UV radiation vs. WIPP????
Posted by Joan Seeman on May 28, 1999 at 04:31:13:In Reply to: Transportation risk, Skin Cancer, and Politics posted by Timothy Wheeler on May 24, 1999 at 23:24:14:
JOAN,
Who is this guy? Perhaps he would like to tell everyone the difference between exposing oneself to UV radiation and
radioactive waste exposure! The difference is significant. The former is an exposure that everyone is significantly affected by, but
MOST importantly it is one that people do not have a choice in accepting. The latter is an exposure that people DO have a
choice over. If I could put on a "sunscreen" for radioactive waste, then why would this waste be so dangerous, expensive, and
such a political and financial liability in the first place? Of course it wouldn't. Rad waste is dangerous by definition and it begs the
question of exposure if one doesn't have to be exposed to it.
Of course the similarities are also striking. Both can kill you. Both have chronic, long term effects which we are only beginning to
fully understand. That doesn't mean that one is less important than another, but certainly there is a difference in exposure impact
between these two forms of radiation (especially if you have a choice between exposing yourself and not exposing yourself).
Opposition to WIPP is as political as the support for such a facility. However, it is the politics of the decision to open WIPP
that are posing significant health threats to the people living downstream from the Rio Grande. For example, there are five or six
qualifications (according to NRC) that the site must meet: geologic stabile, dry, isolated from humans and resources, retrievable,
monitorable.
However, this multi-billion dollar facility is not dry, is not creating a situation for this waste to be retrieved or monitored, and the
area is surrounded by pressurized salt brine and oil deposits.
How can we consider putting waste in the ground that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years, when we don't know
the impacts it will have on future generations. This is a truly political quick fix for a much larger problem of nuclear waste
disposal.
Of course, once WIPP opens, the perception that is given off is that we have a solution for nuclear waste disposal. Clearly we
do not, since WIPP will only accept 2% of the nation's nuclear waste. As a result, we may continue to make nuclear weapons
even though we have not come any closer to solving our nuclear waste issues.
Ahhhhhh, I feel a little better, but not much,
Spencer
----------