Re: Yucca Mtn. This should raise some hackles

[Tim Folkerts <tfolkert@FHSU.EDU>]

Bernard,

Those are indeed interesting statistics, but they certainly don't tell the
whole story.  Let me play devil's advocate.

- Number of shipments expected: 105,685 truckloads  or 18,243 railcars
- Shipments ... over the last 30 years: 3025
- Number of regulatory incidents ... 47
- Number of accidents: 6
- Number of resulting deaths: 1

The number of shipments will apparently go up ~10x, so we could extrapolate
to ~60 accidents and ~10 deaths (depending on the mix of truck/train
transportation).  That seems remarkably safe to me.  (And remarkably like
the DOE estimate below)



- Number of truck accidents the Department of Energy predicts: 66
- Number of truck accidents other experts estimate: 129
- Number of rail accidents the Department of Energy predicts: 10
- Number of rail accidents other experts estimate: 440

The truck accident rate is pretty similar (I'm not going to quibble about
2x), but the train rates are significantly different.  I'm guessing the
"other experts" are extrapolating standard data, and DOE is assuming more
ideal conditions.  I understand that most rail accidents are human error
(falling asleep, drunk, distracted, ...) and nearly all of these can be
avoided by carefully selecting engineers and adding redundancy to the crew.



- 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

One alternate to shipping the fuel is to stop using nuclear.  But consider,
nuclear fuel is much more compact than coal -- about 100,000x if by quick
research is correct.  So for each shipment of waste we eliminate, we create
100,000 shipments of coal.  That seems pretty dangerous, too.   Besides,
this is a worst case scenario.  Every other accident would have much less
effect.


- Estimated cancer deaths in the 50 years following such an accident: 4000
to 28,000

And how much impact is there with the equivalent coal fuel?  Smog?  Acid
rain? Black lung?



> bc who thinks keeping it where it is "created"  is a better plan.
> Besides it must for five years (if no Sr. moment).

Leaving the waste in place is one possibility, but then you have to guard
100's of sites against potential terrorists and potential leaks, rather
than one.  Besides, we've seen at Hanford & Rocky Flats & others, that
current storage techniques aren't working well.  How many deaths & how much
money has been expended fixing those problems?

*****
I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but these sort of "scare
lists" seem to get awfully close to the other current thread -- dishonesty.
The author (of the original piece, not bc) is either ignorant of, or (my
gut feeling) intentionally ignores information and arguments on the other
side.  Sure, it is an editorial, but has the author really thought about
the whole issue before jumping in?  I would guess he already had his mind
made up and looked for information to support his opinion.

Tim

Department of Physics
Fort Hays State University
Hays, KS  67601
785-628-4501



                      Bernard Cleyet
                      <anngeorg@PACBEL         To:      PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
                      L.NET>                   cc:
                      Sent by:                 Subject: Yucca Mtn.  This should raise some hackles
                      "phys-l@lists.na
                      u.edu: Forum for
                      Physics
                      Educators"
                      <PHYS-L


                      07/31/2002 04:33
                      PM
                      Please respond
                      to
                      "phys-l@lists.na
                      u.edu: Forum for
                      Physics
                      Educators"






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



- 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

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0231/krech.php

bc who thinks keeping it where it is "created"  is a better plan.
Besides it must for five years (if no Sr. moment).