Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow Daily arrow Folly of nuke waste transport plan
Oct 13 2007
Folly of nuke waste transport plan | Print |  E-mail
Investigating Reports
By Ace Hoffman   

Translation

Image15-truck fiery pileup in California highlights folly of nuke waste transport plan  

One might recall, last April (2007), when a section of freeway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed after a gasoline tanker truck overturned and erupted into flames.

One might recall a fire in a tunnel near Baltimore, when a train burned for five days and the heat was estimated at more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, exceeding design limits for nuke waste transport casks.  It's easy to forget, because it happened July 18-23, 2001, but we must not forget. 

The same tunnel will probably be used to transport nuclear waste from Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant to Yucca Mountain. Over 1000 tons of High Level Nuclear Waste is currently being stored at Calvert Cliffs, requiring hundreds of individual shipments. Every other nuclear power station in America also has many tons of nuclear waste stored dangerously outside the "containment dome."

One might recall (if you were me) that the Department of Energy told me -- when I mentioned the tunnel fire at a hearing on Yucca Mountain, and said "how are you going to guarantee that all those nuke transport vehicles won't get involved in something like that?" -- that they would be tracking  all the other trains on all the other tracks that the nuke waste train would go near, so there could never be a combination of a nuke train and a fuel or hazardous / flammable waste train in a tunnel, on a bridge or overpass, or just simply passing each other at the same time.  One would have to be very dense -- denser than D.U. -- to believe anything the D.O.E. tells you.

Today's fiery pileup in a California truck tunnel just points out, once again, that the nuke waste problem hasn't been solved. It won't be solved -- transporting waste will always be hazardous, risky, leaky, and foolhardy. But sooner or later, we're going to do it anyway, because the waste has to go somewhere. But transporting the waste won't be safe, and it won't be easy.

"Nuke waste transport routes cover hundreds of thousands of miles of old, dilapidated roadways.  Bridges thought to be safe are collapsing around us, yet still the plan moves forward, as if there is no danger. As if the containers will be made magically strong enough to survive anything that can happen. It's a pipe-dream. It's terrorism.  Domestic terrorism by our own government against our own citizens."

In today's fire, chunks of concrete and steel fell from the ceiling -- a container of nuke waste could be crushed and breached. Today's pileup happened just thirty miles from Los Angeles and closed one of the most important escape routes out of the city.  Nuke waste transport routes cover hundreds of thousands of miles of old, dilapidated roadways.  Bridges thought to be safe are collapsing around us, yet still the plan moves forward, as if there is no danger. As if the containers will be made magically strong enough to survive anything that can happen. It's a pipe-dream. It's terrorism.  Domestic terrorism by our own government against our own citizens.

But what are our options? We can't leave the waste on the coasts, subject to tsunamis. We can't leave it near population centers.  We can't leave it in earthquake zones. We can't just leave it be -- it must be monitored for hundreds of thousands of years.  It will cost a bundle. The costs have not been factored in to the price you pay for nuclear-generated electricity, no matter what the nuclear industry claims to the contrary.

What about Yucca Mountain, I hear some naive pro-nukers cry!  "That will solve our problem once and for all!"

No it won't. It won't even solve our problem once, let alone, for all time. Yucca Mountain probably will never be completed because 1) The people of Nevada have a say in their future, and they hate it. and 2) It's a scientific failure and a financial boondoggle, and 3) Even if built, it would only hold today's waste -- if that.  It won't hold the waste the nuclear industry plans to make tomorrow.

Nuclear power is a crime against humanity. To call it anything less is an understatement. Nuclear power's supporters, with almost zero exceptions, all make a living, or made a living, from within the nuclear industry.

Nuclear reactors generate about 20,000 pounds -- 10 tons -- of high-level radioactive waste each day in America alone -- 100,000 pounds of new "HLRW" worldwide every day.

The day must come when this madness stops. Many pro-DNA people ("anti-nukers" is the term pro-nukers use, but we're really just "pro-DNA") believe that only a severe accident will stop the juggernaut. But humanity cannot wait for that -- the cost -- trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives -- would be too great to bear.  It would bankrupt America, or any country it happens to.

Sanity -- stopping nuclear power entirely and immediately -- is the only choice.

That, or hell on earth. If you think a 15-truck fiery pileup in a truck tunnel in California, or a 5,000 degree fire in Baltimore, Maryland, or leaky containers along routes that pass within a few miles of 200 million Americans are bad things, then you need to protest not just "new" nuclear power, but "old" nuclear power, too. A closed reactor is much less vulnerable to terrorism, human error, environmental catastrophes, and aging ("embrittlement") accidents than an operating reactor, and perhaps most important, it's no longer generating new nuclear waste.

Nuclear power was a dream of cheap energy that failed miserably.  It's time to put the nightmare to rest.

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

This_Category
Category:: Investigating Reports

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 1981

Comments (2)
RSS comments
1. 15-10-2007 07:30
This article is so grossly wrong, with so many factual errors (let's leave the opinions out for now), that a sentence by sentence rebuttal would go on forever.  
 
I encourage readers to check for themselves the statements purported to be facts in this letter, especially those dealing with where spent nuclear fuel could be transported and what would happen to a transportation cask in an accident. 
 
Reasonable people can disagree on nuclear power. It's those who use fear and fiction who are NOT reasonable, and don't deserve your attention.
Guest
yucca_insider
2. 15-10-2007 13:03
Nuclear option is FOLLY
Ace Hoffman has written an EXCELLENT, to-the-point article. With a background of 4 decades of experience in radiation safety and working with nuclear materials, I reject the non-specific, unsubstantiated, pejorative abuse of post #1.  
 
I have been working with radioactive materials for 40 years as a research scientist, taught radiation safety courses and indeed this year gave a course entitled \"nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats\" and which that dealt with these issues. 
 
Mankind has produced about 100 billion Curies of high level radioactive waste in a mere 6 decades. Admittedly this is decaying away but many of the nuclides produced have half-lives measured in thousands and tens of thousands of years or even greater. 
 
Notwithstanding good risk management procedures in the nuclear power and related areas , accidents are inevitable.  
 
One aspect not dealt with in the article are the radiation safety codes themselves that allow for huge margins of error in the interests of public safety.  
 
However in accidents of the kind imagined by Ace Hoffman, while possibly not being immediately catastrophic in themselves (except for those killed immediately in such accidents) the resultant contamination might well require that authorities tear up the Radiation Safety Codes for the region affected to prevent any \"economic disruption\". 
 
A good example to illustrate this is the irresponsible and RACIST use of depleted uranium (DU) by the US and surrogate military in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Somalia ...  
 
Even if one assumes (for the purposes of argument) no untoward effects of this widespread environmental contamination with radioactive materials, this cavalier, widespread RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION PRACTICE would be totally forbidden by Safety Codes in a domestic, metropolitan American setting. 
 
In relation to global warming, the nuclear power option is NOT carbon neutral (the overall carbon dioxide pollution in the overall nuclear cycle can be the same as for a modern gas fired power station); there remain huge State and non-State \"nuclear terrorism\" security problems in terms of the physical bulk and specific materials of the radioactive waste; the high level waste problem, has not been solved; and the nuclear option will be very SHORT-TERM - massive \"economic\" use of available high uranium-235 content ore deposits could see their depletion in a matter of DECADES; and the latest technology RENEWABLE options are now ALREADY CHEAPER in terms of cents per kilowatt hour than the REAL cost of coal-based electric power (see \"War on Terra, Climate Criminals, \"Terra\" painting\" on MWC News via the link below).  
 
Apart from material for research-, non-nuclear industry- and nuclear-medicine-oriented reactors, the uranium oxide should stay in the ground together with the fossil fuels that are destroying out Planet.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:

Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Ace Hoffman California Nuke waste Transport plan
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: