NOVEMBER 2007

nuclear waste

How do you get rid of nuclear waste?
Tuesday October 23, 2007
The Guardian

No1.

Has any country solved the problem of disposing of nuclear waste? How does France, which has many nuclear power stations, cope?

There is no "solution" as such to the disposal of nuclear waste. Low-, medium- and high-level waste must be stored using varying containment methods depending on the relative radioactivity of the waste. Sweden, which decided by referendum in 1980 to end its nuclear power programme, has built an offshore underground storage facility at Forsmark, where they have a reactor. This is accessed from onshore and will eventually be sealed and monitored during the long lifetime of waste decay.

Britain has looked at various solutions but has not pinpointed a stable enough geological region for a storage facility. Russia (and its old republics) have huge stocks of nuclear waste, much of it military. Submarines, nuclear ice breakers, spent fuel rods - the list is endless.

Most nations do not want to face up to the reality of the cost and technical challenges of waste disposal. They prefer to store it above ground in some containment form close to nuclear facilities. The starting point must be politicians, but until individuals face up to their moral obligations future generations will be left with a legacy of waste so vast and unmanageable as to dwarf the problems of other world issues such as global warming.
Colin Schofield, Hartlepool

No.2.
France keeps very quiet about its nuclear programme, emphasising only the positive aspect of independence from fossil fuels. In consequence few people pay attention to what is happening in this respect and in respect to the safe movement of waste. However, the country is no nearer to deciding what to do with its waste than is the UK.

Waste, too, has been accepted for reprocessing from countries such as Germany and Japan, contrary to a law forbidding the importation and transport of such material. The residue from this waste reprocessing has not been repatriated as it should have been, but is stored at various sites, the principal one being near Cap de la Hague. As with Britain, there have been moves to bury the waste deep underground, but although one or two sites have been nominated, none as yet has been selected.

It is interesting that UK residents think that danger from nuclear power stations stops with UK power stations, seemingly ignorant of the fact that the 20 miles across the Pas de Calais would present no barrier to nuclear contamination if one of the power stations at Gravelines, just next to Calais, were to blow up.
Terence Hollingworth, Blagnac, France

September 2nd, 2007

Dear readers,


"The waste problem may be solved" Gore reiterates hopefully. Senator
Larry Craig (R-ID) admits "Yeah, we still have problems ... waste
management..." He did not identify any other problems. Chairperson
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told Al Gore: "I'll give you 60 seconds
to respond to that speech about nuclear energy [by Senator Larry Craig]."

Gore used his minute to reiterate that he DIDN'T say nuclear power
"wasn't a factor" in his proposed solution to the problem of global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------

A few months earlier, in December 2006, Senator Craig, who was on the
Senate's Energy Committee, had this to say about Senator Harry Reid's
distaste for having the entire country's nuclear waste deposited at
Yucca Mountain in his home state of Nevada:

"Harry in his wildest dreams wishes it would go away, but it is not
going to go away,"


"The biggest problem is what to do with the waste and in this country
it's a political problem," Craig said. "It's not a scientific
problem.  It's not an engineering problem.  It's purely political --
'Not In My Back Yard.' "

In 2000, Craig was at it again, pushing for weaker suitability
standards for Yucca Mountain.  His cohort, Frank Murkowski, bluntly
stated: "What we want is to make sure that the measuring is under a
regulation that allows waste to go to Yucca."  These two wanted
expedience, not science, to be used to set the limits on pollution
from the site!

But high-level nuclear waste is hardly the only problem created by
nuclear power.  A typical reactor produces about 3,000 55-gallon
drums of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste EACH YEAR.  This
waste, too, has no safe place to go.

INL and the Argonne National Laboratory West (near Idaho Falls) are
the country's designated design centers for next-generation nuclear
power plants.  The only problem is, the INTRACTABLE issues with
nuclear power CANNOT be solved by redesigning the plants
themselves.  No design, for example, can survive a nuclear bomb
attack, or a major earthquake, or human stupidity, or poor
construction, and there is no solution to the problem of nuclear
waste because science can't do the impossible -- and storing nuclear
waste safely IS impossible.



Thank goodness Criminal Senator Larry E. Craig will not be a Senator
much longer, having resigned in disgrace yesterday, effective
September 30th.  And not a moment too soon!

Sincerely,

Ace