Perspective: Nuclear wasteTruth and Fearmongering: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository
Is it a good idea to store 77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste in a repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain? Many Nevada politicians say it is a bad idea, but scientists argue that the facts do not support the fears these politicians stoke. These scientists say that Colorado, whose surface rock contains about a billion tons of uranium, should have much more to worry about than Nevada. One scientist says: “If the Yucca Mountain facility were at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach groundwater, the danger would still be 20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into the Colorado River.”
Last month, Alex Berezow wrote an op-ed for USA Today about Yucca Mountain. The argument he made, in a nutshell, is that the nuclear waste storage facility that has already been built is safe and should be opened for business. However, because Nevadans are (improperly) worried about the safety of the Yucca facility, he suggested that the federal government offer to pay each of the state’s citizens $500 each year (for 10 years) as “rent.” This provides financial compensation for the risk of hosting the site, even though the risk is exceedingly small.
In a post on the website of the American Council on Science and Health, Berezow writes in the usual counterargument is, “F*** you.” Nevada Congresswoman Susie Lee also weighed in. While her counterargument is at least civil, Berezow argues that it spreads disinformation about geology and public health.
He says that an absolutely excellent, must-read article by physicist Dr. Richard Muller explains the science behind nuclear waste disposal. We routinely say that nuclear waste needs to be secure for about 10,000 years. This is because, by then, most of the radioactivity has decayed away. But in reality, after merely 300 years, the level of radioactivity has declined by roughly 90 percent. So, the question is not, “Can we guarantee that Yucca is eternally secure forever and ever amen?” but “Can we ensure that Yucca is safe for about 300 years?” And that answer is yes.
Here is the excerpt from Muller’s article:
Colorado, where much of the uranium is obtained, is a geologically active region, full of faults and fissures and mountains rising out of the prairie, and its surface rock contains about a billion tons of uranium. The radioactivity in this uranium is 20 times greater than the legal limit for Yucca Mountain, and it will take more than 13 billion years—not just a few hundred—for the radioactivity to drop by a factor of 10. Yet water that runs through, around, and over this radioactive rock is the source of the Colorado River, which is used for drinking water in much of the West, including Los Angeles and San Diego. And unlike the glass pellets that store the waste in Yucca Mountain, most of the uranium in the Colorado ground is water-soluble. Here is the absurd-sounding conclusion: if the Yucca Mountain facility were at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach groundwater, the danger would still be 20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into the Colorado River (emphasis added).
