WIPP, not weapons
Posted by John Tauxe on March 30, 1999 at 15:30:58:The controversy surrounding the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
is multifaceted, to say the least. Arguments against its operation
include concerns about transportation safety, long-term performance
of the repository itself, irretrievability of the waste, and simply
a desecration of mother earth. As an ardent environmentalist, I am
unabashedly in favor of using WIPP for geologic disposal of the
wastes for which it is appropriate, since there is no other path
forward for them, and to leave them in temporary storage (perhaps
in the hope that a better solution will be found) is environmentally
irresponsible. In addition, a decision to postpone dealing with the
problem is socially irresponsible. We have already pushed it onto a
following generation, and to push it onto others is not fair to them.
After having studied the safety, transportation, and performance issues
thoroughly, I am also convinced that this is a world-class facility,
and that we are unlikely to find anything better. As for the desecration
of mother earth, I cannot argue with that. Every road we build, every
new ski run we cut through the trees could be considered a desecration.Arguments in favor of operating WIPP, aside from its being a suitable
disposal facility, include the fact that it provides us (meaning all
of us in the world) with a place to safely entomb the wastes remaining
from the cold war. In my view, the production of these wastes was a
collossal waste of money and talent, and was the product of a fearful
and belligerent society, but that is irrelevant to their existence.
If we want to clean up Rocky Flats, and Fernald, and Hanford, and a
dozen other lands desecrated by our environmentally irresponsible
national policies (with which we need not align ourselves), we have to
put the environmental restoration waste somewhere, and WIPP is an
excellent solution. Cleaning up after the cold war does not mean that
we endorse it, it means only that we wish to repair the damage to the
extent possible. Without WIPP the cleanup is not possible. We should
also work to make sure that these environmental and fiscal disasters
do not happen again. That is a different and laudable goal, which
demands progress in world peace and nuclear disarmament. Restoring
the damage caused by the cold war does not imply that we support the
cold war, or nuclear weaponry, only that we support the environment.So there's my position. I feel strongly about environmental
restoration, responsible waste management, and nuclear disarmament.
It disturbed me a great deal, therefore, to read this quote of an
employee of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in the Albuquerque
Journal (26 Mar 99, page 3): "The big issues is," said her husband,
Rob, "if we stop this stuff up here, LANL can't operate and goes away."
Rob seems to saying that if the waste has no path forward (meaning
that it has no place to go) then LANL would be forced to stop its
nuclear weapons research. If I believed that we could stop nuclear
weapons research and production by "stopping up the end of the pipe",
I would completely withdraw my support for WIPP. History shows the
flaw in Rob's logic: Our government (in the form of the AEC and DOE)
has clearly given little thought to radioactive waste disposal over
the last fifty-odd years, as evidenced by the terrible environmental
legacy that we have inherited. In the name of "national security"
our nuclear military has foisted upon the public a cleanup problem
which will cost us trillions of dollars and is often unsurmountable.
The weaponeers are seemingly quite comfortable generating "no path
forward" waste, and many are oblivious to the existence of the problem.
LANL will operate irrespective of the operation of WIPP.Anyone who wants to shut down LANL needs to work for nuclear disarmament,
not fight WIPP. Protest the weapons trucks if you like, but let the WIPP
trucks roll!
- Exactly K.T. (Kim Thompson) 3/30/99 (0)