Utahans wary of renewed interest in uranium

[struggle4progress]

By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY

... The uranium revival comes as Moab prepares to remove an unwanted leftover of its past: A 130-acre pile of radioactive waste on the north edge of town. The 12 million tons of mill tailings, left by the bankrupt owner of the defunct plant that processed the ore, has leaked uranium and other toxins into groundwater and killed fish in the Colorado River.

Railcars will begin hauling away Moab's uranium waste in November 2007.

The 10-year federal cleanup could cost $400 million.

"It's folly to start pursuing (uranium) development when we still have the tailings to clean up and move," says Bob Lippman, a town councilman in Castle Valley, about 20 miles northeast of Moab. "We still have people dying of lung cancers from the last uranium boom" ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-19-utah-uranium_x.htm

[jpak]

1. Wow - $400 million bucks

Wonder if the uranium produced there produced $400 million bucks of electricity.....

also...

<snip>

"It's folly to start pursuing (uranium) development when we still have the tailings to clean up and move," says Bob Lippman, a town councilman in Castle Valley, about 20 miles northeast of Moab. "We still have people dying of lung cancers from the last uranium boom."

<snip>

[Massacure]

2. Probably.

Let us say it powered one 1000 megawatt reactor for a year.

1000 megawatts x 1000 kilowatts per megawatts x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x 0.8 cents per kilowatt = $700,800,000.

[NNadir]

3. It is not necessary to "clean up," Moab. It has injured no one.

This is basically a trucking fraud perpetuated by appealing to nuclear paranoia.

There is no evidence whatsoever of actual injury from the Moab tailings site. None. All rivers on earth carry radioactive materials, mainly potassium, however considerable quantities of uranium and decay products. In fact most of the heavy metals spread on the surface of the earth, including uranium, derive from coal ash.

Like all nuclear paranoia, the emergency is based on what "could happen" and not what "is" happening.

Here is what is happening: Global Climate Change.

No one hauls away coal waste, even though it is laden with toxic chemicals.

At no point has access to any drinking water supplies on the Colorado River ever been curtailed because of the Moab tailings.

For instance, the anti-environmental anti-nuclear squad would never dream of remarking on the 100 million gallons of coal ash that leaked into the Delaware River last year, only because they have zero comprehension of risk analysis, not understanding any mathematics.

On August 23, 2005 a leak began in PPL's coal fly ash storage basin at their Martins Creek power plant in Northampton County , PA. By the next day, the leak turned into a flood over the roads and fields adjacent to the basin, then an eruption of coal fly ash slurry that lasted for several days, finally slowing down by August 27. In the end, at least 100 million gallons (company estimate) of coal fly ash effluent gushed into the Oughoughton Creek and the Delaware River . The basin, 16 years old, holds coal fly ash produced by PPL's two coal fired units and may be used for disposal of other industrial waste on the site. Normally the water-filled waste impoundment settles out fly ash sediment before the effluent is piped to the river, alongside the Oughoughton Creek, in the vicinity of Foul Rift. The company reported that a gate in the basin broke apart, causing the uncontrolled discharge of effluent and sludge.

Easton , about 10 miles downstream, had to shut down its water intakes for several days; the river was dark gray with a slick of light gray for more than a week. Known components of the fly ash include: arsenic, mercury, lead, silica, crystalline silica, barium, chromium, beryllium, thallium, antimony, selenium and possibly sulfur, cadmium, and other heavy metals. The toxin-laden slurry lines the river bottom for several miles downstream; as far south as Bulls Island the gray sludge is visible in between rocks in the river. Dried ash is stuck to the riverbanks for at least 8 miles downstream. The crystalline silica in the dried ash causes pulmonary disease and is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/Ash.htm

Ignoring risk is not the same as creating safety. This fact, along with the existence of global climate change makes the following truth obvious:

There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy.

[Oerdin]

4. The amazing thing is

That this are naturally radioactive rocks yet the anti-nuclear people whine like some how nature must be cleaned up. The "tailings" are actually safer then the original rocks since the most radioactive parts of them have already been removed. How is it something which is less radioactive then what was originally found in nature needs cleaning?

This is just another unintelligent whine thread.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. 130 Acres -- and not one Hunny Tree?

That's bigger than the place Christopher Robin and Pooh lived -- the "Hundred-Acre Wood".

My concern isn't just about how radioactive that pile might be -- I assume the radioactivity is low, although not absent -- no, my concern is how in the name of *&#$*! any civil authority allowed that much of any kind of waste (even potentially hazardous) to just get dumped.

And don't think I'm not concerned about the coal waste incident from PP&L -- I live in that watershed. I grew up in a house located about 800 yards from the original location of a radium-processing plant, and the local water table was contaminated from a chemical concern that had gone out of business before the Depression, but still exerts its effects. Then there's the world-famous Johnsville Naval Air Development Center, about a mile and a half down the road, which has itself dumped plenty of unusual chemicals in its fifty-year history (it was decomissioned about 1990).

How is it that anything with any potential for harm is allowed to just sit, and accumulate, and leak? Surely, the risks of low levels of radiaoactive material were known as long as the 1940s, and coal slag waste as long ago as the 19th century.

I'm not panicking, I'm outraged by it. My own support for nuclear energy has always come with a caveat -- mandatory control of waste. Whether as recycling, as NNadir has outlined, or as containment. But, so too, should we institute the same safety controls for non-nuclear waste. And I've long known that all technology comes with risks. But while risks are inevitable, negligence is criminal.

If cleaning up was mandatory for all pathogenic classes of waste, then, EEK!, that would be Socialfm Moft Foul. But it would also allow creation of a market for processing and possible re-use of these wastes. Money would be made. Our taxes and utility bills might be a little higher, but we'd be safer.

My "fear", if you could call it that, is not from nuclear waste, nor is it from non-nuclear waste. Waste is a natural part of any kind of human activity, and I don't fear it. Negligence is what I fear. And I fear the corporate and civic irresponsibility that encourages willy-nilly dumping of all kinds of dangerous waste.

That ain't hunny, and even a Bear with Very Little Brain like myself can see it.

--p!
The Hundred-Acre Wood
A Korman-Toll Residential Development.
Condos now available
Only 12/6 In This Style.

[struggle4progress]

6. The industry itself admits reprocessing doesn't reduce waste

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=39140&mesg_id=39140

[Massacure]

7. That website says it reduces the length down to a couple hundred years.

The only requirement being we need fast spectrum reactors to utilize the fuel. Currently we use thermal spectrum in commercial electricity generation.

[struggle4progress]

8. The link I provided merely cites an industry spokesman's assertion ..

.. that reprocessing doesn't reduce waste. It's unclear what link you are referencing.

The issues with reprocessing are, at this point, fairly well understood. Beyond the highlevel waste produced by reprocessing itself, and the proliferation issues, there are economic considerations. In 2000, the Charpin report 'Etude économique prospective de la filière électrique nucléaire' analyzed the economics of French reprocessing; its authors included the Commissioner of France's Atomic Energy Commission. On the basis of the report data, the French Commission on Sustainable Development issued an opinion (Opinion no. 2001-05 on “An Economic study on the future of the field of Nuclear Electricity”) in F2001:

"The CFDD points out that this report provides the government with clear conclusions proving the inefficiency of reprocessing of radioactive nuclear material with the intention to recycle it; this is true both with respect to nuclear waste processing and with respect to economic considerations. The CFDD underlines the fact that the report places primary emphasis on reducing energy consumption as the only means to achieve important savings on energy (on the order of 15 billion francs per year.)" http://www.eeac-net.org/bodies/france/fr_cfddformer.htm