Seems to me that the nuclear waste is far more accessible for terrorists
where it's sitting now. As for terrorists blowing up a truck...yes,
anything's possible. They could blow up the "swimming pool" storage, too.
BUT, it would take a heck of an explosion to damage to the nuclear waste
casks on the truck enough to spew radiation all over the place. Note that
the waste in the casks will probably be processed on-site before shipment
into a "glassified" form, not a liquid or a powder that is spread
easily...unlike the stuff in other hazardous waste shipments. At worst,
you'd have an extremely localized contaminated area and an event with a lot
more propaganda value than actual physical/environmental damage. As for
the 1000th shipment being protected, as has been pointed out, reactor fuel
is already being transported routinely, without incident. We've had that
1000th shipment, and more. Concerning future Congress and the safety of
radioactive waste, Congress will always be involved no matter what. If we
leave the stuff in the on-site storage where it is, the government will have
to fund the (considerable) storage maintainence & security eventually.
Companies & power plants don't live forever. The whole point of Yucca
Mountain is to phase Congress out of the equation by putting the stuff in a
place that has a chance of being maintainence-free for thousands of years.
I'm not sure about the insurance/liability issues in the nuclear industry.
These are more complicated than you might think. For example, it is well
known by epidemiologists that normally operating coal-fired power plants
cause lots of illness, deaths, and even radiation-induced cancers. (Coal
contains naturally occurring radioactive elements, which are released to the
air upon burning the coal.) Furthermore, there's a considerable amount of
disease/death/environmental damage associated with mining the coal.
However, when it comes to liability/insurance & etc., there may be a whole
boatload of "grandfather" clauses protecting the coal industry. The fact is
that for the past thirty years, nuclear plants in North America have had
excellent safety records. Even the Three Mile Island incident wasn't bad,
compared to other industrial incidents (think Bhopal, for example). "Market
judgement" is a poor argument for/against actual safety, as opposed to
public perception of safety, especially when most of the people running the
market think a "moderator" is just the guy who runs the meeting.
Vickie
-----Original Message-----
From: John Barrer
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Sent: 8/1/02 4:40 PM
Subject: Yucca Mtn transport issues
I agree that the described risks as noted
heretofore can be designed out (at least in very large
part). What I haven't seen is an assessment as to
whether or not the cross-country transport of spent
rods makes materials for a "dirty-bomb" more
accessible to bad guys. Or, could a truck itself be
easily converted into a dirty bomb with the use of a
shoulder-launched missile? Also, will the 1000th
shipment be as rigorously protected as the 10th? Will
a future Congress decide that it's not REALLY
necessary to spend so much on safety? Will the Yucca
Mtn facility have the same liability exemption that
the nuclear power industry has?
Frankly, for me that's always been the real
sticking point about nuclear power plants. If
operating (and the emphasis here is on "operating" as
opposed to "as designed") nuclear plants have as
little risk as their proponents claim, why is a
liability exemption still necessary? Why are potential
damages caused by these plants for all practical
purposes uninsurable when the insurance industry (I
believe) still writes liability policies for other
generating plants as well as chemical plants. Since
insurance companies don't make money if they don't
write policies, isn't there a "market judgement" here
on the safety of nuclear power? Please point out the
faulty logic here. Thanks. John Barrere
It is prohibited for anyone to disclose, copy, distribute the contents of
this message. Benedictine University does not review, edit or censor
E-Mail communications sent out through their System. The University
maintains and enforces polices regarding the acceptable use of its
technology resources. All messages express views solely of the sender,
which are not to be attributed to Benedictine University, and may not be
copied or distributed without this disclaimer.