-dump industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A recent federal court decision reinforces the allegation of this conflict of interest, a finding that could delay Yucca licensing by at least several months as previous legal work must be reviewed and perhaps redone.
Just before the congressional votes in early 2002, GAO reported that 293 technical issues remained unresolved, so that a determination of Yucca site suitability would be premature and should be indefinitely postponed. The NWTRB reported to Congress that DOE’s scientific and technical performance at Yucca was “weak to moderate”.
Despite this, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in mid-2002 approved the override of the State of Nevada’s earlier veto of the Yucca proposal. George W. Bush sealed the Yucca approval with his rubberstamp in July 2002. Similar to the 1987 Screw Nevada bill, many members of Congress were happy to approve the transfer of waste from their own state to Nevada, even though Nevada has no reactors itself.
An evaluation by NEI and Exelon (the largest nuclear utility in the USA) entitled “Yucca Mountain: A multi-level campaign to win support,” revealed that a $15 million lobbying fund helped win congressional approval. Given such “Obstacles to Success” as a “Big Fat Ugly Issue, Very Bad Timing, and Serious Opposition,” how did the nuclear power industry and its allies in the Bush Administration win Yucca’s approval? Under “Why We Were Successful,” NEI and Exelon simply placed a huge dollar sign: “$”. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who led the Congressional fight against Yucca’s approval, has said that when Nevada went looking for lobbyists to argue its cause in D.C., all firms had already been hired by the nuclear power industry. In addition to this army of lobbyists, campaign contributions in the tens of millions of dollars to U.S. Representatives, Senators, and even the Bush Administration help explain how such a flawed proposal as the Yucca Mountain dump has won congressional and presidential approval. Industry PR ad campaigns across the country added to the pro-dump fervor.
More recently, revelations that whistleblowers at the Yucca Mountain Project have suffered severe harassment increase concerns about short cuts on safety. Whistleblower protections are under attack by the Bush Administration, meaning that Yucca Mountain workers concerned about public safety are even less likely to speak out than before, for fear of reprisals by DOE.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whyyuccawillleak.htm
It’s Gonna Leak --- so they change the rules!
It has been known since the early analysis of this site that fractures in the rock of Yucca Mountain will allow the release of radioactive gases over time as nuclear waste decays. The primary gas will be carbon-14. It is estimated that the release of this radioactive gas will have a global impact over time that will result in 25,000 additional cancers. This fact would have prevented the site from being licensed under EPA’s nuclear waste repository standards coming into effect at that time. In 1992 Congress exempted Yucca Mountain from the EPA standard, telling them to write a special standard just for Yucca Mountain. The original standard (more or less) is on the books (though with a loop hole) for the embattled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant plutonium dump in New Mexico.
OOOOOPs! It’s Gonna Leak MORE!!! SO change the rules AGAIN!
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) own data as presented in the 1998 “Viability Assessment” shows that water moves quite rapidly through the rocks at Yucca Mountain. As soon as the containers begin to fail, radioactivity will also move rapidly – in centuries or less – to contaminate the ground water in the region. This is due to the same fractures in the rock that will allow the carbon-14 to escape.
Fingerprints demonstrating this fast flow pathway were left by fallout from the very industries that created the waste that would be sent to the site. Traces of chlorine-36 were found by DOE researchers deep in Yucca Mountain at the level where the waste would be dumped. This radionuclide is not found at these concentrations in nature.
In fact, there is only one bulk source of chlorine-36: atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the Pacific. Salt in the seawater was activated, forming the radioactive chlorine isotope. This “fell out” all over the Northern Hemisphere; it is not unique to Yucca Mountain. But its presence at repository depth proves that water has traveled there within the past 50 years, and proves a “fast flow” path for ground water travel.
Current DOE Site Suitability Guidelines state:
A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste-emplacement ground-water travel time from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment is expected to be less than 1000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel.
(960.4-2-1 Post-Closure Disqualifying Condition for Hydrology )
In November 1998, more than 200 environmental and public interest organizations sent a petition to the Secretary of Energy to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump since it clearly will fail to meet the Guidelines, and it will fail to isolate nuclear waste. Instead of acting on this petition, the DOE is currently actively attempting to change the Site Suitability Guidelines, to simply eliminate such disqualifying conditions.
A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On
Why will Yucca Mountain fail to isolate nuclear waste? Why is it fractured? The answer is very simple. This area is as seismically active as the California Bay Area. There have been more than 600 earthquakes within a 50-mile radius of the site within the last 20 years. A major jolt knocked windows out of a DOE facility in the early 1990’s. In 1998 and 1999 there have been a whole spate of tremblers, at greater frequencies than previously observed, one recently derailing a train on a proposed nuclear waste transport route.
All this shaking has fractured the relatively soft rock (tuff) that forms this low snaking ridge. There are 35 active fault lines in the area, including two that traverse the repository site itself, but the entire mass of Yucca is a sieve with tiny fractures that allow water and gas to flow.
Serpent Swimming West Among the Lava Cones
A striking feature of the Yucca landscape is a line of lava cones that extends to the west of the Mountain. The youngest cone is closest to Yucca Mountain. This is clear evidence of the possibility of a magma pocket which the earth’s crust is moving slowly across. Like the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, these lava cones are like the squirts from a subterranean pastry bag.
Further evidence supporting the presence of a magma pocket comes from research published in Science magazine under contract with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The use of global positioning satellites allows tracking of the movement of Earth’s crust. The crust at Yucca is expanding. It is also moving westward at an accelerating rate. The authors conclude that this evidence is “consistent with” the presence of a magma pocket under Yucca Mountain.
The Western Shoshone People who have rightful claim to the land at Yucca Mountain have a different name for this site. It translates: “Serpent Swimming West.” If we would listen to ancient wisdom, and pay attention to the earthquakes, we might be able to avert a major environmental catastrophe of burying nuclear waste where it will almost certainly leak.
More Evidence: HOT WATER….BOOOMMMM!?!
Analysis of gas in crystals that are abundant inside Yucca Mountain shows that these crystals were formed by HOT water welling up into the mountain from below. This is more evidence of geothermal activity. If the nuclear waste dump were to flood with hot water from below, there is a distinct possibility of explosion – either caused by steam, chemical interaction or nuclear chain reaction.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Just to play devil's advocate though. Having studied all the alternative disposals, deep geological is the only viable option. If we do nothing, that fuel will sit scattered accross the country. If it's going to leak (Which I totally don't believe) at Yucca Mountain, it's going to leak anywhere. So would you rather have it spread throughout the country?
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
You know there are other opinions to be had on this mateer other than just yours. If you want to truly discuss this issue then you shouldn't dismiss and not address the points brought up because of the word 'dump' and then ask your own questions. Why should anyone address your questions when you couldn't bother yourself with reading points posted by them? Your opinion could just as easily be dismissed because you work for the industry...so of course you've been told everything from the pro angle. If we really wish to further the discussion there has to be a tolerance of other's opinions at least to the point where you read their replies and address them before moving on to your own points.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
well, here's some things you might've missed by not reading:
DOE has admitted to the presidentially-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) that Yucca’s geology would contribute only 0.008% of the radiation isolation at the repository. 99.7% would come from artificially engineered barriers such as the burial containers. T
In the mid-1980’s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established generic regulations for repositories. Just several years later, DOE’s studies clearly showed that Yucca could not live up to EPA’s limits for the releases of harmful radioactive gases such as carbon-14. Under pressure from the nuclear power industry and its allies in government, in 1992 Congress yet again amended the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This time, EPA was ordered to write “site-specific regulations” that would apply only at Yucca but not other proposed repositories.
Due to intense political pressure from all sides, EPA took nearly ten more years before publishing its Yucca-specific regulations. Its rules were so weak that the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups immediately filed lawsuits against EPA. The regulations would apply for only 10,000 years, despite the fact that high-level radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. EPA would allow for an 11 mile (18 km) buffer zone for radiation dilution in which the Safe Drinking Water Act would not have to be enforced. Just 20 miles downstream from Yucca is one of Nevada’s most productive farming areas, including its second largest dairy which exports milk to tens of millions in several western states. Those farmers are referred to as “[radiation] dose receptors” by DOE
In 2001, it was revealed that the law firm – Winston and Strawn -- hired by DOE to help prepare its Yucca license application was simultaneously lobbying Congress on behalf of the pro-dump industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A recent federal court decision reinforces the allegation of this conflict of interest, a finding that could delay Yucca licensing by at least several months as previous legal work must be reviewed and perhaps redone.
Just before the congressional votes in early 2002, GAO reported that 293 technical issues remained unresolved, so that a determination of Yucca site suitability would be premature and should be indefinitely postponed. The NWTRB reported to Congress that DOE’s scientific and technical performance at Yucca was “weak to moderate”.
An evaluation by NEI and Exelon (the largest nuclear utility in the USA) entitled “Yucca Mountain: A multi-level campaign to win support,” revealed that a $15 million lobbying fund helped win congressional approval. Given such “Obstacles to Success” as a “Big Fat Ugly Issue, Very Bad Timing, and Serious Opposition,” how did the nuclear power industry and its allies in the Bush Administration win Yucca’s approval? Under “Why We Were Successful,” NEI and Exelon simply placed a huge dollar sign: “$”. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who led the Congressional fight against Yucca’s approval, has said that when Nevada went looking for lobbyists to argue its cause in D.C., all firms had already been hired by the nuclear power industry. In addition to this army of lobbyists, campaign contributions in the tens of millions of dollars to U.S. Representatives, Senators, and even the Bush Administration help explain how such a flawed proposal as the Yucca Mountain dump has won congressional and presidential approval. Industry PR ad campaigns across the country added to the pro-dump fervor.
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) own data as presented in the 1998 “Viability Assessment” shows that water moves quite rapidly through the rocks at Yucca Mountain. As soon as the containers begin to fail, radioactivity will also move rapidly – in centuries or less – to contaminate the ground water in the region. This is due to the same fractures in the rock that will allow the carbon-14 to escape.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
There may be other opinions, but they may not be correct. Many people used to think the world was flat, they were wrong.
I've spent 6 years studying the subject in school, and more than that working in the industry. I have truly discussed this issue many times over. You don't seem to understand that adding the word "dump" is an immediate negative sign. If they were truly unbiased, they would be discussing the "repository."
I don't care if anyone "answers my questions" because I didn't ask any questions. I did play devil's advocate for a while and technically I asked a question.... but I didn't expect an answer. I know the answer.
I was not forced in to this industry, I am not forced to stay, and I've never been "told" anything, but I have learned much. You act like we take our marching orders from the NRC! I could leave this industry today and make a very nice living doing something completely different. But I don't because I believe in the cause.
No offense, but I have nothing to gain from discussing this with anyone on a message board. I've debated this with the basket weaving majors many times back in college. What qualifies you or anyone to discuss this matter? I'm not trying to be "holier than thou," but what can you add to the discussion other than an "opinion," based on mis-information from the internet? Why should I waste my time? If you think I could change anyone's mind, you are fooling yourself. This board in particular is filled with people who blindly take their political views from their favorite band.... that is scary. I know better than to waste much of my time preaching.
I didn't miss anything
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
Dude, you are the man!
-Reagan
Why not take the time to inform us? You have experience and knowledge, please, share it.
It's nice to balance some things out with personal experience.
I have huge concerns about the leaks from Hanford. Newspapers have reported "dead zones" near the areas of the leaks.
What does the industry do about that? I ask this earnestly.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
The feds, possibly the Dept of Defense or the Army Corp of Engineers, should be the ones responsible for the cleanup, not the utility who would eventually pass the costs on to the consumer.
so.....we should just shut up???
and i posted things from the department of energy....are they lying for these anti nuke groups??
you don't need to preach, just back it up w/ something of substance
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way