> > Not very. In spite of the fact that this stuff would be nearly useless for
> >making any kind of nuclear weapon (except a "dirty bomb", which would probably kill
> >more terrorists during its construction than Americans after its detonation)
> >shipments of high-level radwaste are routinely escorted by DoE security types who
> >will probably be given authority to shoot to kill. Besides, these casks are HEAVY.
> >No train carrying them is going to be moving very fast, and it's certain that DoE/
> >Homeland Security is going to be checking the tracks very very carefully. "I pity
> >the fool that messes with a radwaste truck," as Mr. T might say.
>
> ~~~ Well, I'm glad you are willing to spend our tax dollars on all that extra
>security.
> I would rather that the citiznry and Xcel take responsibility for its own garbage.
They do. What do you think they (and we) pay taxes for? Besides, those security
teams already exist and get workouts now and again.
> And why do you want to take this chance? You know, I don't think many folks were
> thinking that a 767 could fly into the Pentagon either.
Not after the 1970s, anyway. Up until then, most American cities (including
Washington) had antiaircraft defenses, of which you can still find traces around
Minneapolis and St. Paul. As for taking chances, I just don't agree with you on
the degree of risk, especially not when you compare it with the risks we take
every day with other hazardous materials moving through our fair City of Lakes.
> > Again, I'd like to see documentation on this. All the literature I've seen says
> >that all the high-level waste (spent fuel rods, mainly) is going to Nevada.
> >
>
> ~~~ Documentation compiled from DoE Impact Statement:
> http://www.mapscience.org/pdf/waste_left.pdf
>
> And again, is Xcel going to stop producing waste? No.
OK, but this isn't the DoE documentation I asked you for. This is more EWG
stuff *based on* DoE's environmental impact statement, not the real deal.
<snip>
> > It is the blind refusal of the Greens to see this, and their continued
> >scaremongering on the issue, that totally frustrates me. By all means, promote
> >energy conservation and alternative power sources (preferably ones that don't
> >need subsidies from the government to make them cost-effective) but spare us
> >the lectures on the horrors of nuclear power.
>
> ~~~ So, this multi-billion dollar storage repository, the trains, the security,
> the casks, they don't count as a public subsidy? OK... Seems to me we gave a
> large chunk of cash to Xcel in 1993-94 to build those extra storage casks.
> Am I wrong on that?
>
As I recall, the PUC forced Xcel to invest in a number of uneconomic
"alternative" energy generation systems in return for permission to build
the casks. As for the repository, utilities had been forced to contribute
to the fund for such a repository since the 1960s. It wasn't until the courts
forced DoE to get serious about Yucca Mountain that they finally started
spending some of that money. The trains already exist, as do the security
teams and the casks. So we're not looking at any additional expense except
for actually moving the stuff.
> There are far more health hazards
> >involved in NOT going nuclear.
>
> Ah, the big lie of the nuclear power - "It's clean!" because there are no emissions.
No, it's not just about the emissions. It's about mining the fuel. It's about
moving the fuel. It's about disposing of the waste. No matter how you slice it,
nuclear comes out way ahead of coal, oil, gas, solar panels, wind farms, you name
it.
> It's not clean. It generates the most poisonous substances on earth.
Worse than black lung from coal? Worse than the sodium and nitrogen oxides
from burning fossil fuels and biomass? Worse than the selenium and silicon from
producing solar cells? Worse than the lead-acid batteries used to store solar
power in houses when the sun isn't out? I rather doubt it...
> And DECADES of generation produce MILLENNIA of waste. Waste on a scale we have
> never even considered dealing with.
What's this "we", white man? Some of us have been thinking about this for
as long as there's been nuclear power, and working on it, too. You don't have
a lot of faith in mankind, to sit there and assume that in the centuries to
come nobody will find a way to suck the power out of all those "spent" fuel
rods. We're an inventive bunch of monkey-boys and gals, and I wouldn't bet
against folks who went from coracles to Space Shuttles in less than ten centuries.
>The Europeans are going through the same issues we are, even though they have
>breeder plants. At some point, the stuff can't be recycled and you have to
>do something with it.
Yes, but at least you've bought some more time to work on the problem.
> Additionally, by that point the stuff is even more long term poisonous than
> it was before recycling. France is burying waste as fast as they can generate
> it (at great public expense). They have also of course, made New Caladonia a
> little cancer factory for the next several centuries, never telling the
> indiginous folk that the fish they were eating were full of rads from waste
> dumped in the ocean.
>
Well, that's the French for you. I think we're a little better than that.
Scratch that - I think we're a LOT better than that.
> We won't even talk about how much waste there is in the Russian arctic circle.
>
Very wise of you, since it would shoot your notions of government having
the best ideas on how to handle these problems right in the butt. The Soviets
are legendary for not caring too much about the environment...or about their
people. You want some reading to keep you up with nightmares, forget Steven King.
Check out Jim Oberg's book on stuff the Soviet press accidentally let slip, and the
full horrible stories behind the news. The atomic gulag chapter especially
makes for disturbing reading.
> But to bring it back to Minneapolis (as I'm sure the list manager would like
> me to), the facts are there. The shipments from our plants and others WILL
> be coming through Minnesota's most heavily populated areas (documented above).
Your own documents say that those may not be the routes they'll use, and
as I have just a wee bit of military security background I'd bet you lunch that
those won't be the routes.
> It IS the most toxic substance on earth.
Which is why we take such precautions with the stuff, and don't let the
kids lick the fuel rods, even in winter. (Sorry, couldn't resist the Minnesota
joke.)
>It will NOT aleviate the storage issue associated with nuclear power (also
>documented above).
Not completely. I agree with your colleague Holle Brian that we need
to find a local storage area for the casks, but more than that we need to
research ways to recycle and reuse this stuff. Duty now for the future!
>An accident WILL have very serious consequences on the population of Minneapolis.
So would a gasoline truck explosion, or an ammunition train exploding.
The chances of a similar problem with the radwaste are slim and none.
> This is not a NIMBY thing. I don't want it in anyone's backyard.
You're right, it's a BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)
thing, and I don't find it any more attractive. Power to the people!
Kevin Trainor
RPM Candidate HD 61A
East Phillips
www.taxpayersfortrainor.org
[Oh, yes...the answer to the TMI question is "none". Some people sued because
they claimed their cow died from the radioactive gas that escaped, but the case
was thrown out of court. All these years later, the incidence of cancer in
Harrisburg is no higher than in any other part of Pennsylvania. --KT]
Kevin Trainor
RPM Candidate HD 61A
East Phillips
www.taxpayersfortrainor.org
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
