SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> WaddaYouMEAN there's no place Else? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1540138253 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 10/21/18 at 09:10:53

Title: WaddaYouMEAN there's no place Else? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/21/18 at 09:10:53 Seems like the Salt Flats would be a lot safer... This is why I am against nukular pahr. More than 60,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is stored on the shores of four of the five Great Lakes — in some cases, mere yards from the waterline — in still-growing stockpiles. “It’s actually the most dangerous waste produced by any industry in the history of the Earth,” said Gordon Edwards, president of the nonprofit Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The spent nuclear fuel is partly from 15 current or former U.S. nuclear power plants, including four in Michigan, that have generated it over the past 50 years or more. But most of the volume stored along the Great Lakes, more than 50,000 tons, comes from Canadian nuclear facilities, where nuclear power is far more prevalent. It remains on the shorelines because there’s still nowhere else to put it. The U.S. government broke a promise to provide the nuclear power industry with a central, underground repository for the material by 1998. Canada, while farther along than the U.S. in the process of trying to find a place for the waste, also doesn’t have one yet. The nuclear power industry and its federal regulator, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, point to spent nuclear fuel’s safe on-site storage over decades. But the remote possibility of a worst-case scenario release — from a natural disaster, a major accident, or an act of terrorism — could cause unthinkable consequences for the Great Lakes region. Scientific research has shown a radioactive cloud from a spent fuel pool fire would span hundreds of miles, and force the evacuation of millions of residents in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto or other population centers, depending on where the accident occurred and wind patterns. It would release multiple times the radiation that emanated from the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 — a disaster that led to mass evacuations, no-go zones that exist to this day, and a government ban on fishing in a large, offshore area of the Pacific Ocean because of high levels of radioactive cesium in the water and in fish. The fishing industry there has yet to recover, more than seven years later. “The Mississippi and the Great Lakes — that would be really bad,” said Frank von Hippel, senior research physicist and professor of public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University. CONTINUE @ DFP

Title: Re: WaddaYouMEAN there's no place Else? Post by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 05:47:00  Part of the problem is transporting it over state lines.  For instance convincing Utah to allow all that in.  Where I live we had the largest stockpile of nerve agent in the world over 100s of acres.  For years the US Army tried to move it to locations designed to demilitarize the shells and neutralize the chemical, but transporting caused issues.  No state would allow the chemicals to cross the borders, yes states have this right the government can't just override that much toxic agent transport in a non-emergent situation, so they had to build a demilitarization plant on-site.    Maybe part of the relocation issue is that nobody is willing to take the waste.

Title: Re: WaddaYouMEAN there's no place Else? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 08:51:45 Agreed. Which either makes them unreasonable Or Is an indication that WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CRAZY

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.