DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ViktorialHDY** · 12-19-2005, 07:00 AM

Safely stored is a relative term. The waste is not presently an environmental hazard, but all of the present storage facilities are on-site, and were never meant to be permenant.

Agreed. However, if the waste was stored on-site for decades, why would it be a problem to continue to store it on-site for several more decades?

Transportation by rail involves casks that are virtually indestructible. Why would it be a hazard?

Safety is a relative term. However it would be nice to compare different activities using the same scale. Nevada politicians require the Yucca Mountain facility to be absolutely safe for the next ten thousand years.

What if the same standard is applied to other industries? Let’s say “No dumping any waste into Hudson River or the ocean until it’s scientifically proven to be absolutely safe for the next ten thousand years”. The chemical industry will stop.

What about the power plants burning coal? Where is the logic – it is well established that coal burning power plants are the worst polluters, giving lung disease and asthma to thousands of people and poisoning tuna with mercury – and this is preferable to nuclear power just because scientists are only 99.9% and not 100% sure that the radioactive waste would be safe for the next ten thousand years?

12-19-2005, 07:00 AM	#5
ViktorialHDY Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 393 Senior Member	Safely stored is a relative term. The waste is not presently an environmental hazard, but all of the present storage facilities are on-site, and were never meant to be permenant. Agreed. However, if the waste was stored on-site for decades, why would it be a problem to continue to store it on-site for several more decades? Transportation by rail involves casks that are virtually indestructible. Why would it be a hazard? Safety is a relative term. However it would be nice to compare different activities using the same scale. Nevada politicians require the Yucca Mountain facility to be absolutely safe for the next ten thousand years. What if the same standard is applied to other industries? Let’s say “No dumping any waste into Hudson River or the ocean until it’s scientifically proven to be absolutely safe for the next ten thousand years”. The chemical industry will stop. What about the power plants burning coal? Where is the logic – it is well established that coal burning power plants are the worst polluters, giving lung disease and asthma to thousands of people and poisoning tuna with mercury – and this is preferable to nuclear power just because scientists are only 99.9% and not 100% sure that the radioactive waste would be safe for the next ten thousand years?
	Quote