Re: Yucca Mtn. This should raise some hackles

[James Mackey <jmackey@HARDING.EDU>]

I once did an unscientific survey of toxic materials passing through I30
and I40 throuh Arkansas each day being driven by a wide assortment of
truck drivers of all capabilities and experiences and all stages of
mental alertness (not to mention drug use!) for a class in Energy that I
taught. Conlusion: I would much rather have nuclear wastes being
transported in carefully designed shipment containers along designated
routes with selected drivers.
James Mackey

Hugh Haskell wrote:

> At 14:33 -0700 7/31/02, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
> > THE LIST
> > Yucky Facts
> >
> > [Compiled by Teal Krech of the Village Voice]
> >
> > - Tons of high-level nuclear waste to be shipped to Yucca Mountain, over
> >
> > either 24 or 38 years: 77,000
> >
> > - Number of truckloads of high-level radioactive waste to be shipped
> > through the United States if all the waste is moved by truck over 38
> > years: 105,685
> >
> > - Number of railcars of high-level radioactive waste to be shipped
> > through the United States if all the waste is moved by rail over 38
> > years: 18,243
> >
> > - Shipments of spent nuclear fuel within the United States over the last
> >
> > 30 years: 3025
> >
> > - Number of regulatory incidents involving those American shipments: 47
> >
> > - Number of accidents: 6
> >
> > - Number of resulting deaths: 1
> >
> > - Number of truck accidents the Department of Energy predicts will occur
> >
> > over the 38-year life of the project: 66
> >
> > - Number of truck accidents other experts estimate will occur over the
> > next 40 years: 129
> >
> > - Minutes it takes unshielded radiation from a fuel rod to kill the
> > average person within three feet: 2
> >
> > - Number of rail accidents the Department of Energy predicts will occur
> > over the 38-year life of the project: 10
> >
> > - Number of rail accidents other experts estimate will occur over the
> > next 40 years: 440
> >
> > - Immediate deaths predicted should a train accident occur involving
> > nuclear waste, if that accident is commensurate to last year's Baltimore
> > tunnel fire, in which a train carrying hazmats derailed, exploded, and
> > burned for four days: 250
> >
> > - Estimated cancer deaths in the 50 years following such an accident:
> > 4000 to 28,000
>
> So we're off on dueling statistics. One wonders who these "other
> experts" are. We pretty much know who the gov't experts are, and we
> don't have any more reason to believe their statistics than we do
> those of the "other experts." Many of these numbers are little more
> than wild guesses.
>
> But to some of the specifics. It is my understanding that the
> material will be shipped in "crash-resistant" containers, which makes
> the likelihood of radiation escaping in an accident much lower. Don't
> know what the safety factor is here, but I understand it is rather
> high. If that wasn't true, why would it take nearly 106,000
> truckloads to ship only 77,000 tons. Thats only about 1500 lb per
> truckload--far less than their normal capacity. I would assume that
> the rest of the truck's capacity is made up by the container the
> material will be packed in to make it as crash-resistant as possible.
>
> I suspect that the "kill time" for the person within 3 feet of an
> unshielded fuel rod is actually the time it would take for that
> person to receive a lethal dose. Now I don't want to be close to an
> unshielded fuel rod for any length of time, but, unless I am injured
> and can't move, it is unlikely that I will just stand around the open
> rods for the two minutes necessary to obtain a lethal dose (by the
> way, what defines a lethal dose is that required to kill 50% of those
> receiving it, so even receiving a lethal dose doesn't guarantee ones
> death, although, again, I have no desire to ever receive anything
> near a lethal dose).
>
> As to the Baltimore Tunnel-like accident involving nuclear material,
> we are looking at something very different. Since the nuclear
> material will be contained in crash resistant containers, and isn't
> explosive in the first place, the possibility of radiation release in
> such an accident is quite small, and of enough radiation to create
> the havoc cited virtually zero.
>
> I'm not sure Yucca Mountain is the best place to store this stuff,
> either. The decision to put it there was clearly political, probably
> based on the lack of political clout among the current congressional
> delegation from Nevada (it wasn't always that way). But I don't think
> storing it on site is a very good idea, either. Most of the local
> storage sites I have read about are abysmally poorly run, and fast
> filling up to boot.
>
> BTW, why are we so much more worried about shipping spent rods than
> fresh ones, which are being shipped all the time with no apparent
> controversy. There may be a good explanation for this. I just don't
> know one.
>
> Unfortunately, the statistics that have been presented here are not
> designed to educate but to scare. If you can't win your argument with
> reason you can always make scurrilous attacks on your opponents.
>
> Hugh
> --
>
> Hugh Haskell
> <mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
> <mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>
>
> (919) 467-7610
>
> Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
> have to..
> ******************************************************