Defense Bill allows Energy Dept to just bury nuke waste - no clean-up

[papau]

Sens. Cantwell and Hollings today try to strip "language out of the defense authorization bill that would allow the Energy Department to leave some radioactive waste in buried tanks -- rather than get it up and ship it off for entombment in Nevada."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7951-2004Jun1.html

Debate Intensifies on Nuclear Waste
Lawmakers in Affected States Press Bush Administration on Cleanup
By Blaine Harden and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 2, 2004; Page A02


RICHLAND, Wash. -- Using the nation's largest and leakiest nuclear waste dump as a backdrop, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) complained last week that the Bush administration is using a "sneaky" legislative maneuver to avoid cleaning up Cold War-era poisons that are tainting groundwater here and oozing into the Columbia River.

"They are trying to create a loophole in the definition of nuclear waste big enough to drive a truck through and leave Washington state to deal with a mess that we don't want," Cantwell said, echoing the worries of state environmental officials who help monitor the federal Hanford Nuclear Reservation here.

Cantwell's complaint will animate a debate expected this week on the Senate floor. She and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) plan to lead an effort to strip language out of the defense authorization bill that would allow the Energy Department to leave some radioactive waste in buried tanks -- rather than get it up and ship it off for entombment in Nevada.

The fight over nuclear waste, which involves Washington, Idaho and South Carolina, has slowed debate on the nearly $450 billion annual defense bill, which pays for everything from the Iraq war to multibillion-dollar weapons systems.

A vote on the Cantwell-Hollings amendment could be close, with Democrats lining up solidly against the Bush administration. Cantwell and her supporters say they are courting several moderate Republicans who often vote against the administration on environmental issues. <snip>

[meow mix]

1. nice try, but we here at DU know that nuclear waste is great stuff!!

its good for the environment and good for organisms in general.
bathing in it works wonders for the skin, babies that drink it.. grow up strong and healthy.

the benefits of nuclear waste are numerous and wonderful.
at least thats what i learn here =)

[Massacure]

2. I don't know what your smoking

But I want some. :P

[meow mix]

3. ok have some!

we'll save some for the radioactivewaste-apologists too =)

[NNadir]

4. I would suppose you mean me and my allies

It's not exactly an apologist...It's more of a statement being aware of risk assessment. The fact is that "nuclear wastes," even military nuclear wastes are less risky than petroleum wastes.

You may attempt to translate this into a statement that we are saying that "nuclear waste is good for you," but this is an "intellectual" or should we say, "anti-intellectual" dodge. I'm hardly surprised by the quality of such a statement, since it's the sort of remarks that characterizes discussion of this issue. Rationality and an obsession with "nuclear waste" to the exclusion of any other kind of energy waste is the only strategy by which nuclear energy can seem more risky than its alternatives.

As for the alleged contention that nuclear waste is good for anything, we have only noted the truth here with respect to Chernobyl: Careful study of the matter has shown that nuclear waste is good for species diversity in that area simply because the presence of the waste has excluded human habitation. This is, if anything, merely a demonstration that human habitation has an extremely negative impact on the ecological wealth of an area. With a little critical thinking, one hardly needs to appeal to the existence of a nuclear exclusion zone. Besides Chernobyl, other "Viridian Parks" exist on this planet. The Korean DMZ is just such a place.

The attempt to associate peaceful and environmentally superior nuclear energy with the machinery of nuclear war (which is what Hanford is) is rather tantamount to the association of the environmental impact of napalm factories with gasoline, or VX nerve gas factories with the chemicals industry, or 747's with B-1 (or B-52) bombers. Unless you are calling for the shutdown of the refining industry, the chemicals industry, and the aircraft industry, you are in severe danger of being inconsistent, not that this, again, should represent any surprise. I am used to people making sarcastic and scientifically indifferent remarks about so called "nuclear waste." It's far easier than actual thinking.

Now maybe you will now tell us about all of the people who have died from exposure to nuclear waste in the United States, including the leachates from the weapons related Hanford tanks? Please demonstrate some, and I will then, as usual, cite the Science paper, showing that 40,000 people die each year from the effects of air pollution in four major cities in the Western hemisphere. Then we'll count the dead, compare integers, and see how your arguments hold up.

[meow mix]

5. "less risky than petroleum"

ill agree with that part =)

but the level of minimalizing that is just plain creepy,
is stuff like...
"chernobyl was ok, only 3 people died and now the whole region is healthier. nuke accidents should happen everywhere!!"

(meanwhile retardism and gross mutation runs rampant in the population)

[Bdog]

6. The nuclear advisory bord is well represented around here

Don't forget to get your daily dose. A little radiation a day will keep you from getting radiation sickness.

[NNadir]

7. You cite no references whatsoever. Please cite a single place that I

said that 3 people died at Chernobyl. I have consistently reported figures of less than 1000, but I never said three. This means that nuclear energy, over its entire commercial life time of 40 years, while rising to produce 20% of the world's energy, is reponsible (because of Chernobyl) on average 25 deaths a year. This is an extraordinary low risk.

It has happened from time to time that there have been websites and other references that have claimed that millions and millions of people will die from Chernobyl. This claim is tantamount to claiming that everyone who dies in the Ukraine will die from Chernobyl since there are about 800,000 deaths in the Ukraine every year from all causes, including accidents, cigarette smoking, heart attacks, mining accidents (many hundreds killed in this decade in coal mines) etc, etc.

Please cite a reference for your claim that retardism and gross mutation runs rampant really needs more support, like a scientific (as opposed to a website) reference. I have been studying the work of geneticist Robert Baker who frequently travels to Chernobyl. I reference that work frequently here and note that Dr. Baker has studied his own DNA as well as that of his graduate students and post docs. We have posted reference after reference after reference on this website discussing genetics and genetic mutations. It must be that you didn't read them, don't believe them on religious grounds, or you have forgotten them.

Let us assume though that we claim that everyone in the Ukraine is retarded (a claim about which I think the Ukranians might take umbrage.). Exactly how can you show that the Ukraine, one of the most industrially polluted places on earth (ignoring for a moment the radioactivity) that this retardation is attributable to Chernobyl and not say for instance the known neurotoxin Mercury associated with burning coal in that area?

[meow mix]

8. heres a good link for the apologists..

lots of articles to sink your non-glowing teeth into..
http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/radiatio.htm

i like this part.

Chernobyl's 10th: Cancer and Nuclear-Age Peace
Don't Be Deceived
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.html

"Forget it, if you are thinking about having a real evaluation, from the radiation establishment, of the human cost of the Chernobyl Blow-Up at this 10th anniversary (or ever). The monolithic nuclear/radiation "community" cannot afford to provide a meaningful analysis of the radiation consequences. Life, for this monolith, requires the lowest possible death consequences of Chernobyl"

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology, U.C. Berkeley

thats a good quote, gofman must read DU =)

[treepig]

9. have you given any critical thought to the links you post?

or are you just happy they justify your pre-conceived notions?

personally, i'd be intrigued to find out why dr. john w. gofman "publishes" his theories on political-advocacy style websites rather than in the peer-reviewed literature.

oh wait, i think i might have a clue - because it's complete bullshit.