0
Votes

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

I have a plan for what to do with the nuclear waste generated from Obama’s generous federal guarantees for new reactors: Let’s store the waste in his basement and the basements of all his descendents for the next hundred-thousand years or so.

The hazards and lifespan of nuclear radiation and waste are indisputable. Nuclear energy only seems clean if you are looking at its carbon output. “Low-carbon” is a political buzzword that has narrowed our discussion of the planet’s health. The American people can’t afford to lose sight of the larger picture.

The President and other supporters of nuclear energy say that it is clean and safer than it has been in the past. If they are so sure, then let them live near and work in the plants, and store the waste near their homes. Let them watch what happens to their children under the exposure of this radiation. If Obama is not willing to do this, it is wrong for him to ask other American families to. It is too easy to turn a blind eye to the hazards that are in someone else’s backyard.

Climate change and sustainable living are enormous challenges. It is tempting to believe that nuclear energy will be the magic bullet that will give us enough power to maintain our standard of living here in the West. But in the course of our daily lives of driving from suburbs to cities to schools to soccer games, we use a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources and create too many pollutants. Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy another won’t change that. It is our lifestyles that have to change, and that will mean giving up things we feel entitled to, like cars and big houses. These are not necessities, they are luxuries.

No one with any sense wants radioactive waste near them. Leaping onto the nuclear bandwagon reflects the naïve hope that we can continue to live the extravagant, consumption-based lives that we are used to in the West. The truth is that saving the planet (and ourselves) will require changing our lifestyles and making sacrifices so that we are using fewer resources and polluting less. Very few politicians have the guts to say this, which is why Obama is throwing money at a new spin on an old, failed method of energy production.

— Lisa Neher is a graduate student from Covington, Washington.

Comments

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

"an old, failed method of energy production" Except, you know, in France. Where it's three fourths of their power supply. Oh those silly, backwards, foolish French.

Nuclear power in France

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

Did Wiki mentions that France exports its nuclear waste to Russia?

Some documented radioactive good times are mentioned here: http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/02/a_french_documentary_on_n.html

"The authors Eric Guéret and Laure Noualhat were often accompanied by technicians of the French independent radiation-monitoring lab CRIIRAD. They detected and measured radiation in many places where they went, from the Columbia river close to the US nuclear weapons lab in Hanford to the Soviet counterpart Mayak in the Urals. Some of the most remarkable scenes include a Geiger counter that goes crazy under a publicly accessible bridge over the Techa river and a scene outside the French "plutonium factory" called reprocessing plant at La Hague. In the latter case a spokesman for operator AREVA, when asked about radiation levels in the fields outside the plant, stated after a long hesitation that he would not call this contamination, but "absence of impact" before stumbling: "Well, we'll redo that one..."

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

When will people come to grips that A) Wind and Solar WILL NOT make enough electricity to power our new fangled electric cars, computers, lights, etc. etc. and that B) trying to tell people to reduce their electricity consumption because we won't have enough power in the future WILL NOT WORK. We have plenty now, and who's saying we won't in the future.

They keep coming up with all sorts of new computer devices, new super HDTVs, super efficient air conditioners, and plug in hybrids and electric cars are touted as the next big green thing. Guess what? The electricity to power these wonderful gadgets HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. That means that we're either going to have to split atoms, burn hydrocarbons or dam up rivers to make it. The sun only shines about 12 hours a day, and sure doesn't shine in Seattle, and while we have tons of wind here, it doesn't blow all the time. There has to be a base load to make up for the times the sun ain't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

In reality, Nuclear Energy is in some ways our only option. Think about it- we could either spew millions of tons of carbon dioxide, mercury, etc into the atmosphere, causing gradual raising of global temperatures and melting of polar ice caps, OR we can build a huge cave in the middle of nowhere and ship the 100,000 tons or so of radioactive nuclear waste there and bury it for 10,000 years and hope that the next generation of humans understands why the hell there's a giant cave there with barrels of stuff in there. Personally, I think the cave is a better idea, since, you know, there isn't tons of smoke blowing over your city causing massive, irreversible climate changes worldwide.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

The problem is that the nuclear waste causes contamination if it leaks and will get into groundwater supplies.

We have the technology to run on solar and wind. However, most people don't want to turn Utah into a giant solar panel. This country has a serious problem in that there is very little investment in infrastructure. Instead of building high speed railways, solar panel fields or wind turbine farms, the government wastes all the taxpayer money on stupid, pointless defense projects. Trillions of dollars were wasted making airplanes, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs and all kinds of other stuff that never gets used. We have several wars right now. If all that war money had been put into energy, we'd be energy independent. 2 trillion dollars would have paid for universal healthcare twice over. Everyone whines about the high costs and government spending, but no one looks at how we spend 1 trillion a year on defense. Why? To build more airplanes that we'll never use? To start more wars that don't benefit us at all?

We could have invested 2 trillion to upgrade the electricity grid and pay for sh*ttons of solar panels and wind turbines made by workers in this country. That money would have gone to the average American and spurred economic growth. It would have also made us energy independent.

Also, there are things called batteries. The sun doesn't have to shine 24 hours a day. Solar panels can collect energy and transmit it via a grid or store it in batteries. Arguing that because the sun only shines 12 hours a day is a senseless argument.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

There are thousands of people who live near and work in these plants, and have been for several generations, with no adverse effects. In fact, an operator typically receives less radiation working a shift at a plant than they would standing outside in the wonderful green environment with the sun and all the natural nasty radiation it dumps on us daily. The industry uses a standard when it comes to exposure that balances risks from increased exposure against the risks associated with normal everyday activities, and maintains everyone's exposure as low as reasonably achievable. It isn’t about eliminating radiation, or even contamination, because that's a pointless objective when you consider that orb that delivers astonishing doses of radiation that pale in comparison to occupational level of exposure in the nuclear power industry, much less what some local would get just off site. There are entire books and specifications written about radiation and contamination management with respect to nuclear power. I'd venture a guess you've looked at none of them in either your graduate research, or your research for this article.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

I kinda feel like you neglected to take into account the environmental damage that producing and installing these solar panels could do. You know how you're not supposed to throw away electronics because of all the nasty chemicals in them? Well, it turns out the manufacture of solar panels is incredibly similar to electronics in that it uses tons of toxic chemicals and takes massive amounts of energy. Additionally, your average solar panel only lasts about 20 years, and by the end of its lifespan, it's functioning at reduced capacity. (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html) And that's without taking into account the cost of maintaining these panels or the effect installing them all over the American southwest will have on the local ecosystem. So essentially, what you're telling me is that rather than use an energy source that creates virtually no carbon emissions, and produces a relatively small amount of easily controlled waste (especially when you take into account the possibilities that come into play with breeder reactors), you'd rather cover an area the size of Utah with toxic waste. But on your second point, I think you're right, we really never use our aircraft carriers, I guess we should scrap them and the next time people in New Orleans need to be airlifted off their roofs, or the people of Haiti need fresh drinking water, or the people of North Korea or Taiwan don't want to be invaded by opressive regimes we should just shrug it off. While we're at it, why don't we tell Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and North Korea that we'll no longer intervene in a nuclear exchange because we're dismantling our nuclear weapons, I'm sure the balance of power won't shift there at all. Also, it's not like the fact that we have the most advanced military in the world serves any kind of deterrent to other countries, so if we pulled all our assets from the rest of the world, I'm sure that wouldn't affect global stability in any way. As an aside, the DOD's budget is not a trillion dollars, it's closer to $688 billion. Interestingly enough, if you look at the federal budget, we actually spend more on Medicare and Medicaid at $696 billion and a total of $812 billion gets allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services, and Social Security at $770 billion. Furthermore, we have more than the DOD's budget ($722 billion) tied up in loans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that we already spend close three quarters of that trillion dollars you quoted on health care, so I find it a little hard to swallow the idea that another $300 billion is going to make that big of a dent. (All of this by the way, comes from the FY 2011 budget http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/ )

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

You're failing to take into account the money spent on wars. That's separate and shows the real "defense" spending.

When have we ever been invaded? Never is the answer you're looking for. No other country has the resources to send over an enormous fleet of aircraft carriers and airplanes to invade us.

No one was rescued by aircraft carriers in Haiti. Non military personnel are kept away from them. They could have used shipping barges instead, and they'd carry a lot more stuff.

Have we stopped any repressive regimes with our aircraft carriers and airplanes? Last time I checked North Korea was still there, being repressive. China? Likewise. The middle east? A big mess.

Airplanes and aircraft carriers didn't lift anyone out of New Orleans. Neither did missiles or nuclear bombs.

Our military is not a deterrent. We have ICBMs and could blow up the world several times over without having a huge military. It's unnecessary. No one else is developing military technology like this country. There is no arms race, yet this country continues to waste money on all this stuff. You're concerned about the damage used solar panels would cause, but not about all of the scrapped military equipment? At least the solar panels would provide 20 years of energy. We get nothing from building military equipment.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

"When have we ever been invaded? Never is the answer you're looking for." Never?

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

Unless you can come up with an example, yes.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

1) Revolutionary War by: The British Empire 2) War of 1812 by: The British Empire 3) American Civil War by: The Confederate States of America 4) Second World War by: The Japanese (Aleutian Islands) This stuff happens. Don't forget too many people thought before WWII that we would never be involved with that war because our military power was simply too great, and our enemies would be foolish in trying to involve us. I'm not saying you don't have some valid points (I think a nuclear arsenal our size is a bit excessive as well, but its difficult to get others to disarm at the same time we do, and I would also like to see more investment in maintaining some of the technology we already have instead of trying to build nth generation fighters or whatever when some of our older technology is quite suficient). But 1. We do need a military, and a strong naval presence in the world. 2. As a matter of history, we have been invaded.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

I think the more pertinent question is: Would we, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. have been invaded during the period from 1945 on if we did not have a strong military presence in the world?

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

The way you start your argument with a personal attack immediately leads a reader to discount whatever reasoned position you may have. It's understandable to disagree with Obama on his views on nuclear power, but you do yourself no good starting with such a childish introduction.

Let's follow your line of thinking: the vast majority of existing US nuclear reactors, both for domestic power and military use, were authorized and built under Republican presidents. Should their descendants start storing some nuclear waste in their houses today? Let's not stop there! Those existing reactors were signed off on by thousands of members of Congress, regulatory officials, local governments in charge of zoning laws, and on and on. How about they share the fun?

Nuclear waste is an issue that needs to be debated. Wishing ill on family members does not add to the discussion. (Ask our national championship Debate team if they'd try it!)

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

1) Revolutionary War by: The British Empire 2) War of 1812 by: The British Empire 3) American Civil War by: The Confederate States of America 4) Second World War by: The Japanese (Aleutian Islands)

  1. The US rebelled. It didn't exist until 1789.
  2. "During the war, the Americans and British invaded each other's territory. These invasions were either unsuccessful or gained only temporary success." This wasn't a real invasion. It was mostly a naval war.
  3. Civil war isn't an invasion.
  4. Wow. That sure counts as an invasion.

We have nukes now. We don't need very many to deter other countries. Building an enormous military hasn't made us safer.

Letter to the Editor: Nuclear waste storage suggestion

In answer to your question about repressive regimes, I think the first one that we can point to is Soviet Russia, which collapsed largely because we were able to out pace them on defense spending, to the point where it drove their economy into the ground. Secondly, I would argue that the Aleutians as part of the State of Alaska very much count as an invasion, as would all the other US territories invaded in that war. And I would consider the burning of Washington in the war of 1812 to be a further example of a real invasion that would be checked with naval power. Airplanes may not have done any of the rescuing after Katrina, but the Navy helicopters based off the same aircraft carriers did, just as the water processing facilities were able to provide fresh water off of Haiti. Additionally, I would ask you when the last time a new aircraft carrier was built or a new fighter jet was actually put into full service. And before you throw it out, the F-22 is now almost 20 years old and production on it has been canceled. Meanwhile, there are other nations that are approaching technological parity again, foremost among them, Russia which began testing on a fighter comparable to the F-22 (which once again, we don't have in any practical scale because it was canceled). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7007913.ece And finally what I would add is that if you genuinely don't believe that having a large military has ever done anything beneficial to this country then you should probably get off the internet it's the offspring of a military communications network called ARPANET.

Advertisement